Oregon has a history of trying policies that have failed in other states, never giving up on a failing project, or doing them bigger and more costly than required, and the forest industry is a prime example. The forest industry and rural communities in Oregon have been jolted by the decision made by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) Board to pass the State Lands Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The plan was developed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as a tool to “protect the interests of private landowners while encouraging management activities that benefit listed and other at-risk species.”

But, ODF has taken an optional tool that has nothing to do with the amount of timber harvested and used it to significantly reduce state forest timber harvests by upwards to 50 percent. ODF has developed a HCP with a 70-year plan, reducing revenues needed by over 30%, costing rural counties roughly $18 million per year, and exceeds habitat acres needed by 150% according to Oregon Forests Forever. It is also the reason OSU rejected managing the Elliott Research Forest.

While battling the ODF board, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it had rejected a consolidated case involving the Bureau of Land Management’s 2016 Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon O&C lands and the 2017 expansion of the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument.

Clark Judge, founder of the White House Writers Group political consultancy firm, credits the Oregon case, which would nearly double the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in Southern Oregon, as a milestone in making the Supreme court aware of the problems associated with executive abuses of power, even though the court refused to hear the case.

The timber industry lawsuit argued environmental restrictions associated with the national monument unlawfully prohibited most logging on federal forestland, which had been dedicated to “sustained yield” timber production.

Tim Bishop, the AFRC’s attorney, said of the setback, “Those appellate decisions reinforce the BLM’s tendency to treat its forestlands as being meant for multiple use even though timber harvest is supposed to be the dominant use by law. As a result, BLM can reclassify at any time as not timberland and place a greater emphasis on recreation and environmental protection on 2.5 million acres of BLM forestland in Oregon that should be devoted to logging.”

How did the federal government get so much power when it is limited by the U.S. Constitution on the land it can own? The National Center for Constitutional Studies writes, “With the power of private property firmly in mind the Founders clearly set forth necessary limitations in the Constitution so that the national government will not accumulate much property itself. The thought was to leave it to the people who will use, care for, develop, subdue, and gain dominion over it in a manner which will bless the lives of all the people and lead to greater and greater permanent prosperity."

There were, however, a few reasons to have the national government own property: for a seat of government, for military uses, and for needful buildings. This is the very limited power given to Congress in the Constitution: To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17) It would also appear that this provision gives each state the right to assume title to all lands within its boundaries which the federal government is not using for the purposes specified in this section.

When Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1903, the government retained title to all of the public lands but assured the people that Ohio would acquire jurisdiction as soon as these lands could be sold to private individuals to help pay off the national debt. This, then, became the established policy for new states.

However, when the territory of the western states was acquired from Mexico, Congress radically digressed from the Constitution by virtually eliminating the sale or disposal of federal lands. The general policy was to permanently retain major portions of each of the western states for purposes not listed in the Constitution. This policy resulted in the government becoming the permanent owner and manager of an average of 35 percent of the landmass with Oregon being at 52%. Vast areas within these states are permanently designated as federal domain for national forests, national parks, national monuments, coal and oil reserves, lands leased for profit to ranchers or farmers, and huge tracts of land with valuable resources completely locked up as “wilderness areas.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The National Center for Constitutional Studies states that the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that it isn’t the federal government's decision whether or not trees should be thinned out, whether or not ground cover should be periodically burned off, whether or not timber should be cut and replanted. These discussions do not belong in the federal sphere at all. They belong with people who will own and care for their own land, knowing they will be held responsible for any damage they might cause to a neighbor by mismanaging their land.

Along came Biden’s “30 by 30” initiative, which aims to impose conservation measures on 30% of American lands by 2030. “Given that the federal government already controls so much land in Western states, it’s expected to pursue that goal by using the Antiquities Act to create and expand more national monuments,” said Clark Judge. While the Act was passed to protect mostly prehistoric Native American ruins and artifacts, it was been abused by nearly every president.

The case filed in the Supreme Court convinced a federal judge that the Obama administration had misused its authority under the Antiquities Act to increase the national monument’s size. Judge said, “If the 30 by 30 initiative is a bomb of sorts, the Antiquities Act is its fuse, and I think it’s time to stop it before it goes off.”

The constitutional answer then is to turn the land back to the states and to millions of people. Studies have always shown that privately and state held land always had fewer fires, is cleaner, and produces more revenue than the land held by the federal government.

Judge said, “This is not the end. It is just the beginning.”


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2024-04-12 16:21:57

Last Update: 2024-04-12 18:37:59