Letter to the Editor 7/4/2000
I would respectfully submit that it is Margjorie Hoye (“Save the Forest Experience” 7/2) and not Joani Dufourd (“Environmental Elitism” 6/23) who is the one that fails to see the forest for the trees. Joani Dufourd correctly identifies the issue; these are public lands, owned by all of us, paid for by all of us, to be accessed by all of us!! As an able bodied, tax paying individual, I would gladly pay a $30.00 annual fee if it were to help enable the aged, infirmed, handicapped or the very young to also enjoy our forests, as I do. This does not mean our forests are becoming, “Disneyfied” or lost to big business. This is called having a social conscience, “helping your neighbors”; “the greater good”; concepts lost in this me first society. Margjorie’s concern for the “sanctity” of our lands and misguided zeal to save the human species are simply a selfish excuse to keep our public lands as her own personal property. We can see examples of this philosophy expounded daily from the environmental community as they strive to designate millions of acres of public lands as either Roadless or Wilderness. Both of these designations will effectively prevent all but a chosen few like Margjorie from visiting the public lands we all own. As concerned and reasonable citizens, we need to end this sham of environmental elitism and endorse Multiuse designations for our public lands, for All of us now, and All of our children in the future.
Letter to the editor 8/5/2000
How refreshing to read the Bulletin editorial of 7/26, “BLM must move carefully in limiting access to land”! After years of neglect in the ORV arena, the Bulletin has correctly concluded that ORV usage on BLM lands can be managed and may actually be in the best long-term interest for some of our public lands. I thought it a reasonable editorial expressing a sensible solution. Of course, today’s elitist environmentalist just couldn’t resist, note Steven Huddleston’s 8/3-rebuttal “Restrict ORV use”. The implication that the editorial was co-written by COMAC is absurd; the club can’t even attract the Bulletin to cover “Kid’s Day”, a yearly event sponsored by COMAC that is the delight of riding parents and kids alike, let alone dictate editorial policy. I found it interesting that Steven and his ilk propose only “sensible” plans while COMAC with it’s alleged BLM “pro-users” are labeled “aggressive”. Sounds like typical elitist rhetoric to me. It has been my experience that the typical “sensible” plan proposed by environmentalists is closure. However, my optimism still abounds; if the Bulletin can see reason, then can the BLM, and the legal system be far behind? Perhaps they have finally realized that the majority of ORVers are tax paying families, concerned enough to join weekend work parties in the Millican Valley, working in the environment and not talking about it. Perhaps we are entering into an era where reasonable people with reasonable solutions will be able to manage our public lands without interference by elitist environmentalists.
Letter to the Editor 1/20/2001
As a born and bred Californian who has traveled thru much of this great land, I can say with little equivocation that Californians are some of the most arrogant critters I have run across. One has only to look at the current electric fiasco to bear witness to my premise; Californians will do anything to keep from marring their own landscape with power plants when they can talk other states into doing their dirty work. California was a jewel decades ago but mismanagement and arrogance has left it the sham I see today. In my book, Californians fatal flaw is they want it all but they don’t want to pay for it. This brings me to the point of this letter, Bend Growth. Oddly enough, many of the most anti-growth advocates I have spoken to are from California! Are ex-Californians, who have expertise in ruining one state, here trying to assuage their guilt and save another? Most born and bred Oregonians I’ve met seem to favor growth, as long as it’s managed properly and we learn from past mistakes. California’s mistake was thinking there would be no price to pay. Hopefully the residents of Bend understand there will be as steep a price to pay from no-growth as there is from wild growth. The only solution is to manage growth. Pay for it now or pay for it later, it’s your choice. My advice is do it now, it just keeps getting more expensive as each day slips by.
Deschutes County Commissioners 4/4/2003
I understand you are considering a proposal for designating the Badlands area east of Bend as a Wilderness area. I believe this to be the wrong solution and urge you to designate the Badlands as a multiple use area for the following reasons:
· The kinds of problems that have occurred in the Badlands, vandalism, trash, defaced trees are a management problem. We don’t close down areas of our cities just because a few bad people deface our buildings or leave trash on the ground. Yes, it would be easier to shut everybody out and close the gates, but does that make it the right decision? I reiterate: empowered management will solve these issues. There appears to be a kind of knee jerk reaction by the environmental community that when there is a problem, the solution is to permanently close that area down. This solution, while effective and easy does not provide for future access for our children and their children. Reasonable people with reasonable solutions manage their problems; they do not shut them behind gates and fences as the Wilderness designation does.
· Designating the Badlands a Wilderness area really means only people with horses or people with strong legs will have access. The old and frail, the young and weak, the handicapped, people with weak hearts, people who just don’t like to walk will all be denied access. These people pay taxes just like the physically capable and yet they will be denied access. This hardly seems like the solution we can be proud of.
· By designating the Badlands a multiple use area (Backcountry Designation legislation is under development) you can provide access to all the people not just a select few. Respect for the environment cannot be taught only in the classroom. Families need areas to recreate and educate their children about the beauty and the fragility of nature. Protecting the environment and protecting the people’s access to the environment do not need to be mutually exclusive concepts; it just won’t be the easy way out.
Letter to the editor 6/9/2003
In response to Robert Speik’s “Off-roaders have no reason to fear Badlands Wilderness designation” I would like to offer the following: It’s all about credibility!! We have everything to fear from your efforts to close the Badlands, even just 10 miles because you and your environmentalist community have not demonstrated any reliable effort to partner or collaborate with the OHV community. Instead of trying to find common ground your community’s articles and viewpoints are typically emotional and inaccurate. The reality of the situation is that OHV sales have tripled in the past years; more and more FAMILIES are enjoying our back country and as usual you and your community are focused only on how you can reduce the dwindling areas we have available. It is in the OHV community’s best interest to both protect our backcountry environment from the vandalism and damage you have described AND create NEW opportunities for our families to recreate. Your efforts to reduce OHV areas are in fact creating the very damage and over use you seem to care so much about. Can you and your community compromise, can you fight to add more lands for OHV use? I have always believed that reasonable people can create reasonable solutions. Can you put aside your environmentalist rhetoric and forge a solution that meets the needs of the OHV community as well as your own? As one biker to another?
Letter to the editor 10/27/2003
Recall Badlands BLM Officials
I wish there was a way to recall our BLM Management Officials.
This hurry and Close the Badlands Down while Congress contemplates Wilderness Designation makes no sense. Will a major disaster befall the Badlands if we WAIT? Mother Nature knows how to conduct major disasters; Mt. Saint Helens, B & B fire, and yet the land recovers. Can anyone explain in scientific terms what the RUSH is and why there is only a single management solution? Should conclusive, repeatable science dictate how we mange our recreational and other environmental hot spots or do we prefer emotion?
I want to recall the management whose job it is to manage this resource with cost/benefit analysis and multiple potential solutions Let me put it another way, you are the CEO of land stores across the western states. You do a good business; thousands visit your stores. You see a report from your Badlands store manager who has a vandalism and trash problem. You contact the manager asking what ideas he has for solving the problem. He says, “The only solution I have is to close down the store.” How long would you keep that manager? Who is the BLM manager responsible for recommending only one solution? Why aren’t we replacing this person with someone capable of managing the resource challenges the Badlands presents?
In an Oct 18, 2003 Bulletin article a BLM Official is quoted “Keeping motorized vehicles out of the Badlands could cut down on vandalism, litter and other environmental impacts in the popular area”. Please present conclusive scientific evidence linking only OHV usage to vandalism and trash dumping. Show me photographs (un-retouched please) of an ATV/dirt bikes towing trash or mattresses and dumping in the desert. Ever see a rig on Highway 20E loaded with 3 ATV’s, 2 dirt bikes, ’87 Amana Refer w/blown pump and 5 Hefty’s. The only evidence presented is “spotted owl science” concerning sage grouse and deer/elk mating habits in the Millican Valley. If you are unfamiliar with the term, consider what happened years ago when we had scientific reports stating that the timber industry was the primary reason for the demise of the spotted owl. Years later, it is uncovered that Mother Nature herself is killing off the spotted owls. As a State, we are all the poorer for this bogus science.
There are bad apples in every crowd. Sure, there is a minority of OHVers who have littered and vandalized. Do we accept a standard that demands closure of our recreation areas because a small minority abuses the privilege? Will snowmobile, hiker, hunter, mountain biker, and horse enthusiasts be able to stand up to these same levels of scrutiny? Be aware, the Close It If Anyone Abuses It Rule will eventually apply to all. The OHV community just happens to be the easy target of BLM management and environmentalist groups today.
The OHV
community does not need sympathy from local government or news organizations; it
does need help and support. Riding areas have been significantly reduced over
the past decade and continue to be threatened. The Millican Plateau Trails will
be impacted by the West Butte Road
project. A dozen or so trails, which cross over the road, will likely be
closed. The East Fort Rock Trails has areas in dispute around the Pine Mountain
area and access to the South and North Millican Trails is drastically curtailed
seasonally thanks to “spotted owl science” advocated by environmentalists with
well-paid lawyers. My prediction (purely un-scientific) is that within 5 years
we Central Oregonians will have 50% less riding areas and 10 years from now we
will have NONE, ZIP, ZERO. Consider the California OHV communities who have to
drive many hours to reach their riding areas. So if you are a family with
ATV’s, dirt bikes, jeeps, motorized hunters, local OHV retailers, restaurant,
grocery, motel, gasoline stores or just an interested bystander, closing the
Badlands is bad for business, bad for the local economy and bad for Central
Oregonians.
Why would I vote to recall our BLM Management Officials if I could?
They would rather cater to the indecision of a distant Congress and environmentalists than fight to support the hundreds of responsible Central Oregonian families who are their neighbors, supporting the local economy and actually using and enjoying the Badlands. We deserve more from our local government and agencies.
Ask Questions, Demand Answers, It’s Your Government
BLM in Prineville is seeking public comments to Jan 15