Page 2
The INDEPENDENT, August 5, 1998
t f o i/ you c m T£ST
¡PEND
YôMseif
Serving the upper Nehalem River valley. Published twice
monthly, on the first and third Wednesdays of each
month, by Public Opinion Laboratory Ltd., 725 Bridge
Street, Vernonia, OR 97064, as a free newspaper. Edi
tors and Publishers, Dirk & Noni Andersen. Sports Edi
tor, Caren McGaugh. Phone/Fax: (503) 429-9410.
File soon for mayor
or council positions
Because the filing deadline for city offices is August
24, it’s time for all potential candidates to get busy.
Both Vernonia and Banks will be electing mayors
and councilors. These positions can be extremely frus
trating to people whose personal agendas are the pri
mary reason for seeking office.
On the flip side of the coin, people who seek these
positions for the wrong reasons can also do a lot of
harm because they aren’t interested in the overall fu
ture of their communities.
Decisions facing municipal boards may not be earth-
shaking, by any standard, but they have a great impact
on citizens inside the city limits and, sometimes, out
side the city limits. Because of this, councilors are
needed who can put aside their preconceived notions
of what “should” be done and concentrate on what is
both necessary and legal.
People who will do a good job as either mayor or
councilor will be people who are not afraid to look at
change, who are able and willing to look at all sides of
a proposal, and who are able to make decisions that
may be unpopular. Above all, a person in any of these
positions must be objective because a “gut feeling”
may only be indigestion.
Public should look closely
at proposed ordinances
The Vernonia City Council is looking at two new or
dinances (described in article on page 1 and published
in full on pages 16 and 17) in hopes that they will help
reduce vandalism. The goal is good. The ordinances,
as written, may not be.
Beyond the language of the proposed ordinances,
however, is the question of whether they are needed.
That question has nothing to do with whether children
should be unsupervised in public at any hour of the
day or night—they should not be.
The question arises because state law already cov
ers the situations addressed in the proposed ordi
nances; so well, in fact, that the curfew ordinance cites
Oregon statutes in almost every clause.
If the problem exists in spite of state law, why would
an additional law change the situation? In either case,
it is the responsibility of law enforcement officers to en
force the laws. If they are unable to do so now, addi
tional laws won’t change anything.
Homework won PUC case
The decision by the Oregon Public Utilities Commis
sion to add Vernonia to the Portland Extended Area
Telephone Service didn’t happen out of thin air. The
people of Vernonia should be proud of their efforts to
demonstrate to the PUC how strongly the “community
of interest” affects residents here.
By following the criteria required by the PUC, the co
operative effort of too many people to name will have
positive results for the community at large.
That’s what “community” is all about.
it/ r u e
o£
Yyy*
M \ IAN
A
t
l
«4
00
Ç7ÏMT
Y ou ' ll
’
------------
ncgo
;
snsrrc
C IG A R E T T E -
C LO CK
* /" .A .T C tf ,
o*
W HAT T û
C.O;
cvo A .*.etve c/o
iT
P uFP
/AT 4A/Y T /M 6
&A& < a , Sexxcrt op
!p
HAve
to
A v'A 'C ,
fcZU
A £40
/V £<Jt.
KêeP
"TAe A /e x r
6 y4< A TH-U
SH Ake r y e
By Dale Webb, member
Izaak Walton League, Nehalem Valley Chapter
If recent news reports were correct, by the
time you read this article coho salmon will be
listed as a threatened or endangered species.
There has been much argument about whether
the Oregon salmon plan should have preempted
the listing of the coho salmon. My view is that
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
had disregarded the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) law when opting not to list the salmon.
The language is very clear, a species shall be
listed if it meets the criteria of the ESA. Just be
cause a state says it is going to do all these
wonderful things to recover the species after it
has collapsed, is not grounds for not listing. The
NMFS should have known this, since there was
a similar ruling out of Texas about a year ago.
The Oregon Salmon Plan is a good plan and
should be the foundation for any recovery ef
forts. I am sure that the NMFS does not have a
better plan or the money or manpower to do a
better job.
So what is listing going to do to help the Ore
gon plan? Enforcement! What the Oregon plan
lacked was some teeth. The Oregon plan relied
on enforcement through state agencies. Oregon
Governor John Kitzhaber stated that he wanted
state agencies to strictly enforce existing laws,
but not to enact new laws. This sounds good
and would have worked if his directive had been
followed. The truth is, the existing laws have not
been strictly applied or some of them are inade
quate.
The most bizarre situation I have found is that
the agency most people turn to when there is a
fish or wildlife problem is the most toothless
creature on earth. The Oregon Department of
Fish & Wildlife (ODF&W) has virtually no power
to enforce laws for the protection of fish or
wildlife.
Here are some cases in point: If I observe a
timber operation cutting down all the trees along
a stream who do I call? Since the law about cut
ting down streamside trees was written to help
protect fish, I would call ODF&W. And I would be
wrong! I would need to talk to the Oregon De
partment of Forestry (ODF).
If you observe a stream that is muddy when
it shouldn’t be, who do you call? The Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
right? Probably wrong again. If the waters are
coming from forested lands you again must call
ODF. If the muddy waters are coming from a de
velopment or city or state facility, then you would
call the DEQ.
aaovttu
-TV4fc^
A^i>
a w £>
Pt_A.ce
rtocO
z - i c h t
<T,
P U U fk L B AG
T<6HT
P o P F i^ C .
3 « W t / T ê i /tf U A / ié û T~Q «.&AAO\/£
P£ o v & s - j- ir tA T
You
AA. €
A
a /
° a A a ' y B oûy L
If you observe somebody removing a rock
from a stream or actually moving a stream, who
do you call? Ghostbusters? No, the Oregon Di
vision of State Lands.
If you observe a dairy farmer flushing his
cows’ manure down a ditch and into a stream,
who do you call? The Oregon Department of
Agriculture and probably DEQ.
Have you noticed that everybody except
ODF&W has the laws that help protect our fish
and wildlife? This confuses me and, I am sure, a
lot of other people.
It has also been this writer’s observation that
the protection of the fishery resources by these
agencies has been less than spectacular. There
have been streams moved and filled illegally, il
legal rock removal from active spawning beds,
and streams so silted that you couldn’t see your
hand ten inches under the surface of the water,
but has one citation been issued? No! The truth
is, most of the agencies that have the power to
enforce these environmental laws have neither
the staffing nor the will to do so. In some cases,
it appears to be the fox guarding the hen house.
Even when fines are imposed for breaking the
law, more often than not, the fine is significantly
less than the rewards gained from the illegal ac
tivity. This is where the NMFS will come into play
on protecting the coho salmon. The ESA states
that if a listed species is taken illegally, sanctions
of hundreds of thousands of dollars can be ap
plied to the offending party. This will get every
body’s attention in a big hurry.
Once the coho salmon are listed, the timber
revenue dollars that are providing half the fund
ing for the Oregon plan will cease to be collect
ed; that’s the law. It is good to see that the tim
ber industry is saying they want to continue this
tax even though the coho are listed. It will be up
to our legislators to get this done and if an emer
gency session is called in November this item
should be dealt with. Anything less and our
elected officials would be remiss.
The timber industry has some major concerns
about the NMFS imposing new logging regula
tions, especially concerning stream buffers.
While I feel that the current regulations may
need some minor tweaking, the proposed 300
foot no-cut buffer regulation is ridiculous. The
additional benefits of these extra wide buffers
has not been demonstrated. There are many
other areas where NMFS should focus their at
tention, with the foremost being a riparian regu
lation that encompasses an entire river, not just
the forested lands.
Currently, a landowner can cut down all his ri-
Please see page 9
• i*
J
i!