January 25, 2023

 

OSU Board of Trustee members

 

It is disappointing but not surprising that your meeting was again held during business hours and in the same intimidating format. I can assure you that you’ve excluded at least half of Oregonians.

 

I will begin by reminding you of a couple of lines from ORS 352.025 [A board will:]

 

(1) (d) “Act in the best interest of both the university and the State of Oregon as a whole.”

 

And

 

(2) (c) “Legal title to all real property, whether acquired before or after the creation of a governing board, through state funding, revenue bonds or philanthropy, shall be taken and held in the name of the State of Oregon, acting by and through the governing board.”

 

These both apply to this discussion. You are directed to act in the best interest of not only OSU, but the State of Oregon as a whole and that means in the best interest of all Oregonians, not just a handful of academics. AND the McDonald/Dunn Research Forest is owned by all of us not OSU and certainly not the College of Forestry. This is an appropriate issue for you to address.

 

It is discouraging to receive letters from Chairman Schueler that clearly indicate that he believes that the OSU Board of Trustees is a branch of the OSU administrative structure. You are not.

 

In a letter from Chairman Schueler dated 10/22/22: “We will rely upon Irem, Tom, and Steve to schedule a meeting . . .”

 

To my knowledge, none of these people has contacted anyone to schedule a meeting. My only contact has been with Steve Clark who has denied my request for a waiver of fees on a Public Records Request for a tiny bit of financial data related to the OSU Research Forests logging activity. There is a total lack of transparency in the management of the OSU Research Forests.

 

In a letter dated 12/7/22 Chairman Schueler responds to my statement to the BOT on 10/28, 2022 notes the people who reviewed speaker’s comments to the BOT. This is further evidence that Chairman Schueler considers the OSU BOT to be a branch of the OSU Administration, as only two BOT members were included in the response to those who commented at the BOT meeting. The others involved were all OSU administrators or secretaries Don’t the rest of you have an interest in this issue? What is your purpose on the board? Do you feel an obligation to serve all Oregonians?

 

And there is this final paragraph: “In the meantime, I have copied Dean Tom DeLuca here so that he can provide you with an update on the planning process.” From DeLuca? Crickets. Nothing. There is a total lack of transparency in the OSU College of Forestry.

 

Perhaps we on this side of the opaque curtain have assumed too much knowledge on the part of BOT members. Are you aware that the McDonald/Dunn Research Forest is 11,250 acres. Do you know where it is located? How to access it? Have you ever visited it?

 

At the October BOT meeting, I extended an invitation to each of you, not as BOT members, but as Oregonians to sit down with us to chat about our rights and responsibilities as Oregonians towards our public land. Crickets again. I extend here another invitation. I live adjacent to one of the major entry points to the OSU McDonald Research Forest. Contact me and I’ll take you on a short walking tour where you can see some riparian zone, some second growth timber, some clearcuts. There are no old trees in the Oak Creek drainage where I live, they’ve all been cut down to produce revenue—remember “Working Forest? However, there are some old trees in the Soap Creek drainage, and I’m sure we could find someone who would gladly take you on a walking tour there.

 

Are you aware that the OSU College of Forestry has just received a gift from the Oregon State Lands Board (Governor, Secretary of State, and Treasurer) to have management authority over 50,000 acres of the Elliott State Research Forest for them to manage as a “Working Forest?” How much public land is enough for OSU? This is a gift to OSU from the good people of Oregon. How much is enough? Why does the OSU CoF need to continue prioritizing revenue generation from the public land currently called the McDonald/Dunn Research Forest? OSU now has 50,000 acres of public land in the Elliott State Research Forest. How much is enough?

 

McDonald/Dunn Research Forest should be a forest reserve.

 

Are you aware that there isn’t a hundred acres of primary forest on the west side of the Willamette Valley (a primary forest is a forest that has existed since ancient times or that has remained relatively undisturbed by human activity). A Kalupayan transported ahead in time from 1820 would not recognize this place. White people have mowed the forests down. Why not begin a management program that will return the McDonald/Dunn Research Forest back into something that a Kalapuyan would recognize? You can help this become a reality. You have that power.

 

A huge issue in 2022 is Climate Chaos. It has been well established that mature (old growth) forests sequester carbon at a much higher rate than monoculture tree farms. Management of the McDonald/Dunn Research Forests should prioritize carbon sequestration and research. Currently there is none. None.

 

Speaking of Kalapuyans. Are you familiar with the Morrill Act? We all know that OSU is a Land Grant College, but what does that mean? Well, sadly it means that under the Morrill Act, parcels of land owned by Indigenous people were expropriated by the Federal Government and given to universities. The “land” in “Land Grant University” was expropriated Indigenous land. OSU benefitted from the Morrill Act by receiving land with a current value of over $4 million. This land has all been sold and the proceeds used to benefit OSU, which had no Indigenous students at that time. Anyone interested in understanding this better, please contact me. What a wonderful gesture by OSU to turn the McDonald/Dunn Research Forest into a reserve as compensation for this travesty. Perhaps the “Kalapuyan Reserve.”

The timber industry tells us over and over that forests are a crop like corn. Grow and cut, grow and cut. But there is a significant difference. You can change your mind next year in a corn field. But in a forest, when you cut down a 250-400 year old tree in the McDonald Research Forest, you’ve made a decision for the next six to ten generations, because that is how long it will take for replacement tree to be there. Even cutting down one hundred year old trees as the College of Forestry did in 2022, means that a decision has been made for the next three generations. These hundred year old trees were just coming into their maximum carbon sequestration age. POW! gone.

 

When you support the current management of the OSU Research Forests either overtly or with your apathy, you are denying future generations the right to make their own decisions. The timber industry dinosaurs and their sycophants in the OS College of Forestry will be dead and gone many generations before their actions can be overcome. Think about this. OSU is supposedly here for its students. Students that are concerned about the future. You have an obligation to the future. To these students. Prioritize carbon sequestration and research.

 

I do hope that you listened to the students who spoke to you on January 20, 2023. They are the future. They are the ones that will be dealing with the unconscionable  decisions being made today.

 

Finally, the Oregon Values and Beliefs Center, a well-respected surveying entity, asked Oregon residents, aged 18 and up a series of questions about Oregon’s forests.

 

When asked to name the biggest benefits of state forests the rankings in descending order: “Habitat for wildlife” (OSU doesn’t even have a wildlife inventory for its “Research” forests); then “Water for fish;” followed by “Water for drinking;” then “Recreation,” “Beauty,” Carbon storage,” in descending order.  “Jobs” followed by the bottom of the ranking Timber harvest” and “Lumber for construction.” The OSU CoF is out of sync with the public land owners.

 

Furthermore, survey respondents say that 43% say our forests are over-logged. Just 11% of young people say that forests are not logged enough, while 61% over 65 said so.

 

62% want more forests managed by tribes.

 

These results were no surprise for me. For twenty-two years in my “Sustainability for the Common Good” class at OSU students, when asked to rank the value of public land, consistently ranked extractive values below wildlife, fish, clean water.

 

Come into the future. Stop supporting dinosaurs. Think of your children, grandchildren. Stop being bystanders. Finally, please re-read: ORS 352.025 (1)(d) and (2)(c) You can make a difference.

 

Thank you for reading this.

 

Dr. Steve Cook

Corvallis