The focus on permanent protection of the remaining old growth forests, along with increasing concern about commodity uses on federal land in general, led OWC to change its name to the Oregon Natural Resources Council in 1982. By this time the organization had two prominent staff members, James Monteith and Andy Kerr, who became known for their uncompromising positions and an often glib style. Passage of two wilderness bills (in 1978 and 1984) represented important milestones for ONRC, but the old growth issue had already intensified to where the organization could not afford to disband or dwell on its accomplishments for long (10). Timber companies and their allies portrayed ONRC as their main nemesis throughout the 1980s, especially after the environmentalists began using litigation as their main weapon against timber sales on federal land (11).
Wendell Wood caught the attention of Monteith and Kerr in 1981, shortly after he moved to Eugene from Myrtle Creek. He quickly became a leading figure in the organization and has held a variety of posts, both as a board and staff member. As a spokesman for ONRC, Wood personifies a form of political activity described by some social scientists as “elite.”
This term, according to Linda Grabner in her book Wilderness as Sacred Space, refers to the methods, style, and organization of conservation groups like ONRC:
“Political elites are highly organized and contain relatively few members …Elites pursue “practical” politics; that is, they seek specific and tangible benefits which are best obtained by persuading governments to act on their behalf. The link between political acts and consequences is direct, with elite actors constantly checking their actions and assumptions to correct errors and achieve greater effectiveness . . .” (12)
Grabner states that effectiveness is dependent upon the organization solving two related problems:
“…to maintain and increase effectiveness in day-to-day practical politics, and to generate and disseminate political symbols effective in mobilizing mass support in times of crisis. Day-to-day political effectiveness depends in part on the elite’s ability to demonstrate to allied and opposing elites that it enjoys mass support. Elites are most successful in mobilizing mass opinion when elite and mass share common images … Elite mobilizations of mass opinion may be both skillfully performed and free from cynical exploitation: the elite perceives its action as a call for help on an issue which affects the vital interests of both the elite and the broad public.” (13)
