Oregon Wild - or mild?

Oregon Wild's Jason Gonzales quit in protest

note: In October 2019, I asked Mr. Gonzales why Oregon Wild, et al.'s ballot initiatives called for aerial spray buffers instead of a ban. His reply was accuse me of being unproductive and uninformed. I asked if he knew about my work to stop the proposed West Eugene Porkway through the BLM's nature preserve, but he apparently has not been active long enough to remember that (the "no build" decision was made by Federal Highway Administration in 2007).

 


www.eugeneweekly.com/2020/02/13/slant-112/

• Eugene-based Cascadia Wildlands and Beyond Toxics, together with Oregon Wild, Oregon League of Conservation Voters and nine other groups, worked out a Memorandum of Understanding with 13 timber companies, including Weyerhaeuser and Seneca timber, to update Oregon's outdated forest practices and address pesticide sprays. There was at least one fly in the celebratory ointment of the historic agreement. Forest and Watershed Campaign Organizer Jason Gonzales resigned from Oregon Wild in protest of the agreement. He says in a public Facebook post that "Oregon Wild and others see this as a huge victory, and I think it's in their right to do so," but he says he is deeply concerned by what he calls the "protest penalty" in which the MOU states, "any person who intentionally interferes with a helicopter pesticide application may be ticketed for a violation with a presumptive fine of $1,000 for the first offense." Gonzales cites as an example the possibility of someone videotaping a spray and being fined because the pilot, who may not want to be documented, says he couldn't spray and was thus interfered with.

 

I resigned from Oregon Wild on Friday. For for those of you who did not not know, I've been waiting to say something until they made this announcement.

I have strong disagreements with many aspects of this deal, and was committed to taking this fight to the ballot box with the incredibly strong initiative we had been working on. Oregon Wild and I came to a point where I could no longer be involved in trying to improve this process.

This is all very stressful, and I want the folks who I've been organizing with around this issue for so many years to know that I'm doing a lot of thinking right now and I'm not sure what to tell you yet about so many things.

Oregon Wild and others see this as a huge victory, and I think it's in their right to do so, I know many folks will support this decision and I think that's fair enough. It's hard to have hope that we can make the changes we need and not the changes the powerful will give us, but some of us still cling to that idea and I just can't let it go.

I had considered staying and fighting to improve this process, and I want you to know that while the environmental protections in this agreement were a big problem, the specific thing that caused me to so suddenly resign is what I call the "protest penalty" being agreed to. I think it's inappropriate to have this in this environmental law and for the non-profits to agree to it, and when it wasn't removed, I resigned immediately. The provision on "presuming" the intent of me and my neighbors was added after I resigned, and I'm incredibly sad to read today that Oregon Wild and others agreed to that.

That rule is as follows, copied from the link in the article - this is insane, and completely unacceptable:

" Penalties for Interfering with Helicopter Pesticide Applications

10) Any person who intentionally interferes with a helicopter pesticide application may be ticketed for a violation with a presumptive fine of $1,000 for the first offense, and $5,000 for any additional offense within a five-year period, and may be liable to the operator for any actual damages resulting from the interference or other remedies available at law. Any interference by a Nearby Recipient shall be deemed to be intentional. There shall be a rebuttable a presumption that any interference is intentional if caused by a Recipient or a Water User Recipient who registers a Flagged Parcel or Flagged Water Source pursuant to Section 1 above. "

 

www.registerguard.com/news/20191206/fight-over-flight-activists-resist-aerial-pesticide-spraying

Fight over flight: Activists resist aerial pesticide spraying

By Christian Hill 

Posted Dec 6, 2019 at 5:00 AM
Updated Dec 6, 2019 at 9:44 AM

... Jason Gonzales, Oregon Wild's forest and watershed campaign organizer, said the coalition is seeking to put on the November 2020 ballot a measure that amends current law in a way "that the science, common sense and the voters will support."

"A 500-foot buffer from running water is something that we found widespread agreement about," he said, "and something that I think accomplishes what we all want to see, which is protection from this practice without going so far as banning a whole class of behavior."

 

 

News release from Oregon Wild:

Oregon to Move Forward with Agreement to Protect Forest Waters, Modernize Logging Rules

Compromise between conservation groups and logging industry includes protections for drinking water and salmon, spray notification for forest communities, framework for greater conservation gains

Today, Governor Kate Brown announced a historic agreement between conservation groups and timber companies that is the first step in a process that will see the most significant update of Oregon's Forest Practices Act in decades. 

The agreement includes 

  • Legislation during the short session to comprehensively reform aerial pesticide spraying practices by the logging industry, including a modern notification system for forest communities, no-spray zones around homes and schools, and buffers along streams and drinking water sources
  • After the passage of spray reform, both the logging industry and conservation groups will stand down on ballot measures for the 2020 election
  • both parties, together with the State of Oregon, agree to pursue a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries for threatened and endangered species that will result in modernization and strengthening of the Oregon Forest Practices Act

[notes: being told one is about to be sprayed is cruel. Rural families who farm crops or animals will not be able to relocate for the duration of spraying and will lack practical recourse to undo the damage of the drift.
A 300 foot no-spray zone around homes and schools is only relevant to urban people (whether politicians, timber executives or non-profit directors), not those who have to endure the drift.
Habitat Conservation Plan is bureaucratic language for pretending that ecological damage can be mitigated, and therefore legal to continue.
]

Sean Stevens, Executive Director of Oregon Wild and one of the principal negotiators of this agreement, released the following statement:

Today's announcement has been decades in the making.  It is a direct result of the thousands and thousands of Oregonians all across our state who have written letters, made phone calls, attended hearings, and gathered signatures to demand action to modernize our antiquated logging rules.

When our state first passed the Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA) in 1972, it was considered a groundbreaking conservation measure. Sadly, while our scientific understanding of forests, salmon, and wildlife have evolved greatly over the last half-century, the OFPA has not.  As states like Washington and California have moved forward with logging rules that better protect clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, and public health and safety, Oregon has fallen further and further behind.

As a result of this inaction, Oregonians and the environment we hold dear have been left with struggling salmon species, bitter conflicts over chemical spraying and logging practices, and growing alarm from rural Oregon communities about the management of their drinking watersheds. 

The agreement outlined today marks a departure from what has been acknowledged by both conservation organizations and the timber industry as an unacceptable status quo. Reaching this point has been difficult, and required long hours of negotiation, compromise, and working together in good faith. As a result, the agreement envisions significant gains for clean water, healthy forests, and community transparency around logging practices.

However, this agreement is only the first step in a longer journey. Conservation of Oregon's forests, and communities that live around them and rely upon them, is not guaranteed at the end of this process. It will require significant work over the next two years to modernize forest rules and secure a lasting legacy that benefits all Oregonians.

It is also important to acknowledge the hard work of the citizen activists, organizers, and scientists who have been calling out for change for decades. Without those voices, reaching this point would not have been possible. Their efforts have been an inspiration to Oregon Wild and the larger conservation community, and their continued activism and involvement will drive the conversation and work around the conservation of Oregon's forests and waters over the next two years of this process and far beyond.