Measure 34

Argument in Opposition

The Oregon Society of American Foresters STRONGLY OPPOSES Ballot Measure 34. We agree with Governor Kulongoski's recent (June 28) assessment of the current plan for the Tillamook Forest: "Oregon's economic, environmental, and community well-being are inextricably intertwined with the State's forests across all ownerships. We have the chance to show how to provide for that well-being through the implementation of this management plan for the Tillamook State Forest."

The current plan was developed publicly over several years by state forestry professionals using substantial input from many agencies, conservationists, academics, county officials, recreation groups, and other interests. The plan identifies a variety of management methods to meet diverse needs, including the goal of a healthy forest environment today and for future generations. Ballot Measure 34 replaces this thoughtful, broadly based plan with the views of narrow interests.

Oregon law clearly gives the Oregon Board of Forestry and the State Forester the leadership for planning and management of state forests. Measure 34 inappropriately removes this vital authority.

Measure 34 incorrectly asserts that the current plan neither "protects" resources nor "balances" economic values with non-economic values. In fact, it uses advanced practices to protect watershed and wildlife values throughout the forest, and pointedly gives single priority to these resources over about 30% of the total area.

Measure 34 ignores the risks of vast unmanaged areas, including outbreaks of insects, disease, and catastrophic wildfire. The current plan applies new science and active forest management to maintain and improve forest health, reducing hazards.

Oregon Society of American Foresters has over 1000 members, including foresters, scientists, administrators and educators who contribute to the management of public and private forestlands throughout Oregon. We support professional, conscientious management of Oregon's forest resources, including state lands. Ballot Measure 34 drastically shifts vast areas of state forests to unmanaged status, the same approach that currently is failing to provide environmental, economic, and social sustainability over extensive areas of federal lands.

(This information furnished by John Herbst, CF, Chairman, Oregon Society of American Foresters.)

Argument in Opposition

The forester responsible for
restoring Oregon's Tillamook Forest
speaks out against Measure 34.

After huge wildfires, called the Tillamook Burn, torched Coast Range forests in the 30s and 40s, cash-strapped counties transferred ownership of the barren lands to the state. As a young forester, I was assigned to lead the team restoring these forests. The state agreed to undertake the most massive reforestation project ever. In exchange, counties agreed to repay bonds and take a share of timber revenues when the forests matured.

Measure 34 breaks that bargain. It would cost more than 2,600 Oregonians their jobs. Rural communities would be hit hardest. Sponsors call it balanced, but their arithmetic doesn't add up.

Harvests from state forests provide revenue for all schools in Oregon. Measure 34 would reduce funding for schools and local governments by more than $25 million a year. Oregonians, you and I, would give up more than $1 billion of timber value that would otherwise be used to support our schools, local governments and our economy.

I join with foresters across the state who worry that Measure 34 would significantly increase the risk of massive forest fires, insect infestations and the spread of disease in these forests.

The state's current forest plan already provides strict protections for watersheds and wildlife. Putting more land off limits adds no environmental benefits. Curtailing harvests, however, cuts money for fish restoration, recreation and clean water projects on the forestlands. Worse, it cuts funds for forest health protection and forest firefighting.

The Tillamook Burn taught an earlier generation the price paid for poor forest management. Measure 34 would replace the current science-based management plan, developed in a seven-year public process, with a rejected plan that trusts the future of our forests to environmental activists and the courts. It endangers the health of our forests and damages Oregon's economy.

Please join me in voting NO on Measure 34. Let's not get burned again.

(This information furnished by Edward Schroeder, Oregon State Forester, Retired.)

Argument in Opposition


The Oregon Education Association
Urges You to Vote No

Sometimes a ballot measure goes much farther than what it looks like on the surface. Measure 34 is one of those with unintended consequences – this time affecting your public schools and community services. Why? Because if Measure 34 were to pass, schools and local governments stand to lose $25 million per year due to losses from timber revenue.

In the last two years, the state's school budget has been cut by more than $500 million. At this point, $25 million will make a big difference in the education of students in your local schools.

The Oregon Education Association--representing teachers, education support professionals and community college faculty in more than 1,200 schools in Oregon--says no to Measure 34. Measure 34 is not fair to Oregon's students, whether they come from Tillamook and Clatsop counties or from other districts across the state. That's because revenue losses from timber harvest areas must be backfilled by the state's school budget, which spreads the loss across all 198 school districts.

It's no secret that Oregon's public schools suffer from inadequate and unstable funding. This measure compounds the problem. Our public schools simply can't afford it.

The top priority of the Oregon Education Association is to ensure that every student in Oregon has access to a full curriculum and high standards of public education. We cannot support a ballot measure with unintended consequences that risks millions of dollars of funding for our public schools.

In a time of hard choices, I ask that you support your local schools. Please join teachers and other education professionals who work wonders every day in our classrooms with limited resources. Say no to more school cuts. Vote NO on Measure 34.

Kris Kain, President
Oregon Education Association

(This information furnished by Kris Kain, President, Oregon Education Association.)

Argument in Opposition


Some extremists are at it again – pushing their special interest agenda at the expense of Oregonians.

They are pushing for a ban on timber harvesting on more than half of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests despite the fact the forests have been successfully and fairly managed since 1973 under already strict plans.

When you factor in the wooded areas the state has already set aside to preserve water and natural wildlife habitat, the new harvesting ban would cover more than 60 percent – NOT an equal 50 percent. Mandating so much forest acreage off-limits to responsible harvest causes greater vulnerability to fire and disease.

The Oregon Department of Forestry has done a good job managing the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests, balancing timber harvesting, recreational use and habitat preservation. With successful management the state has generated revenue, benefiting Oregonians through responsible forest use for decades.

Why suddenly place half the forest off limits?

Measure 34 is too extreme for state forests, the state economy and the thousands of Oregonians who could lose their jobs.

Oregonians are at risk of losing $1 billion of timber value that would otherwise support schools, local government and the state's economy. Timber harvesting provides essential revenue for:

We can't afford Measure 34. Don't allow the extremists to push their narrow agenda.

Measure 34 will not benefit Oregon. We urge you to VOTE NO.

(This information furnished by Barry Bushue, Oregon Farm Bureau.)

Argument in Opposition

Measure 34: It Doesn't Add Up for Oregon.

I'm K. C. VanNatta. For over 60 years my family and I have owned and operated healthy forestland in Columbia County. Although I live in the Northwest corner of the state, I feel a bond with all of rural Oregon whose communities and livelihood are being destroyed by urban and out-of-state special interest groups.

Timber jobs matter and Oregon relies on families like mine to maintain the healthy renewable forests that provide economic stability to this state. It isn't nice scenery that creates healthy forests, but rather responsible, scientifically proven harvest and planting practices.

Oregonians need to understand that this measure not only dooms the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests to disease and fire, but that 2,600 people will lose their jobs.

NOTHING in this plan adds up to a better Oregon. Vote NO on Measure 34.

(This information furnished by K.C. VanNatta.)

Argument in Opposition


60 years ago, after devastating fires ravaged their forestlands, Tillamook and Clatsop Counties transferred ownership to the state for replanting and management. The state agreed to sell bonds to fund restoration of the forests and the counties agreed to repay the costs from timber revenues. Thousands of Oregonians pitched in to help with replanting so future generations could enjoy timber harvest revenues from these forests to support schools and counties.

Measure 34 would disregard the state's agreement with the counties and dramatically cut revenues for schools, counties and the state.

The Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests have been intensely managed in an exemplary fashion for the sustained production of timber in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. Salmon, wildlife, watersheds and endangered species are already explicitly protected under standards that greatly exceed the Oregon Forest Practices Act.

The state forests are some of the most productive forestlands in the world today. They are important to Oregon's economy and provide revenues shared among counties, school districts and local governments.

Oregon has been successful balancing the state forests for environmental and economic benefit. Measure 34 is bad policy. Please vote NO.

(This information furnished by Tim Josi, Chair, Council of Forest Trust Land Counties.)

Argument in Opposition


I'm Todd Anderson, the Tillamook County Sheriff, and I'm voting NO ON MEASURE 34.

If Measure 34 passes, public safety in Tillamook and Clatsop counties will face budget cuts. Timber revenues in our area provide money not only for schools, but also for our local governments, which run our public safety programs. Local governments and schools will lose $25 million per year. Why sacrifice our public safety for an untested forestry plan?

When the Sheriff's Office loses funding, you lose, too. Less timber revenue means less protection for our community. It means fewer officers protecting our citizens. It means less access to emergency services when our neighbors need it most. It means less money to keep criminals in jail.

The Oregon State Sheriff's Association has publicly denounced Measure 34 because of the negative effects it will have on public safety in Tillamook and Clatsop Counties. Sheriffs all over Oregon know that this plan doesn't add up to safer communities.

The "50-50" plan is an untested forestry proposal that would ban timber harvests on more than 60 percent of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. The state has analyzed the plan and concluded that people will lose their jobs and public safety and other local programs will lose millions. Why support that? How many jobs are you willing to cut? Oregon's economy still struggles, and we need to save every job and every dollar we can.

Fellow Oregonians, join me in voting down a proposal that will make our communities less safe.

Help me maintain the safety of my community. Vote NO on Measure 34.

(This information furnished by Todd Anderson, Tillamook County Sheriff, Tillamook County Sheriff's Office.)

Argument in Opposition

Fishermen for Common Sense Say "NO ON 34!"

A July 27, 2004 Tillamook County Headlight-Herald editorial said:

"Proponents of the 50-50 plan also list 'protection of drinking water, conservation of wildlife and salmon habitat, expansion and protection of recreational opportunities' among their prime goals.

But, once again, measures to ensure just that protection are already in place under the existing ODF plan. Although this plan has been in place only three years, scientists already are reporting that water quality in the Tillamook is the best its been since the '30s and '40s, and wild Coho salmon have rebounded significantly from their threatened condition."

We couldn't agree more.

As a group of commonsense fishermen, we know that the current forest management plan protects our wild salmon and drinking water. We're not willing to let the special interests behind Measure 34 dictate what happens in our fishing communities.

This plan is a radical idea that the Legislature soundly rejected last fall. We're urging other voters to join us in saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" The current management plan takes care of fish and the water they live in without damaging our rural communities by cutting jobs, reducing money for police, fire departments and schools.

Fishermen for Common Sense cares about fish because we make our living from this precious natural resource. The new plan would not provide significant safeguards to fish that aren't already there in the current plan. We are standing with our neighbors to fight this unfair measure that will cut jobs and hurt our state. Like they say: It doesn't add up.

We're asking our fellow Oregonians to vote no on Measure 34 because it will damage Oregon—not improve it.


Vote No on Measure 34.

(This information furnished by A.D. "Gus" Meyer, Fishermen for Common Sense.)

Argument in Opposition


The current plan to manage the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests was developed from a large body of recent scientific information. A 12-year, $25 million research program on the management of Oregon's coastal forests, including riparian zones, fish and wildlife habitat and water quality was completed in 1998. The research program was led by scientists from OSU and the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Research Station, with cooperation from state and federal natural resource management agencies, the forest industry, city, county and tribal governments, and local woodland owners.

The Board of Forestry incorporated this research into the current management plan after lengthy consultation with research program scientists and others. The research demonstrated the importance of active management in maintaining the long-term health and productivity of our coastal forests and streams. Banning active management of more than 60% of these lands, as proposed in Measure 34, is counter to the findings of this research effort.

The current forest management plan for the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests was developed with the best, most current scientific information available. Measure 34 would institute a plan that would discount over 12 years of careful research by some of the top forest scientists in our region and diminish funding for forest health projects.

Please join me in voting NO on MEASURE 34.

(This information furnished by Dr. George Brown, Former Dean, OSU, College of Forestry; Former Director, Oregon Forest Research Laboratory.)

Argument in Opposition

Measure 34 Will Cripple Our County

Tillamook County Commissioners

As Tillamook County Commissioners, it is our duty to try to make Northwest Oregon as productive and successful as it can be, but Measure 34 threatens the very fabric of our rural communities. We're proud that counties all over Oregon oppose this measure because of its dramatic financial and economic impacts on the ENTIRE STATE.

Here are 6 reasons why we hope you'll help us protect our community and vote no on Measure 34:

  1. Local governments and schools throughout Oregon would lose $25 million per year, which means less money for police, fire and emergency services.
  2. Over 2,600 family-wage earners will lose their jobs.
  3. Forest fire prevention will be cut by over $5 million per year.
  4. Out-of-state environmental groups are funding the measure.
  5. Schools all over Oregon will foot the bill for the millions lost in our area due to less timber revenue.
  6. Revenues available for fish and wildlife habitat improvement projects and new recreational opportunities on state forestlands would be reduced.

Measure 34 weakens our rural communities and at the same time reduces timber revenues that are distributed throughout Oregon. Timber revenues make it easier for the state to send money to places where timber harvests aren't conducted. Therefore, taxpayers all over Oregon pay less when timber revenues are used to support our schools and police and fire departments.

Timber harvests have a place in our economy. The timber industry supports jobs, supports schools and supports local governments that provide fire protection and public safety. Measure 34 is just another nail in the coffin of this already ailing industry. Oregon needs to preserve jobs, not cut them.

Let's work together to save Oregon jobs and say NO to special interests that don't care about jobs in rural Oregon.

Vote no on Measure 34.

(This information furnished by Paul Hanneman, Charles Hurliman, Tim Josi; Tillamook County Board of Commissioners.)

Argument in Opposition

Don't Lock Up More Oregon Forests

We oppose Measure 34 for six reasons:

1. The family forest owners of Oregon represented by the Oregon Small Woodlands Association support a balanced approach to the management of Oregon's forests. Measure 34 significantly reduces that balanced management approach and polarizes the use of the forests owned by all the citizens of Oregon.

2. If Measure 34 is passed, local governments and schools would lose $25 million a year. State funds to fight forest fires will be cut by more than $5 million a year, and state forest management budgets will be cut by more than $9 million a year.

3. Land use conversion is more likely without long-term local timber markets. The significant reduction of available harvest from state-owned timber will lead to reduced milling capacity in Northwest Oregon, which will have a negative impact on the opportunity for family forest owners to manage and market their forest resources.

4. Oregon's unemployment rate is one of the highest in the nation. Under the Measure 34 plan we will lose more than 2,600 jobs, and Oregon can't afford that right now.

5. Measure 34 will dramatically increase the danger of massive forest fires, insects and the rapid spread of disease in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. This in turn threatens neighboring family forests.

6. Harvesting and replanting forests in compliance with Oregon Law shows the world we are serious about sustainability. Wood in general, is a "green" product; local Oregon wood is better. We won't stop using wood in our everyday lives when forests are locked up. We either import it or use a substitute such as plastic or steel. Let's not live in a "state of denial" where our sustainability talk is cheap.

Oregon Small Woodlands Association urges you to vote NO on Measure 34.

Oregon just can't afford it!

(This information furnished by Mike Gaudern, OSWA.)

Argument in Opposition

Tillamook County 9-1-1 Center

Protect Public Safety in Tillamook County.
Vote No on Measure 34

The 9-1-1 Center dispatches all police, fire and emergency medical services in Tillamook County. We know that timber harvests provide essential funding in our area, and make it easier for us to protect our community in life-or-death situations.

If Measure 34 passes, local governments and schools all over the state will lose $25 million per year. That includes public safety, and the people you call for help when it matters most.

Not only will public safety suffer, but over 2,600 rural Oregonians will lose their jobs. Those of us in Tillamook County cannot sit idly and watch our neighbors lose their jobs because an untested plan to ban logging on more than 60 percent of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests.

This ban would also cut $5 million from the Oregon Department of Forestry's fire prevention budget. Oregon cannot afford less fire protection, especially with the devastation we all watched occur in Southern Oregon last summer.

The Tillamook County 9-1-1 Center urges you to support your emergency services and reject the out-of-state special interests supporting Measure 34. Less timber revenue means less funding to help protect our friends and neighbors.

Help us keep Tillamook County safe and VOTE NO ON MEASURE 34.

(This information furnished by Stan Sheldon, 9-1-1 Center Board Chair.)

Argument in Opposition

State Representatives
Dave Hunt (D-Oak Grove) and Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley)
Ask You to Vote NO on Measure 34

As state representatives, it's our job to look out for our constituents. Measure 34 would cut over $25 million to schools and local governments every year—and that isn't good for anyone in Oregon.

It's a fact that timber revenues provide funding for schools and for basic government services like public safety, fire fighting, community-based health care. We know Oregon is in a tough financial spot today, and we can't afford more cuts in services on which our constituents depend.

Furthermore, the "50-50" plan was already rejected twice. An Oregon Department of Forestry panel of scientists, environmental and timber industry advocates, economists and forest management experts rejected this plan over a seven-year planning process. Then, last legislative session, legislators refused to act on the 50-50 plan because of its clearly economically devastating consequences.

Measure 34 would cost our state 2650 lost jobs and $1 billion in timber revenue. This isn't acceptable to us, and it isn't right for Oregon. Backers of this measure are attempting to circumvent the public process and sell this idea to the voters in a series of sound bytes that don't tell the whole story.

Perhaps the worst part of Measure 34 is the fact that $5 million would be cut from the ODF's fire fighting budget. It is irresponsible and unacceptable to leave our forests even more vulnerable to devastating fires and disease. Let's not let the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests end up like the federal forestlands that burned for months in Central and Southern Oregon last summer.

Oregon can't afford to pass Measure 34. It cuts money for schools, local governments, and fire prevention. This isn't acceptable to us, and we hope it's not acceptable to you.

Join us in voting NO ON MEASURE 34.

(This information furnished by Rep. Dave Hunt and Rep. Mike Schaufler.)

Argument in Opposition

Paul McCracken
Former Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission Chairman


Vote NO on Measure 34—It just doesn't add up.

As an Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commissioner, I've worked with numerous Oregonians with interests in the future of our state forests. I'm also an avid angler, and have succeeded in restoring forested salmon habitat on 1,400 acres of land I own in Northwestern Oregon. The wildlife in Oregon is important to me, and that's why I'm urging you to VOTE NO ON MEASURE 34.

The 50-50 plan doesn't add up to better stewardship for our precious fish and wildlife. Here's why:

Why sacrifice Oregon jobs, rural county services and school funding if we're already taking good care of our precious water, fish and wildlife? Let's care for ALL of Oregon.


(This information furnished by Paul McCracken.)

Argument in Opposition


Oregon state forests are managed under strict requirements and that have benefited forest health and our economy.

Measure 34 makes no sense. The special interest groups say they want a balance, but what they want is a ban. Measure 34 would ban harvesting on more than 60% of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests.

Our state forests are already managed for balance. They are among the most healthy forests in the world with such strict clean water and habitat protection that additional timber set-asides would have little environmental benefit.

Measure 34 is funded by out-of-state environmental groups. We can't allow out-of-state interests to determine what is best for Oregon.

Measure 34 threatens valuable family-wage jobs. Oregon's jobless rate is among the worst in the nation. We can't afford to lose more family-wage jobs. If Measure 34 passes, the result will be thousands out of work and would cost Oregon's economy $123 million of personal income per year.

Please don't allow extremism to waste the value of our state forests. Vote NO on 34.

(This information furnished by Karl Scronce, President, Oregon Wheat Growers League.)

Argument in Opposition

Oregon's Counties Stand to Lose MILLIONS

Association of Oregon Counties Asks All Oregonians
to Help Preserve Police, Fire, Emergency Services,
Senior Community Services and Road
Maintenance—AND VOTE NO ON 34!

Oregon's counties depend directly on timber harvest revenues for large parts of their annual budgets. AOC is asking you to help us preserve services like emergency services, police, fire, community-based health care and road maintenance. Without the timber harvest dollars the counties depend upon, Oregon communities can expect to experience cuts in programs that make their communities more safe and livable.

If Measure 34 passes, Local Governments and Schools will Lose $25 million per year.

This measure doesn't add up. Estimates say over 2,600 Oregonians will lose their jobs if Measure 34 passes, which means more people dependent on your tax dollars and less people contributing to our communities. Oregon's current forest management plan was developed by a team of scientists from numerous fields over seven years with public input.

Timber revenues keep our citizens from having to pay more taxes and keep rural Oregonians at work! We trust the Oregon Department of Forestry to do what's right for all of Oregon, not just the special interests. An untested plan is not worth sacrificing the livability and safety of our communities.

Help your county maintain services for you and your neighbors. Vote No on Measure 34.

(This information furnished by Mike McArthur, Executive Director, Association of Oregon Counties.)

Argument in Opposition

Tillamook-Based Fishing Guides Oppose Measure 34

Our communities and forests depend on it.

As residents of Tillamook County, we know it is imperative that our leaders and citizens do everything possible to defeat Measure 34. We believe that our coastal economy, our jobs, our environment, our infrastructure, our schools and the well-being of our communities could be devastated if we do not.

Measure 34 is an extreme alternative to the Oregon Department of Forestry's current plan.

Here are some reasons why:

Help us stop this extreme plan. Vote NO ON MEASURE 34.

This statement has been endorsed by these Tillamook Fishing Guides:

Tim Juarez
Jack Smith
M. John Krauthoefer III

(This information furnished by M. John Krauthoefer III, Fire Fighter's Guide Service; Tim Juarez; Jack Smith.)

Argument in Opposition


Don't be fooled. Environmentalists are using this seemingly
innocent plan to begin shutting down timber harvests
on all of Oregon's forests.

Even private lands.

Oregonians in Action fights to protect the rights of private property owners in Oregon. Measure 34 is obviously a huge leap for environmentalists in their crusade to ban logging on all of Oregon's forests. Their next step will be banning logging on privately owned lands.

We believe private property owners have a fundamental right to earn an honest living by responsibly harvesting timber on their own land. Oregonians in Action doesn't want to see this happen to Oregon, and Measure 34 would be a dangerous first step in the wrong direction.

Measure 34 would ban logging on more than 60 percent of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. What would stop environmental groups from attempting to "set aside" more forestland in the future if they succeed in November?

Also, the plan would cut over $5 million from the Oregon Department of Forestry's forest fire prevention budget. This means that there will be less money to protect all Oregon forests from fires—even private property. Massive fires like those that burned last summer in Southern Oregon don't discriminate against private or public lands. Everything burns. Let's not get burned again.

Join Oregonians in Action and say no to this irresponsible, unfair plan.

Vote No on Measure 34

(This information furnished by David J. Hunnicutt, Executive Director, Oregonians in Action.)

Argument in Opposition

Measure 34 Will Hurt Oregon's Economy, Cost jobs,
And Harm Forest Health

The Tillamook State Forest was planted by Oregon's human hands and then nurtured for 50 years by Oregon Department of Forestry employees as an investment intended to benefit Oregon's future and economic well-being. It is a shining example of forest renewability and sustainability.

The existing Tillamook Forest management plan, developed after years of professional planning, public meetings, citizen input and scientific reviews, is far better for Oregon than Ballot Measure 34. The existing plan is a scientifically-based management approach that addresses the myriad of public demands and environmental values necessary to effectively manage the Tillamook Forest for wildlife, air, and water quality, while creating jobs and revenues for schools, counties, and the State of Oregon.

Measure 34 is anything but balanced and is bad for Oregon.

Measure 34 would also do serious harm to state forest health.

We urge you to VOTE NO.

(This information furnished by Rick Sohn, Chair of the Board, Oregon Forest Industries Council.)

Argument in Opposition


Clatsop County cannot afford Measure 34. The so-called 50/50 plan is an ill-conceived approach that would cost Clatsop and other counties millions of dollars in revenue. Measure 34 completely ignores the social and economic needs of the county and all of Oregon.

Passage of Measure 34 would cause the loss of valuable jobs, hurt our healthy forests, cripple our infrastructure, rob our schools and devastate the coastal economy.

Measure 34 is unnecessary and too extreme. Old-growth, drinking water and conservation of wildlife are already protected under the current management plan and the Tillamook and Clatsop forests are already among the healthiest and most productive in the world. If passed, the lack of management would dramatically increase the danger of another massive forest fire, and would allow for the rapid spread of disease.

Banning harvests on more than 60 percent of the Tillamook and Clatsop forests won't help the environment and will wound our local economy. Not only will our residents lose jobs, but also revenues received from timber harvesting would crash from $9.36 million to $0.

The county would be forced to cut services and the ripple effect would be devastating. Additionally, Schools are already struggling for funding. Measure 34 doesn't only affect Clatsop and Tillamook counties. If passed schools and local governments around the state would stand to lose $25 million a year.

Measure 34 is not only bad for Clatsop County, but it is bad for all of Oregon.

Please Vote NO.

(This information furnished by Clatsop County Commissioners Lylla Gaebel, Richard Lee, Sam Patrick and Patricia Roberts.)

Argument in Opposition

How Many Jobs are You Willing to Sacrifice?

The numbers don't lie.
Over 2,600 Oregonians will lose their jobs
if Measure 34 passes.

Associated Oregon Industries, the voice of Oregon business at the Capitol, wants you to help us save Oregon jobs by voting against Measure 34.

The so-called 50-50 plan would ban timber harvesting on over 60 percent of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. This ballot box forestry proposal will cripple already ailing rural communities in the northwestern part of our state. Now more than ever Oregonians need to stand together to say:

Oregon needs to harvest timber. It's a sector of our economy the backers of Measure 34 would like to slowly eradicate. We believe environmental, economic and recreational needs can exist together in Oregon, and the Oregon Department of Forestry's current plan exemplifies this.

Measure 34's supporters believe that their plan will build the economy because businesses locate in our area because of our forests and natural beauty. This is absurd. We agree Oregon is beautiful, but as the voice of business in Oregon, we know a picture on a postcard doesn't spur economic development. We also know our members value real incentives like low workers' compensation rates and quality public schools. We believe this proposal is full of flaws and falsehoods, and it will strangle Oregon's economy.

Join Oregon businesses by voting no on Measure 34. Losing jobs, closing sawmills and crippling an entire sector of Oregon's economy just doesn't add up.

Richard Butrick
Associated Oregon Industries

(This information furnished by Richard M. Butrick, President, Associated Oregon Industries.)

Argument in Opposition

Oregon Building Industry Association

Vote NO on Measure 34: Less Timber = Big Consequences for Oregon

The Oregon Building Industry Association works to defend home ownership opportunities for all Oregonians. If Measure 34 passes, it will ban timber harvests on more than 60 percent of the lands in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests, and result in higher costs for Oregonians trying to buy homes.

Less lumber from Oregon timber resources means using more expensive, imported lumber. This costs all Oregonians more money. It would cost more when you remodel your house. Rents would rise for the apartment your son or daughter is moving into and construction costs for houses, schools, offices and stores would increase.

Responsible timber harvesting in Oregon makes sense, and keeps costs lower for prospective homeowners.

Moreover, this measure will cut over $5 million from the Department of Forestry's fire prevention budget, which means that our forests are at risk of catastrophic fires like the ones we saw on federal forestlands last summer. Forest fires in any part of Oregon drive up the cost of building and buying a home because burned trees cannot be converted into usable lumber products.

Finally, the economic impact on the state would be extreme if Measure 34 passes. Over 2,600 hard working Oregonians will lose their jobs and the state will lose $1 billion in timber value.

This doesn't add up to a smart choice for Oregonians.

Join Oregon's homebuilders in voting NO on MEASURE 34.

(This information furnished by Jon Chandler, CEO, Oregon Building Industry Association.)

Argument in Opposition



The Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests are among the most healthy and productive forests in the world. Measure 34 could hurt the health and productivity of the forests – that's why we urge you to VOTE NO.

Measure 34 is not balance – it's a ban. Harvest reductions would cost more than 2,650 Oregonians their jobs and cost Oregonians fragile economy $123 million of personal income a year.

It would have the greatest impact on rural Oregon. Since 1989, 163 sawmills have been closed, and Measure 34 would cause the closure of even more.

Ten million acres of federal forestlands in Oregon are already off limits to timber harvests. The shutdown of federal forests, costing thousands of jobs, has already been an economic disaster for rural Oregon.

Besides further damaging Oregon's economy, Measure 34 puts the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests health at risk. The state forests are already managed under a strict plan that was seven years in the making involving citizens, scientists, environmental groups and foresters.

If the forests can't be actively managed they will be at risk of catastrophic fire, rapid spread of disease and insects.

The state forests are already healthy and balanced. Through careful and healthy management the forests contribute to Oregon's economy providing jobs, revenue for schools, local governments, environmental improvement projects and new recreational opportunities.

We urge you to vote NO on Measure 34 for the health of Oregon's forests and economy.

(This information furnished by Paulette Pyle, Oregonians for Food and Shelter.)

Argument in Opposition


Responsible Stewardship Means Voting NO on Measure 34

The Economic Development Council of Tillamook County
Strongly Opposes Measure 34

The Oregon Forest Management Plan provides for healthy forests that support a balanced economy. It evolved through a seven-year process that brought together people with divergent interests. The plan ensures that the forest will be appropriately managed for ALL. It provides for fish and wildlife protection, recreation opportunities, older-growth trees and intelligently managed timber harvesting without clear-cutting. This scientifically based plan is our best opportunity to achieve both a healthy forest and a healthy economy.

Over the past three years since the Forest Management Plan has been in place:
Native fish counts have increased 230% to 388%
37 Miles of new trails have been built
2,4399,000 trees have been planted in the Tillamook District Forest
Stream habitat improvements have dramatically increased.


When the forest was replanted after the fires of the 1930s, '40s and '50s, it was done primarily in one species. We know now that a healthy forest must be diverse. Halting the Oregon Forest Management Plan's intelligent management of these forests threatens the health of the ecosystem. And that is an economic threat to the entire state.

Measure 34 presents potential risks to the forest in the form of increased chance of forest fire, reduced forest firefighting funds, the spread of Swiss Needle Cast disease and a reduced level of funding to support infrastructure. Devastation in the forest would have a very real economic impact.

Under the Forest Management Plan's stringent guidelines, the timber harvest is good for the environment, and the revenue generated supports many more economic components than just forest product jobs. It supports our schools, roads and services.


(This information furnished by Dale Stockton, Board Member, Tillamook County Economic Development Council.)

Argument in Opposition

Activists want more than 60 percent of the Tillamook and
Clatsop State Forests off-limits to timber harvests.

Enough already!

It's a fact that of the 28 million acres of forestland in Oregon, just under 10 million have permanent bans on timber harvests. This acreage includes three million acres of wilderness areas and six million of protected old growth. Millions more have stopped producing timber due to litigation and wildfires. In contrast, the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests were replanted decades ago for the express purpose of providing a sustainable timber yield to fund basic government services like public safety and schools.

Measure 34 is much more costly than advertised.

Legal opinions warn that most timber sales would be delayed by litigation for a period of time nobody can predict. This means that schools and local governments would take huge budget cuts if their timber revenues are halted.

Furthermore, Measure 34 requires employers to pay prevailing wages for any operations in these forests, which reduces a company's budget to bid for timber. Prevailing wages alone would cut the amount of timber revenue to the state by an average of $35 per thousand board feet. This means the state would lose $175,000 on a small, 5 million-board-foot timber sale. That number climbs as the volume of timber gets higher—which means more lost revenues for local governments and schools.

These forests are a valuable resource that can benefit all Oregonians if properly and fairly managed.

Measure 34 is expensive, wasteful and unnecessary.


(This information furnished by Sean M. Smith, Vice President, Starfire Lumber Co.)

Argument in Opposition

Rudy Fenk
Chair of the Tillamook County Soil and Water Conservation District


As Chair of the Tillamook County Soil and Water Conservation District, I spend my days looking at ways to improve water quality for the citizens of Tillamook County. After reviewing this proposal, I'm urging my fellow Oregonians to VOTE NO on MEASURE 34.

The fact is, Tillamook County will lose MILLIONS. This means the Soil and Water Conservation District that I run will lose funding that is essential in protecting the water quality in Tillamook County. Backers of this irresponsible measure say their plan will improve water quality, but don't give a specific plan as to how cutting funding for water quality improvement in my county will benefit our residents.

Timber harvests provide funding for Tillamook County. Tillamook County provides funding for the Soil and Water Conservation District.

It isn't hard to connect the dots:

Less timber harvests in Tillamook County means less money for the County's water quality improvement projects. Period.

Measure 34's supporters are trying to scare Tillamook County residents into believing their drinking water is in danger unless their plan passes. This is completely untrue. I work every day to ensure water quality is protected for my family, my neighbors and every citizen in Tillamook County.

I find it unacceptable that Measure 34's backers are trying to scare Oregonians into voting for their proposal.

Tillamook County's water is safe and clean for our families and children. Don't let them make you think otherwise.



(This information furnished by Rudy Fenk, Chairman, Tillamook County Soil and Water Conservation District.)

Argument in Opposition


We oppose Measure 34 because we care about Oregon jobs, our economy and Oregon's environmental health.

Measure 34 will cost thousands of needed jobs. More than 2,650 family wage jobs will be lost if the measure passes. More mills will close and rural Oregon will be the worst hit.

Oregonians will lose more than $1 billion of timber value if Measure 34 passes. The Tillamook and State Forests provide needed funding through healthy timber harvests. These timber harvesting provide funding that supports schools throughout Oregon, local government and environmental program funding.

Measure 34 will harm rather than help the environment. As cattlemen we are also concerned with healthy habitats and clean water. Measure 34 would reduce funding available to pay for important wildlife habitat improvement projects. Passage of the measure would also dramatically increase the danger of massive fires and the rapid spread of disease in the forests. Millions a year would be cut from funds to fight forest fires and forest management budgets.

Measure 34 is irresponsible and extreme. PLEASE VOTE NO.

(This information furnished by Sam Cowart, Oregon Cattlemen's Association.)

Argument in Opposition

State Senator Joan Dukes (D-Astoria)

As a State Senator whose district includes the vast majority of state timber lands, I am opposed to Measure 34. It is an extreme measure that would do harm to hard working Oregonians and to the very forests it proposes to protect.

When timber lands were turned over to the state beginning in 1939 it was with the promise that they would be well-managed, in cooperation with the counties. Future income, it was promised, would be returned to the counties and other districts in the area where trees were harvested. This has worked well for 65 years, but Measure 34 would break those promises.

The current management plan was developed by the Oregon Department of Forestry in a seven-year public process that involved hundreds of citizens, scientists, foresters and environmental groups. It works. Measure 34 would require that a new management plan be developed without public input. That circumvents everything Oregon stands for.

If passed, this measure would cause Oregonians to lose more than $1 billion of timber value that would otherwise support schools, local government, fire and water districts, community colleges and the state's economy by banning timber harvesting on most of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests.

Today's plan protects sustainable forestry as well as habitat, watersheds and recreation. The Clatsop and Tillamook Forests have clean water, abundant wildlife and strong and healthy runs of fish because of the responsible way the forests are managed. It is done by experts who know these forests. Simple solutions like this initiative kill forests, they don't save them.

Please join me in telling the special interests, bankrolled by out-of-state foundations, that Oregonians don't support their agenda. We want to keep our forests healthy and we don't break our promises.

Vote NO on Measure 34.

(This information furnished by State Senator Joan Dukes, District 16.)

Argument in Opposition

Measure 34 will lock up more than 250,000 acres of forestland!

OFPTA Opposes Measure 34, and here are some reasons why:

Measure 34 just doesn't make sense. It's bad for our forests… it's bad for our schools…it's bad for jobs…and it's bad for Oregon tax-payers!

Join the OFPTA in voting NO ON MEASURE 34!

D.E. Bridges
Oregon Forest Products Transportation Association

(This information furnished by D.E. Bridges, Oregon Forest Products Transportation Association (OFPTA).)

Argument in Opposition


Ballot Measure 34 is a breaking of faith with the people of Tillamook County. It violates the Trust Agreement under which 15 Northwest Oregon Counties deeded their forestlands to the state for management.

The counties transferred ownership of their lands to the State of Oregon because the state promised to reforest the lands, manage them to produce another "forest crop" and share harvest proceeds with the 15 counties. This was their trust-like agreement.

Once the lands were under state management the Trust Counties invested heavily in the promise of future returns in return for giving the state their lands.

In 1951, when the state needed more money to cover fire suppression costs, the Trust Counties gave up a share of their revenues to cover the expense. They did so again in the mid 1960s for additional fire protection. This was followed by additional county investments in pre-commercial thinning, fertilization and other forest management activities.

The Trust Counties also agreed to pay back the state's costs for reforestation – to date more than $9 million of the $13 million has been repaid to the state. The Trust Counties also regularly consent to project work, such as placing fish-friendly culverts, installing in-stream habitat and improving forest roads: all of which reduce the counties' share of the revenues.

State-owned lands don't produce property taxes and dominate 67 percent of Tillamook County. Property taxes finance local government services. Almost one-third of the county budget is funded from state forest revenues. The citizens of Tillamook County have waited many years for their county to finally secure the kind of public services that other Oregonians take for granted.

Today Tillamook County residents stand on the doorstep of reaching that goal. To break the counties' deal now through severely limiting timber revenues will be financially devastating.

Measure 34 is unfair, unethical and just plain wrong. Please vote NO.

(This information furnished by Paul Levesque.)

Argument in Opposition

A Scheme Devised by "Panic Button" Environmentalists Would Needlessly Devastate Oregon's Economy.

Citizens for a Sound Economy Strongly Opposes Measure 34!

Measure 34 is an attempt to ban timber harvesting in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests that is being funded by out-of-state environmentalist organizations. These radical groups don't mind costing Oregon thousands of jobs and more than $1 billion in timber value that would otherwise go to supporting education and other basic government services all in the name of the "environment," despite the fact that many of the policies contained in Measure 34 could wind up hurting the environment.

In rural Oregon, less timber money means more taxes to maintain government-funded services.

Right now, timber harvests in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests provide funding for schools and other services in the surrounding counties, easing the burden for taxpayers in these areas. But Measure 34 would cut this funding source and create a significant budget hole that would force taxpayers all over Oregon to pick up the slack.

"Panic Button" environmentalists don't have the facts to back up their argument.

While passage of Measure 34 would certainly cost Oregon jobs and devastate the state's economy, there is no proof that it would necessarily help the environment. In fact, there is significant evidence that the environment would actually suffer under Measure 34 due to an increased danger of massive forest fires, and the spread of insects and disease.

Let's say "no" to more taxes and less jobs.

Environmental groups wanting to ban timber harvests on state forestlands want to leave it up to the rest of the state to fill budget holes left by this measure.

This measure isn't good for Oregon, and it's not good for you.

Measure 34: Less timber revenue means more taxes for all Oregonians.

Vote NO on MEASURE 34!

(This information furnished by Russ Walker, Citizens for a Sound Economy PAC.)

Argument in Opposition

Oregon Association of Nurseries

Oregon's Economy Can't Take It. No on Measure 34.

As a membership organization that represents more than 1,500 nursery stock producers, retailers, landscapers and allied companies in the nursery and greenhouse industry—we rely on our fellow Oregonians and Oregon companies to buy and enjoy our horticultural products.

We have a special relationship with Oregonians, and we care about Oregon's economy. This is why we're asking our fellow Oregonians to help us defeat Measure 34, because it doesn't add up to a good economic choice for our communities.

For example:

  1. Measure 34 guarantees that over 2,600 family-wage earners in rural Oregon will be left jobless.
  2. Measure 34 will ban timber harvests on over 250,000 acres of forestland.
  3. Measure 34 will cause Oregon's economy to lose $123 million in personal income annually.
  4. Measure 34 will cause schools and local governments to lose $25 million annually without making any provision to replace those lost dollars.

Without a healthy economy, all of Oregon suffers. The Oregon Association of Nurseries cannot support a proposal that will severely damage Oregon's economy by cutting jobs and taking money out of the hands of businesses and workers.

Oregon can't afford Measure 34.

Join us in supporting our customers all over Oregon and VOTE NO ON MEASURE 34.

(This information furnished by Mark Simmons, Oregon Association of Nurseries.)

Argument in Opposition

Forests and Oregon Jobs at Risk?
You've Got to Be Kidding!

By Jack Lamb

It's true. Measure 34 would leave over 2,600 hard-working Oregonians jobless. As a Tillamook County resident and timber industry supporter, I'm asking all my fellow Oregonians to join me in voting NO ON MEASURE 34.

I have worked in the timber industry for over 20 years in Oregon. My family, friends and neighbors work in the forests of Northwest Oregon. Since 1989, we've seen over 163 sawmills close all over rural Oregon, and thousands of hardworking, tax paying Oregonians be forced out of their jobs.

Not only will people lose their jobs, but our forests will be put at risk.

Measure 34 will cute $5 million from the Oregon Department of Forestry's fire fighting budget. Less money for fighting fires puts our fire fighting professionals, forests and economy at risk.

The ODF also stands to lose $9 million for forest management projects, which help protect the forests from insects and catastrophic disease outbreaks. We can't afford to neglect our forests which provide jobs, recreation areas and wildlife habitat for Oregon.

It just doesn't make sense.

This plan is just another step the urban environmentalists are taking to stop all timber harvesting in Oregon. Measure 34 would cause our state to lose $1 billion in timber revenues. The timber industry is part of Tillamook County's heritage and has a place in Oregon's economy. We can't afford to put more Oregonians out of work and risk forest health.

Help Save our Forests and Rural Oregon Jobs. Vote NO on MEASURE 34.

(This information furnished by Jack Lamb, Tillamook Lumber Company.)

Argument in Opposition

Oregon Business Association Urges NO Vote

Measure 34 Is Not the Solution!

The Oregon Business Association (OBA) is a bi-partisan organization of businesses—large and small, urban and rural—from across the state. We support a balanced approach to state public policy, and we support environmentally friendly economic development in Oregon.

We oppose Measure 34 because it is NOT a balanced approach to forest management!

The Oregon Board of Forestry, appointed by former Governor John Kitzhaber, spent seven years creating a harvest plan for the Tillamook and Clatsop Forests. During that time, many public hearings were held with all interest groups represented. Now, the supporters of Measure 34 are seeking to overturn the balanced public process with a proposal that threatens Oregon's economy, especially in rural Oregon.

OBA believes any plan for harvesting state timber should be reviewed by an independent certification program to ensure both environmental and economic sustainability. Measure 34 does not strike the right balance.

OBA believes any plan for harvesting state timber should be based on the best scientific research available, and should be guided by a collaboration of stakeholders on all sides of the issue. Measure 34 does not strike the right balance.

Measure 34 threatens the economic security of local cities and counties in the region, and the stability of school funding statewide.

Vote NO on Measure 34

(This information furnished by Lynn Lundquist, President, Oregon Business Association.)

Argument in Opposition

Governor Kulongoski and Former Governor Vic Atiyeh
Urge Oregonians to Vote NO on Measure 34

Oregon's success in stewarding its state forests provides an example of sustainable forest management that balances social, economic and environmental values important to Oregonians. Measure 34 would alter that balance and substitute "ballot box" forestry for the collaborative process that currently guides state forest management.

In 2001, the Oregon Board of Forestry developed its current plan for the management of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests over the next century. The plan blends scientific knowledge and advice with the practical forestry field experience of nearly 70 technical experts, independent scientists and resource specialists who took part in the planning.

Two separate citizen committees advised the Board on the development of the plan, and the draft plan was subjected to two scientific peer reviews. Public input was sought at every step in the process. More than 1,000 people participated in 36 public meetings and more than 5,000 written comments were received on the draft plan and administrative rule. The concept embodied in Measure 34 was examined and rejected in that process. Now, proponents are trying to circumvent the process by bringing their failed plan directly to voters.

Official estimates show losses to local governments and schools could exceed $25 million a year if Measure 34 is adopted. Funds to fight forest fires would be cut by more than $5 million a year, and funds available to habitat restoration and recreation improvements on the forests also would be lost.

These valuable forestlands are important assets that must be carefully managed to ensure they will continue to serve the social, economic and environmental values of Oregonians for generations to come.

We urge you to reject Measure 34.

Ted Kulongoski
Governor of Oregon

Vic Atiyeh
Governor of Oregon, 1979-1987

(This information furnished by Ted Kulongoski, Governor of Oregon;
Vic Atiyeh, Former Governor of Oregon.)

Argument in Opposition


The numbers don't lie. Oregon schools will lose money. Timber harvests in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests generate education dollars for the entire state. Kids everywhere in Oregon depend on the money from these resources. If Measure 34 passes, we will all suffer.


Oregon's legislature is facing another deficit during the next biennium. That means the possibility of more cuts to essential services and schools. After all the cuts schools have already taken, Measure 34 guarantees that Oregon schools will lose millions more every year. That's another blow Oregon's kids and schools can't afford!

And what does losing millions more in school funding every year mean? It means bigger classes and less attention for our children. It means less opportunities for our kids to grow and be successful. Oregon just can't afford Measure 34.

Join us in saying "NO" to this unfair, poorly-planned measure.


Carolyn Ortman, President
Oregon School Boards Association

(This information furnished by Carolyn Ortman, President, Oregon School Boards Association.)

Argument in Opposition



Currently, the Oregon Department of Forestry provides great opportunities for people to enjoy the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. These recreational opportunities are part of the ODF's plan to make sure Oregonians get a chance to explore and enjoy our state forestlands.

Measure 34 won't expand opportunity, it will cut funds for existing programs meant to get us out in the forests, and turn it's back on existing, historic trails and facilities.

The Board of Forestry adopted the Tillamook Forest Recreation Plan even before the current forest management plan was adopted in 2001. The recreation plan outlines how the ODF develops and manages recreational opportunities. Recreation volunteers played a key role in designing the existing plan, and have contributed thousands of hours of volunteer time to help implement it.

If Measure 34 passes the ODF will be forced to divide the forest without regard to where these current, historic trails and campgrounds are located, or which areas are best suited for future facilities. The acres that 34 will leave for recreation will be a fragmented, unworkable patchwork. Funding for recreation programs like those in the existing plan will also be cut, further decreasing opportunities for adventure-seeking Oregonians.

Today's responsible forest management gives us better access to the forests than under Measure 34.

Conditions for the two most popular sports in the Tillamook, hunting and Off Highway Vehicle recreation, will worsen.

Federal forests require recreation fees. That's not what Oregonians want for our state forests.

Measure 34 will lead to cuts in recreation budgets, forcing the State to explore access fees.

Measure 34 doesn't enhance recreation, it restricts it.

These organizations encourage you to vote no on Measure 34:

Oregon Motorcycle Riders Association
Pacific Northwest 4 Wheel Drive Association, Jim Putnam, President
Oregon State Snowmobile Association
Motorcycle Riders Association, David Lexow, President
International Harvester Scouts & Trucks of Oregon

(This information furnished by Barrett Brown, Oregon Motorcycle Riders Association.)

Argument in Opposition

Measure 34: Threatens critical fish and wildlife habitat.

Portland, Oregon and Santiam River Chapter's of Safari Club International

The Portland, Oregon and Santiam River Chapters of Safari Club International advocate for wildlife, wildlife habitat, and hunter's rights in Oregon. After reviewing Measure 34, we have concluded that this plan puts the Tillamook Forest at a greater risk to catastrophic wildfire and threatens critical fish and wildlife habitat.

Measure 34 is so poorly written, it ignores the current threat to critical fish and wildlife habitat that is posed by catastrophic wildfire. Current forest management practices in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests are some of the best in the nation. Under Measure 34 those practices and standards would be bogged down with red tape and constantly under attack by out-of-state environmental extremists who want to shut our forests down.

The groups that are proposing Measure 34 are the same ones that have continuously prevented sensible management in our National Forests which has led to millions of acres of prime habitat being destroyed by wildfire. Make no mistake, Measure 34 is bad for fish, wildlife and their habitat. The only sure way to properly manage our forests, keep our water clean and protect critical fish and wildlife habitat is to allow the experts, not out-of-state environmental extremists to manage them.

Increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfire and threatening critical fish and wildlife habitat is something we cannot support.

Help us protect and preserve our forests in Oregon. Vote NO on Measure 34.

(This information furnished by Robert G. Deveny, President, Portland, OR Chapter, Wendell Locke, President, Santiam River Chapter; Safari Club International.)

Argument in Opposition

Tillamook Mayor Bob McPheeters Urges a
NO Vote on Measure 34

Don't Vote to Tighten the Noose on Our Economy! No on 34!

The recession of the past two years devastated Tillamook County. Businesses closed their doors. Citizens moved away. Our local services were cut and our quality of life was diminished.

Now out-of-state special interest groups want to cut more than 2,600 jobs in my area.

Measure 34's supporters think it's all right that my neighbors lose their jobs because they THINK that maybe economic development will come to Tillamook County because of our area's natural beauty. I've got news for them: Tillamook County was beautiful before, during and after the recession that crippled my community.

We can't afford to leave our forest management up to an untested plan that would cut thousands of jobs, cut $25 million from our schools and local governments and cut $5 million from the Oregon Department of Forestry's fire prevention budget. The out-of-state environmental groups funding this plan don't care about working families in Tillamook County, but I do.

The truth is economic development comes from real business incentives like an educated workforce, quality schools, tax breaks and a solid customer base. Measure 34 would make the state more dependent on tax dollars because of lost timber revenues and would take over $123 million out of Oregon's economy every year.

As Mayor, I work to strengthen and develop the business community in our area. Measure 34 is simply another attempt at banning timber harvests in our forests while ruining our rural economies.

Help me say no to the out-of-state environmental groups and yes to our fellow Oregonians. NO ON 34!

(This information furnished by Bob McPheeters, Mayor, City of Tillamook.)

Argument in Opposition

Associated Oregon Loggers Says NO to Measure 34!


If Measure 34 passes, over 2,600 Oregonians will be left jobless. This is because more lumber mills will close and over $25 million will be stripped from our local governments and schools each year.


The 50-50 plan sounds fair, but there are large parts of the forest that are protected by state and federal laws. If you add those lands into the equation, this measure actually puts over 60 percent of the forest off-limits to timber harvests.

In addition to banning timber harvests on over 250,000 acres of forests, the Oregon Department of Forestry will actually lose $9 million each year for forest management programs that protect our forests from insects and disease.


The 50-50 plan was considered and rejected by a team of leading scientists, forestry experts and environmental and timber industry advocates. Seven years of planning produced the current forestry plan, which includes the interests of everyone in Oregon. Then, last year, the legislature refused to act on this dangerous proposal because of the potentially crippling effects on our economy.


Measure 34 will cut over $5 million from the ODF's forest fire fighting budget. This means less protection for our fire fighters, rural homes and precious timberlands.



(This information furnished by Jim Geisinger, Executive Vice President, Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc.)

Argument in Opposition

Ballot Measure 34 is Not Good Public Policy

As Mayor of one of Oregon's largest cities, it's my job to consider the needs of all residents in my area. Quick fixes almost never work. Measure 34 is a short-sighted view of forest management practices that attempts to undo years of sound and well-tested policies.

The present Oregon Department of Forestry's plan took seven years to develop. It included input from three panels of world-renowned scientists from a broad cross-section of fields and disciplines. Public input was heavily solicited for the project - the plan evolved and improved because of extensive public input. From my experience serving Beaverton citizens the last 12 years as Mayor, I recognize this as sound public policy.

Measure 34 is "ballot box forestry" at its worst and no way to manage the delicate balance of our state forests. This ballot measure is an irrational plan that backers have pushed for the third time:

  1. Known as the "50-50" plan, the Oregon Department of Forestry's panel of scientists, citizens, timber and environmental interests rejected this scheme;
  2. Then, last year, the state legislature quickly rejected the same plan:
  3. Now, as a last resort, the plan's supporters are masquerading their proposal as a "balanced" initiative and tout it as an "innocent" change to our current forest management plan.

Because the plan will so severely cut back the current well-managed and balanced timber harvesting practices, over 2,600 Oregonians will be jobless and cut $5 million from the Oregon Department of Forestry fire prevention programs. In addition, schools and local governments in four counties will lose up to $25 million per year without replacement revenues. This is just plain unfair and damaging for basic local services.

The Beaverton City Council joins me in asking you to vote "no" on this plan (Beaverton City Council resolution August 23, 2004) – it is an irresponsible effort at "ballot box forestry" that harms many residents and the local economy.

(This information furnished by Rob Drake, Mayor, City of Beaverton.)

Argument in Opposition

Measure 34
A Threat to Oregon's Environment and Economy

Measure 34 Damages Oregon's Economy—Especially Rural Oregon

The timber harvest ban proposed in this measure would cost Oregon's economy $123 million in personal income per year through the loss of 2,650 Oregon jobs. Ten million acres of federal forestlands in Oregon are already off limits to timber harvest. Now Measure 34 proposes to ban harvests on more than 250,000 more acres of state forestlands.

Measure 34 Hurts the Environment and Eliminates the Compromise

The Biscuit Fire in Grants Pass and the Bear Butte and Booth fires outside of Sisters both caused the shut down of main arteries into town, which cut down business by 60-70 percent during those months. Management and regulated harvest of forests is necessary to prevent these fires. Foresters have warned that Measure 34, will dramatically increase the danger of massive forest fires in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. This would damage the environment and the economy.

The current plan, developed with public, professional and environmental input over a seven-year process, is safe and effective. Measure 34 requires that the biology department chairs at three Oregon universities pick a committee to draft a new management plan—without public input.

Measure 34 Hurts Schools and Local Governments

Oregonians would lose more than $1 billion of timber value that would otherwise support schools, local government, and the state's economy if Measure 34 is passed. Measure 34 would reduce the amount of revenue received by all Oregon schools by $26 million a year, and would reduce all revenues provided through timber harvesting to the state, counties and schools by $70 million a year.

Measure 34 presents a dangerous threat to the Oregon environment and economy.

A decrease in job availability and an increase in the threat of forest fires would be devastating to the Oregon economy and environment, and must be prevented through the halt of Measure 34.

Vote NO on 34.

(This information furnished by Bill Perry, Oregon Restaurant Association.)

Argument in Opposition

SEIU, Local 503 Urges a NO vote on Measure 34

We support the following recommendations in the Oregon AFL-CIO's position paper on forest management:

i) Maintain and enhance basic protections for the environment, water quality, key watersheds, threatened and endangered species habitat, public health, and occupational health and safety.

ii) Move away from low-bid contracting and toward cost-effective innovations in contracting such as: a) "Best-Value" contracts with local preference criteria, b) Service contracts with an embedded timber sale, c) "Bundling" that combines multiple tasks over a longer contract period, d) Indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contracts; and e) Stewardship contracting authorities which may also include goods-for-services, and retention of receipts, and other innovations. These are cost-effective approaches that ensure quality performance, while encouraging contractors to employ a higher-skilled workforce, provide training and create jobs that are longer in duration.

iii) Promote federal-state partnerships to gain economies of scale on projects and to tap into a variety of funding sources.

iv) Provide standards for living wages (prevailing wages), health care coverage and participation of contractors in a certified apprenticeship program for ecosystem restoration workers. Program and project budgets should include apprenticeship-training set-asides

The state management plan for the forests in question has been in effect for just three years. We are generally supportive of that plan. Our members who work in the forests are striving to implement the existing plan in such a way that it makes the forest healthier for recreation, wildlife, and the economy.

The existing management plan was developed through a lengthy process in which labor had a voice. The plan does not satisfy everyone who has a stake in the process, but we believe that forest management should not be the result of the initiative process. We urge voters to oppose Measure 34.

(This information furnished by Arthur Towers, Service Employees International Union Local 503, OPEU.)