Opinion No dominion over the earth

I am writing in response to Craig Eisenbeis' opinion piece, "Jobs vs. Environment?" published February 5, in The Nugget.

While my name is not nearly as entertaining as the one he came up with to mock those who are concerned about our effects on the natural landscape, I do care deeply about the northwest, the State of Oregon, and the Sisters area in particular.

I grew up in Sisters, my parents grew up in Redmond, my grandparents and great-grandparents grew up in Prineville.

I don't mention this to brag of the fact that I am a fifth generation Oregonian, but to point out that those who owe their very existence to the continued economic viability of the region can also have a point of view that encompasses environmental protection.

The governor will have plenty of economic advisors telling him how he can create more jobs.

My concern, and the concern of many, is that in the past, these advisors (and many in business) tend to focus simply on the direct economics of a program without taking into account the externalities involved.

The governor's environmental advisor is there to provide an insight into any environmental external costs associated with proposals, as a balance to business interests.

The Oregon Department of Forestry has proven to be lax in their protection of the environment, to the point of abandoning environmental reviews altogether to avoid owning up to the fact that their policies are a factor in the demise of a protected species. (See Oregonian article dated January 28, 2003, "State Limits Role In Approving Logging On Slide-Prone Slopes To Cut Liability").

More importantly, I would like to address the paternalistic notion that Mr. Eisenbeis expresses when he says, "In the book of Genesis, man is granted dominion over the earth."

This is the same argument used throughout history to rationalize such ignoble acts as the near genocide of the Native American people, 18th century imperialism and the slave trade.

I am happy that Mr. Eisenbeis' belief system gives him the salve to soothe his conscience the next time a species goes extinct.

His point that this is an admonishment to steward the land is ridiculous given the history of our attempts at stewardship.

Forest managers thought they were acting in everyone's best interests when they began eradicating fire from the west's forests over 100 years ago, but any credible forester today will tell you that was a mistake.

Furthermore, my religion does not teach that I have dominion over the earth.

Is Mr. Eisenbeis going to force me into his beliefs? That usually only happens in fundamentalist states like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Last I checked, our constitution provides for the separation of church and state.

Let's keep your God out of our policy decisions.

The statement that sometimes people have to come before snails or fish is interesting since the title of Mr. Eisenbeis' essay opined that neither should have to come before the other, that we can have both jobs and a healthy environment.

Now he says that sometimes we need to hurt the environment for the benefit of some people?

An effective environmental advisor should have the scientific and environmental background to advise the governor on the potential risks of proposed programs.

Sadly, Jim Brown has only shown a history of acquiescing to corporate interests.