Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

It's actually not accurate to say that wilderness designation is "forever"--in fact, one of the many, many provisions of this bill de-designates some wilderness in the Izembek Refuge in Alaska in order to effect a land exchange that makes way for a road that in turn benefits one town. Unfortunately, this horrible precedent--REMOVAL of wilderness protection-wasn't enough even to garner the big enviro groups'opposition to the overall bill.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Thanks for mentioning the land exchange, jk--it's a truly egregious provision that badly taints this bill. The land swap was negotiated by private parties in dispute--Mt Hood Meadows (MHM), which wanted to expand the resort and Hood River Valley people who didn't want the development to mar their views. The two parties reached a settlement of their issues, using our public land as the bargaining chip.

The exchange would be completed by fiat in this bill. The Forest Service (FS) would be insane to implement the land swap (and, indeed, opposes it), as it opens up Govt Camp to intensive development by MHM, while giving the public ownership of, and the FS responsibility for, the MHM Resort. Of course, the FS doesn't even have funding to take care of what it has now, let alone a crumbling resort. It's outrageous that federal legislation and our public land should be used to cater to the whims of private interests in such a cynical way--dressed up with wilderness.

Wilderness designation should be sought and secured the old fashioned way--in a real wilderness bill that doesn't add all sorts of complex land-use provisions and special land deals negotiated by and benefiting the powerful. See westernlands.org for more info on these issues.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context