SALEM -- Sure, Oregon practically invented recycling, and we were among the first to protect our beaches and control sprawl. But that was a generation ago.
Today, Oregon conservation groups don't have enough political clout in the state Capitol to get much of anything done. The environmental lobby had high hopes and a common agenda for the 2005 Legislature but ended up playing defense. Advocates acknowledge they likely will remain on the defensive leading up to the November 2006 election as polls show Oregonians are more worried about the economy, education and health care than they are about the environment.
Even among the Democrat-controlled state Senate, "there aren't many people who place a priority on protecting the environment," says Sen. Charlie Ringo, D-Beaverton, a former Sierra Club state chairman who more recently headed the Senate's Environment and Land Use Committee.
The disconnect between Oregon conservation groups and elected leaders extends to the governor's office.
The year's hottest environmental initiative -- adopting California's stricter vehicle emissions standards -- originated with Gov. Ted Kulongoski, not the environmental lobby. Conservation groups put up a fight when the Legislature tried to stop the state from adopting the clean-air standards, But they didn't sway lawmakers, and the governor used his veto to move forward.
In a report this week, the Oregon League of Conservation Voters gave the 2005 Legislature a failing grade for not doing enough to help the environment. For conservationists, the disappointing legislative session followed the 2004 election, when they suffered major setbacks.
Voters rejected a conservation-backed Measure 34, which would have required state forests to be managed for permanent restoration of old growth as well as timber production. At the same time, voters supported Measure 37, a land-use law favoring property owners that was opposed by a coalition that included environmental groups.
Considering an estimated 150,000 Oregonians belong to various conservation groups, "there's a lot of head-scratching going on right now," said Matt Blevins, a lobbyist for the Oregon Environmental Council.
Press the question with lawmakers and lobbyists, and they recite a list of reasons why conservation groups can't get political traction.
Start with money.
"In many cases, the clout you have is directly proportional to the campaign contributions that you raised and distributed," said Douglas Myers, who lobbies for four environmental groups.
The Oregon League of Conservation Voters' political action committee spent nearly $400,000 in 2004. By comparison, the Oregon Forest Industries Council political action committee spent about $360,000.
But the conservationists were outspent by the combined forces of timber, industry, business and agriculture.
More important than campaign cash is trust forged over years between legislators and lobbyists, argues Paulette Pyle, lobbyist for Oregonians for Food and Shelter, which represents agriculture and timber interests.
Industry and natural resource representatives have worked the Capitol for decades, while conservation groups send new faces. If they sent anyone.
Pyle adds that there's more to Oregon than metro Portland. On the environment, she says, "I think the Legislature reflects the people."
Oregon conservationists learned a hard lesson this year: They can't always count on their friends.
Andy Kerr, a consultant to a number of conservation groups, notes that Democrats welcome support from conservationists but they also depend upon labor unions to provide campaign money and volunteers.
Says Kerr: "When it comes to a fight between labor and the environment, we lose."
Conservation leaders say they need to break through the notion that the environment belongs to Democrats. And they're working on legislative relationships.
More important than campaign cash is trust forged over years between legislators and lobbyists, argues Paulette Pyle, lobbyist for Oregonians for Food and Shelter, which represents agriculture and timber interests.
Industry and natural resource representatives have worked the Capitol for decades, while conservation groups send new faces. If they sent anyone.
Pyle adds that there's more to Oregon than metro Portland. On the environment, she says, "I think the Legislature reflects the people."
Oregon conservationists learned a hard lesson this year: They can't always count on their friends.
Andy Kerr, a consultant to a number of conservation groups, notes that Democrats welcome support from conservationists but they also depend upon labor unions to provide campaign money and volunteers.
Says Kerr: "When it comes to a fight between labor and the environment, we lose."
Conservation leaders say they need to break through the notion that the environment belongs to Democrats. And they're working on legislative relationships.
"The Legislature is loathe to contradict the will of the voters," he says.
Others suggest the environmental movement has grown out of touch with Oregonians.
"The environment is an important issue to people, but it is no longer a key deciding factor for most legislators. For me it is," said Rep. Jackie Dingfelder, D-Portland.
A spring 2004 survey conducted for the Oregon League of Conservation Voters found Oregonians ranked the environment ninth on a list of important issues. Gas prices ranked No. 1, followed by the economy and jobs, health care and education.
That's not surprising, especially with people worried about jobs, health care and terrorism, said Bob Meadow, a Washington, D.C.-based pollster who did the Oregon survey.
Oregonians do not appear to be clamoring for "major new environmental laws," Meadow says. But that could change if the public believed Oregon was rolling back environmental protections, he says.
For now, even a whiff of environmental lobby support is enough to kill a bill.
Blevins says he was told to stay away from a bill promoting electronics recycling last session. Representatives for 1000 Friends of Oregon, a land-use group that allies with environmental organizations and farmers, were shut out of discussions about how the Legislature might modify Measure 37.
"We were told we were unrealistic," said Bob Stacey, 1000 Friends' director. "And politically unviable."
Writer Dave Hogan of The Oregonian contributed to this report. Michelle Cole: 503-294-5143; michellecole@news.oregonian.com
Source: