This morning I attended the Oregon Department of Forestry Board of Forestry meeting in Sisters.  Since 2019 the BOF has been working on the Western Oregon State Forest Habitat Conservation Plan.  This plan is in draft form and is scheduled for adoption in November of this year.  While the HCP was not on the agenda, a large crowd of opponents and supporters attended to voice their opinion during the public comment period.  I had planned on giving comments as well, but after 2.5 hours I had not been called and most of the points I wanted to raise had already been made multiple times.  This HCP should be of interest to all Oregon anglers, I’ll give a summary of why below.  What was most interesting to me, however, was the clear divide between the camps.  We all know the rancor that is gripping our state and nation.  Some of the explanations I have read about these divisions have to do with “elites” and the “working class”.  This seemed to be exactly the issue today.

ODF’s HCP website is very informative.  The first 3 links are to the draft HCP, an executive summary, and the draft EIS from NOAA fisheries.  They are worth a quick glance, but here’s an extremely brief overview.  The HCP mostly covers state owned forests near Tillamook where a number of Endangered Species Act-listed anadromous fish species spawn and rear, including salmon and steelhead.  In order to continue logging, ODF needs to adopt an HCP so they may be issued an Incidental Take Permit.  An ITP essentially allows logging activities to continue which may kill or injure, i.e. “take”, the ESA-listed species as long as actions are taken to mitigate that take.

Clearly, anglers should be supportive of an HCP.  Even if you never fish in one of the covered forests, we need to do whatever we can to protect endangered species.  Hunters, birders, hikers, etc., also testified in favor of the HCP.  On the other hand, folks in the timber and wood products industries as well as officials from communities that rely on these industries for jobs and local taxes were strongly in opposition.  The HCP will require new restrictions on logging and fear of the economic impact from this was palpable.  The proposed additional buffers around water are viewed as an existential threat by opponents.

As I listened to the testimony, I was struck by the radically different perspectives from the two camps.  Some, like me, are concerned with habitat and species survival.  Others were concerned with their own survival.  Part of me wants to dismiss the concerns of the opponents.  In the big picture, the additional restrictions seem minor.  How could they dramatically impact income?  Even if true, humans can adapt, so can’t they find new sources of income?  Fish and wildlife don’t have that flexibility.  I guess that’s the “elitist” perspective.  If we are going to find common ground we need to protect fish, wildlife, and the environment while also providing for disrupted communities.  Unfortunately, that was not part of the discussion.