News Tips
Letters to Editor
Subscriptions
Classified Ads
Contact Info


Gorge Weather


HOME

 


Wilderness
Bring clarity to Mount
Hood protections



Hood River News Editorial
August 26, 2006


A measure of guarded optimism is in order regarding last week’s proposal by Oregon senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith to add 125,000 more acres of wilderness to Mount Hood.

Following close on the heels of the well-received Mount Hood Legacy Bill, the Senate proposal makes matters a bit hazy. But political waters are easy to muddy, and clarity can be restored between now and September, when Wyden and Smith present their protection plan to the Senate.

The Senate’s political makeup, without the control of either party, makes it easier for a senator from either party to send the legislation off course.

On the trail and across the table, it was cross-party cooperation and community compromise that fostered both the House and Senate renditions of the wilderness expansion. That in itself is as inspiring as the view up Eliot Glacier on a crystal-clear evening.

But the discussion has shifted to the halls by the Potomac, and rarely can Foggy Bottom be described as crystal clear.
It’s too much to expect every senator from every state to demonstrate, let alone sympathize with, the bipartisan harmony by Oregon’s Congressional team.

However, the unanimous vote in July on the Mt. Hood Legacy Act should count for a great deal in the Senate’s consideration of the Smith-Wyden proposal.

It’s federal land they’re talking about but Oregonians — the main users and stewards of the land — have shown we want protection of forest and rivers.

The House proposal, with no detractors in D.C. and virtually none in Oregon, looked like it had legs. Then along came the larger, more ambitious Senate proposal. Wyden and Smith’s legislation is no shot-gun wedding; the two men have been working on this issue for years. But it lacks the lengthy political courtship that bolstered the Walden-Blumenauer contract.

If the senators can convince their election-year-sensitive colleagues that the bill won’t harm economic interests, the larger Senate version just might pass.

But in this case, larger is not necessarily better; realistically, the more compact of the two compacts is preferable.

Could the comparison of the two cause the Senate to say, “That’s too much car for us right now,” and walk off the lot? With less than two weeks’ worth of legislative days to work with in September, Wyden and Smith will need to work fast before the fall election break.

What’s important now is to reiterate to Senators Wyden and Smith, and Representatives Walden and Blumenauer, that Oregonians want the same spirit of cooperation to continue, for the sake of preserving as much of our natural heritage as possible on and around Mount Hood.

What should be impressed upon all members of the Senate is to look at wilderness preservation on Mount Hood on its own merits.

Which leads to a side issue in the Mount Hood discussion: The recent suggestions of inappropriate calculations and negotiations that went into the federal-private land swap with Mt. Hood Meadows over lands at Cooper Spur and Government Camp is itself inappropriate.

The land transfer part of the Legacy Bill was no ruse, no hidden trick. This wasn’t a 10-pound rock one hiker sneaks into another’s backpack.

Nor was it the kind of non-germane rider that many members of Congress are used to tacking onto a larger bill in order to bring pork home after the session. This was an agreement that serves to protect land and water resources on Mount Hood; natural values are hard to calculate, but that is what is at stake with the land swap.

From the start of the process, the parties involved in the transfer, starting with Walden and Blumenauer, openly discussed the transfer as part of the Legacy Act. They have vaunted the transfer since delivering the bill to their House colleagues. And in early summer, parties such as the Hood River Valley Residents Committee and Mt. Hood Meadows made a point of stressing the existence of the transfer to the media and to the public.

They looked upon the transfer, and rightfully so, as an integral part of the Legacy Act; as a vital example of public-partnership.