Please let me help you.

First of all the opposition to Measure 34 is entirely funded by the timber industry. That should tell you something.

Oregon law requires that our state forests be managed for the "Greatest Permanent Value" of the citizens of Oregon, not just special interests groups. The problem is our laws are too vague and easily manipulated by special interest groups.

The state held public meetings on the current plan but rejected the majority of public comments ((10 to 1 ratio) that favored adding protections for our fish and wildlife habitat as well as our watersheds. The state even rejected scientific comments 11 out of 12 that supported more protections for habitat and to establish permanent reserves.

Unfortunately, the state and timber companies as well as Tillamook County (who all profit from cutting the Tillamook) chose to ignore public and scientific comments and adopt a plan that #1 is experimental and #2 that would log over 85% of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests over 25 years.

The legislature also found that the state violated the current timber binge plan by attempting to make a back room deal with the timber industry to increase logging even more- See The Oregonian front page April 10, 2004.

This is a state forest. Voters paid for and replanted the forest following the Tillamook Burn. If it was OK in 1948 to ask voters through the ballot to pay for the restoration of the forest then it seems appropriate today that voters are allowed to weigh in on the question of whether the forest should be managed primarily for timber production or balanced to protect timber jobs and our watersheds and fish and wildlife habitat.

For more information visit www.tillamook5050.org

Vote Yes on 34.

Here's what I think is the main sticking point for me: Can someone boil down for me into clear and concise arguments why a locked-in 50/50 approach won't undermine the normal civic processes through which various interests are meant to be balanced?

Unacceptable answer: "Current processes aren't properly balancing those interests." What I'm looking for is an explanation that makes it clear why locking in a specific ratio is the answer, rather than reforming the balancing process is that process is currently broken.

"if that process is currently broken" not "is that process"

Parenthetically, I'm at least glad to see that I'm not the only reasonably intelligent person having trouble deciding on this measure.

One of the things that bothers me about 34 is the panel of experts chosen to make the decisions. The Measure specifies that "the Selection Committee for the Independent Restoration Science Team shall be solely composed of the Biology Department Chairperson from Portland State University, Oregon State University, and the University of Oregon." That selection committee chooses the experts for the committee.

Only one of our universities has a College of Foresty...a group of experts in active forest management versus various types of biological and environmental expertise. OSU has an excellent College of Forestry, but it is separate from the Biology Department, which is under the College of Science.

The Independent Science Restoration Team needs a range of expertise to come up with the best decisions, but this Measure has been written to exclude the experts who specialize in exploiting the forests. Thus, 34 is set up not to give us balanced forest management and preservation, but to give environmentalists a major leg up in preserving far more than half the forests in question.

That's why I can't support 34.

If you visit www.tillamook5050.org there is a discussion document on the scientific justification for 50/50.

It is also important to know that this ballot measure is statutory and thus there is some flexibility for the legislature to make changes as new knowledge becomes available to properly balance the values addressed in the measure.

As to the scientific panel - It is apparent from the current plan that science has been replaced with politics. By allowing scientists to recommend the 50% designations we start from a logical premise. These recommendations are then made to the Board of Forestry who must hold public hearings and adopt the recommendations or provide their reasoning for detering from the recommendations. The process is not being circumvented, rather it is enhanced.

I think the basic question that Ballot Measure 34 poses is do voters support balancing timber revenue and logging jobs with protection of our drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat and recreation when managing our state forests? Right now the state favors logging over other uses. Is this how Oregonians want State owned forests managed? Or do they prefer a balance? It's a policy question and as the owners of these state forests, voters have a right to weigh in on this decision.

NO on Everything. Stick with your general presumption. I hate "environmental" measures because they motivate the rural voters a whole lot more than the urban voters and then those voters vote straight Republican tickets. The reason there are almost no rural democratic legislators is because of measures like this one and previous "anti-rural" measures. Use the legislative, administrative, and when necessary, judicial processes to move the environmental agenda forward.

NO ON EVERYTHING. ABOLISH THE INITIATIVE.

I think the basic question that Ballot Measure 34 poses is do voters support balancing timber revenue and logging jobs with protection of our drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat and recreation when managing our state forests? Right now the state favors logging over other uses. Is this how Oregonians want State owned forests managed? Or do they prefer a balance? It's a policy question and as the owners of these state forests, voters have a right to weigh in on this decision.

See, the problem I have with this is it frames M34 as "this is how to have balance" -- without explaining why it's the only way to have balance. Is there no way "simply" (in quotes because these things are never simple) to fix the current process rather than lock-in a specific ratio that may or may not reflect the needs of reality at some point in the future?

That's still my sticking point, and I don't raise it again because I am unconvincable, but because I still don't see the firm reason why there isn't a way to fix whatever problems the current system has that doesn't involve a locked-in ratio.

b!X, I think yours is a great point.

It is customary for most of the money to fight a measure comes from those who stand to lose the most if the measure passes. But if you look at the public opposition to Measure 34 in the Voter's Pamphlet, you'll find it goes far beyond just the timber industry--including the Oregon Education Association, the Association of Oregon Counties, the Farm Bureau, Democratic lawmakers like Governor Kulongoski and State Senator Joan Dukes, and almost every other elected official in Tillamook and Clatsop Counties.

No matter how well intentioned its sponsors may be, this measure is simply a bad way to make law.

I don't think Measure 34 motivates the conservative right. Bush will. And so will the gay marriage issue. Measure 34 is a middle of the road approach that does not generate the outrage you generally see in environmental fights.

As to who is opposing Measure 34 - The timber compainies have provided 97% of the funding. That should tell you all you need to know. Along with the timber companies and governor teddy k, opposing us in the voters pamphlet, you also have the right wing groups like "Oregonians in Action" anti-land use group and the anti-tax group of Russ Walker, not to mention the pesticide folks. Not generally people I would associate with. But what the hell, teddy k is still looking for his constituents.

The good thing I suppose for those of us that are Kerry supporters - Measure 34 has diverted about $3 million from helping Bush and is being spent against Measure 34. Look for the silver lining.

And no, Measure 34 is not locking anything up. Not the forest or the law. It is a statutory measure, not a constitutional measure. I too use to be opposed to iniatives but after 20 years working with the legislature I find it an option worth considering.

And no, Measure 34 is not locking anything up. Not the forest or the law. It is a statutory measure, not a constitutional measure. I too use to be opposed to iniatives but after 20 years working with the legislature I find it an option worth considering.

I have no opposition to initiatives in and of themselves. But as for this, to say it doesn't lock things in is disingenuous. It may be a statutory change, but using that to suggest that the measure should be supported because the Legislature could just make some changes actually helps make my own point: If there are problems with the current system, then let's fix them in the Legislature starting from where we are now, rather than making a massive and drastic change that then might need to be rolled back.

The argument that this is simply a statutory measure that can be modified by the legislature is disingenuous. As soon as a legislator proposes to change any aspect of a measure passed by the voters, he or she is immediately shouted down by protests that "the voters have spoken!" and "don't thwart the will of the voters!"

Actually you are right. We always end up back at the legislature. But what I do know is public sentiment can move the legislature to do the right thing. And the initiative process is a tool in which to organize public sentiment which in turn can influence the legislature.

What we have seen for years is rollbacks in environmental issues. Even the Dem's have rolled or traded the environment for other important issues because publicly it is not a hot issue. An important issue but it falls short in getting the attention it deserves. Until the public speaks out through a statewide vote I am afraid we will continue to find the environment at the bottom of the barrel when decisions are made.

I hope the public wakes up before there is no clean water left to argue over or wild salmon to save! Will Measure 34 do it? I don't know. I hope it begins to turn the tide.

I'm with everyone who's on the fence. On the one hand, sometimes the only way to get something done is to do it yourself--particularly when the subject at hand is too hot for the legislature to handle. We have a lot of good examples there (bottle bill, death with dignity). But on the other hand, the ballot measure system is mainly useful at doing one clear thing well; too much complexity and you have a tangle of unintended consequences (measure 5).

So what about 50/50. I like the idea. The legislature is incapable of responsible governance at the moment. They're like 8-year-olds locked game of payback; all their energy goes to clever pranks to spring on each other. In this regard, the ballot measure is a breath of fresh air: it tries to balance competing needs and actually ensures timber harvest. That ain't your father's environmental proposal.

There's a certain calculation here for loggers--will they get more with this law than if subsequent ones come down the pike? It seems like a decent solution and one that begins at compromise from both sides.

So then the question is: is it too complex and will it have too many unintended consequences. This, for me, is the big sticking point. I'm extremely conservative with regard to ballot measures for this reason. I'm leaning toward the measure, but I'd hate to see a debacle arise from it's passage. Keep in mind, Portland liberals were the ones who made measure 5 pass.