Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:29:49.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Do Challengers Succeed? Nongovernmental Actors, Administrative Agencies, and Legal Change: Shifting Rules for Oregon's Private Forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Ruth Langridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Regulatory regimes are notoriously resistant to change, so when less powerful actors manage to reshape long-established rules and gain increased access to a natural resource the interesting question is why? This article investigates relations between different claimant groups and the state in the reshaping of the regulations governing Oregon's private forestlands, how this process was mediated by broader political opportunities and constraints, and the conditions that supported a shift in the legal regime that benefited less advantaged interests. The intent is to deepen our understanding of the circumstances under which well-established rules of governance are altered. Analysis points to each of the following variables as significant for successful reform: (1) active challengers and their success in reframing issues to support their goals, (2) new political opportunities facilitating wider participation in the rulemaking process, and (3) concurrence between local and national aspirations supporting reform. While each condition is noteworthy, it is insufficient on its own. Rather, my study comparing two contested administrative rules suggests that a clear alignment of all three variables provides the strongest impetus for legislative and administrative rule changes at the state level benefiting less advantaged interests.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , Summer 2011 , pp. 662 - 693
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Ainsworth, Scott. 1997. The Role of Legislators in the Determination of Interest Group Influence. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (4): 517–33.Google Scholar
Associated Press. 1997. Legislation Aims Blow at Steep Slope Logging. Portland Oregonian, February 22.Google Scholar
Austen‐Smith, David, and Wright, John R. 1994. Counteractive Lobbying. American Journal of Political Science 38:25–44.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark, and Kusel, Jonathan. 2003. Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the Past, Crafting the Future. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Catherine A. 1982. Making the Most of the Best, Willamette Industries Seventy‐Five Years. Portland, OR: Willamette Industries, Inc.Google Scholar
Barnard, Jeff. 1991. Board Seeks Loose Limits on Clear‐cutting. Portland Oregonian, April 20, E4.Google Scholar
Barnard, Jeff. 1996a. Fatal Slide Began in 10‐year Old Clear‐cut. Portland Oregonian, November 23, B05.Google Scholar
Barnard, Jeff. 1996b. Forester Reported Slide Threat. Portland Oregonian, November 27, B01.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank, and Leech, Beth. 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Mahoney, Christine. 2002. Social Movements, the Rise of New Issues, and the Public Agenda. In Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy, ed. Meyer, David S., Jenness, Valerie, and Ingram, Helen, 65–86. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
Benford, Robert, and Snow, David. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26:611–39.Google Scholar
Bernton, Hal. 1997a. Of Clear Cuts and Mudslides. Portland Oregonian, February 2, A1.Google Scholar
Bernton, Hal. 1997b. Board Asks Timber Owners to Halt Steep Slope Logging. Portland Oregonian, March 6, A1.Google Scholar
Bernton, Hal. 1997c. High‐Risk Sites Divide Loggers. Portland Oregonian, April 30, B1.Google Scholar
Berry, Jefrey M. 1999. The New Liberalism: The Rising Power of Citizen Groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Brinckman, Jonathan. 1997. Law Bans Logging on Slippery Slopes. Portland Oregonian, July 19, B03.Google Scholar
Brown, G. 1978. Oregon's Forest Practices Act: An Early Appraisal. Journal of Forestry 76:12.Google Scholar
Brown‐Nagin, Tomiko. 2005. Elites, Social Movements and the Law: The Case of Affirmative Action. Columbia Law Review 105:1436–528.Google Scholar
Burstein, Paul, and Linton, April. 2002. The Impact of Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Social Movement Organizations on Public Policy: Some Recent Evidence and Theoretical Concerns. Social Forces 81 (2): 380–408.Google Scholar
Clawson, Dan, Newstadt, Alan, and Weller, Mark. 1998. Dollars and Votes: How Business Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Cleary, B. D., Greaves, K. D., and Harmann, R. K. 1978. The Oregon Forest Practices Act—An Interpretation in Regenerating Oregon's Forests. Corvallis: Oregon State University Extension Service.Google Scholar
Coglianese, Cary. 1997. The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking. Duke Law Journal 46:1255–1349.Google Scholar
Coglianese, Cary. 2005. The Internet and Citizen Participation in Rulemaking. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 1:33–57.Google Scholar
Cobb, Roger W., and Elder, Charles D. 1983. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Cortner, H. 1996. Public Involvement and Interaction. In Natural Resource Management: The Human Dimension, ed. Ewert, A. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Thomas R. 1974. Mills and Markets: A History of the Pacific Coast Lumber Industry to 1900. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Cronemiller, Lynn Foster. 1936. State Forestry in Oregon. PhD diss., Oregon State Agricultural College: Forest Engineering.Google Scholar
Cropper, Maureen L., Evans, William N., Berardi, Stephen J., Ducla‐Soares, Maria M., and Portney, Paul R. 1992. The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision‐making. Journal of Political Economy 100:175–97.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Daley, Dorothy. 2007. Citizen Groups and Scientific Decision‐making: Does Public Participation Influence Environmental Outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26:349–68.Google Scholar
Davis, Steven. 1994. Pluralism and Ecological Values: The Case of the Siskiyou National Forest 1983–1992. PhD diss., Loyola University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Riley E. 1991. Trends in Public Opinion toward Environmental Issues: 1965–1990. Society and Natural Resources 4:285–312.Google Scholar
Dur, Andreas, and De Bievre, Dirk. 2007. The Question of Interest Group Influence. Journal of Public Policy 27:1–12.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1990a. To Buffer or Not: That Is the Question for Northwest Forests. Portland Oregonian, September 16, A27.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1990b. On the Front Lines: A New Breed of Environmentalists. Portland Oregonian, September 16, A29.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1990c. Logging Critics Say Forestry Practices Act Needs Improvement. Portland Oregonian, December 11, B06.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1991a. Study of Logging Practices Requested. Portland Oregonian, January 11, B03.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1991b. Forestry Board Hears Plea to Save Trees. Portland Oregonian, March 7, E10.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1991c. Strife Hits Environmental Council. Portland Oregonian, March 24, D1.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1992. Timber Manager Says Forest Draft Limits Flexibility. Portland Oregonian, October 16, D07.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1993a. Group Seeks to Tighten Rules on Timber Operations. Portland Oregonian, January 29, C04.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1993b. Streamside Logging Regulations Shelved. Portland Oregonian, March 4, C10.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1994a. Forestry Rules Win Assent. Portland Oregonian, January 4, C1.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 1994b. Timberland Owners Face New Restrictions. Portland Oregonian, January 6, B4.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie, and Koberstein, Paul. 1990a. Forests in Distress. Portland Oregonian, September 16, A01.Google Scholar
Durbin, Kathie, and Koberstein, Paul. 1990b. Survival Hinges on Old‐growth Habitat. Portland Oregonian, September 20, Al, A17–A18.Google Scholar
Ellefson, Paul V., Cheng, Antony S., and Moulton, Robert J. 1995. Regulation of Private Forest Practices by State Governments. Station Bulletin 605 of the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43:51–8.Google Scholar
Espeland, Wendy. 2000. Bureaucratizing Democracy, Democratizing Bureaucracy. Law & Social Inquiry 25:1077–109.Google Scholar
Evans, Peter. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Flick, W. 1994. Changing Times: Forest Owners and the Law. Journal of Forestry 92 (5): 30–33.Google Scholar
Fortmann, Louise. 1990. The Role of Professional Norms and Beliefs in the Agency‐Client Relations of Natural Resource Bureaucracies. Natural Resources Journal 30 (2): 361–80.Google Scholar
Francis, John G. 1990. Natural Resources, Contending Theoretical Perspectives and the Problem of Prescription: An Essay. Natural Resources Journal 30 (2): 263–82.Google Scholar
Frymer, Paul. 2003. Acting When Elected Officials Won't: Federal Courts and Civil Rights Enforcement in U.S. Labor Unions, 1935–85. American Political Science Review 97:483–99.Google Scholar
Furlong, Scott R. 1997. Interest Group Influence on Rulemaking. Administration and Society 29:325–47.Google Scholar
Furlong, Scott R., and Kerwin, Cornelius M. 2005. Interest Group Participation in Rule Making: A Decade of Change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (3): 353–70.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1975. Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change. In The Law and Society Reader, ed. Abel, Richard, 297–323. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Glazer, Amihai, and Rothenberg, Lawrence. 2001. Why Government Succeeds and Why It Fails. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Golden, Marissa Martino. 1998. Interest Groups in the Rule‐making Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard? Journal of Public Administration and Theory 2:245–70.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Kenneth M. 1999. Interest Groups, Lobbying, and Participation in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, George A. 2001. Corporate Power and the Environment: The Political Economy of U.S. Environmental Policy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Giugni, Marco. 1998. Was It Worth the Effort? Outcomes and Consequences of Social Movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 24:371–93.Google Scholar
Giugni, Marco. 1999. How Social Movements Matter: Past Research, Present Problems, Future Developments. In How Social Movements Matter, ed. Marco, Giugni, McAdam, Doug, and Tilly, Charles, xiii–xxxiii. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Giugni, Marco. 2004. Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear and Peace Movements in Comparative Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Hahn, Harlan, and Kamieniecki, Sheldon. 1987 Referendum Voting: Social Status and Policy Preferences. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard, and Wayman, Frank. 1990. Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committee. American Political Science Review 84:797–820.Google Scholar
Hairston‐Strang, Anne, Adams, Paul, and Ice, George. 2008. The Oregon Forest Practices Act and Forest Research. Ecological Studies 199:95–113.Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hennessey, Peggy. 1987. Oregon Forest Practices Act: Unenforced or Unenforceable. Environmental Law 17:717.Google Scholar
Hill, Gail Kinsey. 1991a. Timber Industry Offers Logging Reform. Portland Oregonian, March 16, D01.Google Scholar
Hill, Gail Kinsey. 1991b. House, Senate Split on Terms of New Bill on Forest Practices. Portland Oregonian, June 26, B4.Google Scholar
Hill, Gail Kinsey. 1991c. Governor Signs into Law Forest Practices Act. Portland Oregonian, August 8, C04.Google Scholar
Hortsch, Dan. 1991. Senators Approve Bill to Limit, Restore Clear‐cuts. Portland Oregonian, May 31, C5.Google Scholar
Ice, George G., Beschta, Robert L., Craig, Raymond S., and Sedell, James R. 1989. Riparian Protection Rules for Oregon Forests. In Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference: Protection, Management, and Restoration for the 1990s; 1988 September 22–24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW‐110, ed. Abell, Dana L., Coordinator, Technical, 533–36. Berkeley, CA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Ice, George, Stuart, Gordon W., Waide, Jack B., Ireland, Lloyd C., and Ellefson, Paul. 1997. 25 Years of the Clean Water Act: How Clean Are Forest Practices? Journal of Forestry July:9–13.Google Scholar
Jewell, Christopher, and Bero, Lisa. 2006. Public Participation and Claimsmaking: Evidence Utilization and Divergent Policy Frames in California's Ergonomics Rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (4): 625–50.Google Scholar
Kadera, Jim. 1991. Changing Tree Rules Thwarting Industry. Portland Oregonian, July 7, DO1.Google Scholar
Kamieniecki, Sheldon. 2006 Corporate America and Environmental Policy: How Often Does Business Get Its Way? Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, David. 1986. The Decadent Forest. Audubon 88 (2): 46–73.Google Scholar
Kerwin, Cornelius M. 2003. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Kline, J., Benford, F., and Swenson, J. 2000. Historic and Projected Trends in Private Forest Land in the Western U.S. In Forest Fragmentation 2000: Sustaining Private Forests in the 21st Century, ed. DeCoster, Lester A., 73–79. Alexandria, VA: Sampson Group.Google Scholar
Lehne, Richard. 2001. Government and Business: American Political Economy in Comparative Perspective. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Lewis, Paul, and McGhee, Eric. 2001. The Local Roots of Federal Policy Change: Transportation in the 1990s. Polity 34 (2): 205–29.Google Scholar
Libby, Ronald T. 1998. Eco‐wars: Political Campaigns and Social Movements. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lipschutz, Ronnie, and Mayer, Judith. 2003. Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Rights, Rules and the Renegotiation of Resource Management Regimes. In The State and Social Power in Global Environmental Politics, ed. Lipschutz, Ronnie and Conca, Ken, 246–74. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lorensen, Ted, Andrus, Chip, and Runyon, John. 1994. The Oregon Forest Practices Act Water Protection Rules: Scientific and Policy Considerations. Report prepared by the Forest Practices Policy Unit, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, OR.Google Scholar
Low, N., and Gleeson, B. 1998. Justice, Society and Nature: An Exploration of Political Ecology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lubell, Mark. 2007. Local Policy Networks and Agricultural Watershed Management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 673–96.Google Scholar
Mascarenhas, Michael, and Scarce, Rik. 2004. The Intention Was Good: Legitimacy, Consensus‐Based Decision Making and the Case of Forest Planning in British Columbia, Canada. Society and Natural Resources 17:17–38.Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug, McCarthy, John D., and Zald, Mayer N., eds. 1996. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McKay, Amy, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2007. Interest Group Competition on Federal Agency Rules. American Politics Research 35 (May): 336–57.Google Scholar
Mertena, Bill. 1987. Panel Adopts New Rules on How Logging Is to Be Done. Portland Oregonian, November 4, D14.Google Scholar
Meyer, David S. 2003. Social Movements and Public Policy: Eggs, Chicken, and Theory. UC Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2m62b74d (accessed April 30, 2011).Google Scholar
Milstein, Michael. 2003. State Limits Role in Approving Logging on Slide‐Prone Slopes to Cut Liability. Portland Oregonian, January 28, A01.Google Scholar
Moreman, Dave. 1997. Written Plan Processing and Notification of Public Road Managers, Homeowners, and Renters Regarding Harvesting and Road Building operations of Certain High‐risk Sites. Memorandum of the Oregon Department of Forestry, April 21. On file with author.Google Scholar
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. White Paper on the Oregon Forest Practices Act. On file with author.Google Scholar
Niskanen, William. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine/Atherton.Google Scholar
Nixon, David C., Howard, Robert M., and Dewitt, Jeff R. 2002. With Friends Like These: Rule‐Making Comment Submissions to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12 (1): 59–76.Google Scholar
Nounes, Anthony J. 2002. Pressure and Power: Organized Interests in American Politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Olsen, E. D., Keough, D. S., and LaCourse, D. K. 1987. Economic Impact of Proposed Oregon Forest Practice Rules on Industrial Forest Lands in the Oregon Coast Range: A Case Study. Research Bulletin 61 (August), Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1972a. Forest Log, February 41 (7). On file with the Oregon Department of Forestry.Google Scholar
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1972b. Forest Log, October 42 (3). On file with the Oregon Department of Forestry.Google Scholar
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1984. Board of Forestry Takes New Shape. Forest Log, January 53 (6). On file with the Oregon Department of Forestry.Google Scholar
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1987. Forest Log, August–September. On file with the Oregon Department of Forestry.Google Scholar
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1997a. Landslide Risks to Public Safety and Public Property. Issue Paper. On file with author.Google Scholar
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1997b. Slides and the State of Oregon's Response. March. On file with the Oregon Department of Forestry.Google Scholar
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1997c. Draft Forest Practices News Note, April 23. On file with author.Google Scholar
Oregon Forest Industries Council. 2008. Keeping Private Forest Lands in Forest Use Requires Policies That Ensure Such Lands Can Be Managed Profitably as Forests. Position Statement, July 11. http://www.ofic.com/PDFs/land%20use%20and%20private%20property%20rights.pdf. (accessed October 22, 2010).Google Scholar
Oregon Governor's Office. 1997. Governor's Debris Avalanche Action Plan‐Summary. On file with author.Google Scholar
Pacific Northwest Loggers Association. 1937. Presenting the Rules for Forest Practices for the Douglas Fir Region. In Joint Committee on Forest Conservation, Forest Practices Handbook. Seattle, WA: Pacific Northwest Loggers Association.Google Scholar
Paris, Michael. 2001. Legal Mobilization and the Politics of Reform: Lessons from School Finance Litigation in Kentucky, 1984–1995. Law & Social Inquiry 26:631–84.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2000. Increasing Returns: Path Dependence and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–68.Google Scholar
Portland Oregonian. 1990. Day of Reckoning. Series of articles, September 15–21.Google Scholar
Portland Oregonian. 1991. Focus Forest Protection. Editorial, June 26, B08.Google Scholar
Portland Oregonian. 1992a. Stream Buffer Debated. November 7, D1.Google Scholar
Portland Oregonian. 1992b. Forestry Board Faces Difficult Political Decision. November 23, B2.Google Scholar
Press, Daniel, and Mazmanian, Daniel A. 2003. Understanding the Transition to a Sustainable Economy. In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty‐first century, 5th ed., ed. Vig, Norman J. and Kraft, Michael E., 275–98. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Pyles, M. R., and Skaugset, A. E. 1997. Landslides and Forest Practice Regulation in Oregon. In: Environmental, Groundwater, and Engineering Geology: Applications from Oregon, ed. Burns, Scott, 481–88. Belmont, CA: Star Publishing.Google Scholar
Pyles, Marvin, and Swanson, Fred. 1997. Forest Practices and Landslides: Local vs. Landscape Scale and Contradictions. Paper presented at a seminar series to examine flood issues, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, May 28. On file with author.Google Scholar
Quirck, Paul J. 1981. Industry Influence in Federal Regulation. Princeton, NJ: University Press.Google Scholar
Ribot, Jesse. 2003. Market‐State Relations and Environmental Policy: Limits of State Capacity in Senegal. In The State and Social Power in Global Environmental Politics, edited by Lipschutz, Ronnie and Conca, Ken. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ribot, J., and Peluso, N. L. 2003. A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology 68 (2): 153–81.Google Scholar
Rice, Teresa, and Souder, Jon. 1998. Pulp Friction and the Management of Oregon's State Forests. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 13:209–73.Google Scholar
Robbins, William G. 1985. The Social Context of Forestry: The Pacific Northwest in the Twentieth Century. Western Historical Quarterly 16 (4): 413–27.Google Scholar
Sadler, Russell. 1987. Forestry Board Flawed. Portland Oregonian, May 11.Google Scholar
Salazar, Debra J. 1985. Political Processes and Forest Practice Legislation. PhD diss., University of Washington. On file with author.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1935. Politics, Pressures and the Tariff: A Study of Free Private Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown in the 1929–1930 Revision of the Tariff. New York: Prentice‐Hall.Google Scholar
Schlozman, K., and Tierney, J. 1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Schon, Donald, and Rein, Martin. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schroeder, J. E. 1971. Programs and Policies—Oregon Department of Forestry. In Proceedings of a Symposium: Forest Land Uses and Stream Environment. October 19–21, ed. Krygier, J. T. and Hall, J. D., 215–18. Corvallis: Oregon State University, School of Forestry and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.Google Scholar
Sidle, Roy, Pearce, Andrew J., and O'Loughlin, Colin L. 1985. Hillslope Stability and Land Use. Water Resources Monograph, Series 11. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. On file with author.Google Scholar
Smith, Mark A. 2000. American Business and Political Power: Public Opinion Elections and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Snow, David A., Burke Rochford, E. Jr., Worden, Steven K., and Benford, Robert D. 1986. Frame Alignment Processes, Micro‐mobilization and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review 52:464–81.Google Scholar
Snow, David A., and Benford, Robert D. 1988. Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization. In From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Structures across Cultures, 197–217. Vol. 1 of International Social Movement Research, ed. Klandermans, Bert, Kriesi, Hanspeter, and Tarrow, Sidney. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Spiesschaert, Darrel, Carleson, D., Carter, G., Duncan, S., Madison, B., Mason, R., and Pyles, M. 1982. Minimizing Debris Avalanches on Forest Land: A Report to the State Forester. December. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. On file with author.Google Scholar
Steinman, Erich. 2005. Legitimizing American Indian Sovereignty: Mobilizing the Constitutive Power of Law through Institutional Entrepreneurship. Law and Society Review 39:759–92.Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teske, Paul. 1991. Interests and Institutions in State Regulation. American Journal of Political Science 35:139–54.Google Scholar
Wald, Kenneth D., Button, James W., and Rienzo, Barbara A. 1996. The Politics of Gay Rights in American Communities: Explaining Antidiscrimination Ordinances and Policies. American Journal of Political Science 40:1152–78.Google Scholar
West, William F. 2004. Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis. Public Administration Review 64 (1): 66–80.Google Scholar
Wilson, Albert W. 1965. A New Era for “Big W.” Pulp and Paper, May 10, 29 and 34.Google Scholar
Wood, Dan B. 1988. Principals, Bureaucrats, and Responsiveness in Clean Air Enforcement. American Political Science Review 82 (1): 213–37.Google Scholar
Yackee, Jason Webb, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. A Bias towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy. Journal of Politics 68 (1): 128–39.Google Scholar
Yackee, S. W. 2006. Sweet‐talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 103–24.Google Scholar
Yaffee, Steven Lewis. 1994. The Wisdom of the Spotted Owl. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Young, Oran. 1982. Resource Regimes—Natural Resources and Social Institutions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544 (2006).Google Scholar
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387 (2006).Google Scholar
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370f (2006).Google Scholar
Oregon Forest Practices Act. Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 527.610–527.770, 527.990(1), 527.992 (2009).Google Scholar