The owls and the tree huggers weren’t to blame after all (surprise, surprise):
“Big Money Bought Oregon’s Forests. Small Timber Communities Are Paying The Price,” by Tony Schick, The Oregonian and Lylla Younes, ProPublica, and OPB, June 11, 2020:
Excerpts:
Recommended reading – and discussing: with a book group, a salon, over coffee, over beer, and with Portland (Oregon) friends and neighbors:
“Bridge City: When does local pride become exclusionary?” by Anna Vo, in Oregon Humanities, July 29, 2019.
“…. When you hear about nationalism, you may think of Trumpism, of anti-immigrant sentiment, but I bet you never think of yourself, of Portland. I wonder often about the pro-nature dogma, the cedar and mountain pride, the shoe-and-backpack consumerism entwined with suiting up for a thirty-minute “hike,” or swallowing nature like a fusion chimichanga sushi burrito. The regionalism so many people in Oregon espouse sounds a lot like localized nationalism to me. Its rhetoric can be easily weaponized to promote exclusion. …..” [Link to full article. Archived here.]
In a case that will be of interest for those following the Children’s Trust lawsuit:
“In New Zealand, Lands and Rivers Can Be People (Legally Speaking),” by Bryant Rousseau, July 13, 2016
“Can a stretch of land be a person in the eyes of the law? Can a body of water?
You can read a hundred articles about wolves and their prey, including the ODFW Wolf webpages, but not a single one will explain exactly WHY wolves are, or were, on endangered species lists.
If you look hard enough you really can find hundreds of articles on the WHY, but here is an interesting one that sums up the complexity of the issue:
Scientific American: “Can Wolves Bring Back Wilderness? [Excerpt]: People may find it hard to adapt to an ecology of predation and fear,” by Jason Mark on October 9, 2015:
Oregon Legal Research Blog