The following are articles, letters and fragments I have submitted to various media concerning preservation of the Owyhee Canyonlands. They are in reverse chronological order.
Ontario Argus Observer February 2, 2017
No monument a welcome development for all parties
Shortly before the Obama administration ended, Steve Russell, chair of the Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition, posted an open letter calling on the president of Keen Footwear to withdraw the Owyhee Canyonlands from the company’s “Live Monumental” campaign. Ultimately, however, President Obama departed without acting on the proposal.
While expressing relief, OBSC secretary Andy Bentz commented “there is work to be done.” Not declaring the Owyhee Canyonlands a monument, he said, “gives us all time to build a better plan for this landscape we all enjoy, love and depend on for the livelihoods of our communities.” By “all” I assume he meant everyone concerned about the future of the Owyhee Canyonlands. This is a welcome development.
Now is the time for all sides to reflect on what has transpired. In a few months, with the example of the Owyhee Initiative in mind, the different parties could invite an honest broker to sit down with them to initiate a conversation addressing the major concerns of each. Discussion could begin by identifying issues where they hold similar positions–feral horses, invasive species and unrestricted OHV use, for example–and then examining how they might address them collaboratively.
The process would be slow, but it could enable each side to better explain its concerns, understand those of others, and begin building trust. It would provide an opportunity to dispense with the heated rhetoric and unsupported assertions that have characterized much of the discussion so far and to foster deliberate examination of such matters as the economic benefits of conservation, the state of grazing under wilderness, and the challenges of the aridization and wildfires accompanying climate change.
This approach could result not only in finding common ground, but could provide a badly needed example in the current climate of how American democracy should function.
Bill Crowell, Ontario
NB: Title and erroneous town of residence by the editor
Ontario Argus Observer Submitted 6/1/2016, unpublished
WSA's Not the Threat to Grazing They're made Out to Be
The Argus Observer’s 5/29/2016 Opinion encourages a “spirit of cooperation” in approaching Owyhee Canyonlands protection. Opponents are fighting establishment of a national monument, arguing inter alia that sufficient protections already exist. Among these, they point to Wilderness Study Areas (WSA).
WSAs do not provide permanent protection. Rather, they are an interim classification for a period of review during which the BLM determines whether a study area meets criteria outlined in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and recommends to the president on the area’s suitability or non-suitability for wilderness status. Based on that, the president will make a recommendation to the Congress. A WSA can be designated wilderness only by an act of Congress. Those who suggest WSA affords permanent protection either misunderstand the law or are being disingenuous. Moreover, wilderness designation would not add another layer of bureaucracy, as implied by the editors, but would replace the uncertainty of the WSAs. Grazing and other economic activities currently allowed on the WSAs would continue.
Those who believe wilderness designation would be the first step to ending grazing in the Owyhee Canyonlands should look at previous legislation granting wilderness protection. (See http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/legisoverview) For example, the Grazing Guidelines outlined in the House Report accompanying the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 state “There shall be no curtailments of grazing in wilderness areas simply because an area is, or has been designated as wilderness, nor should wilderness designations be used an excuse by administrators to slowly ‘phase out’ grazing.” Such language is found in every similar Act I have read; the policy could only be changed by an act of Congress.
The WSA example should caution everyone to look closely at other “layered protections”–Wild and Scenic Rivers, Areas of Environmental Concern, etc.–to understand what they actually protect.
Oregonian Submitted 5/11/2016, unpublished
Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition Should Explain What they Mean by "Stewardship"
Opponents of proposals for Owyhee Canyonlands protection have formed the Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition, hired a public relations firm, and plan to testify in Salem during Legislative Days May 23-25. According to the group’s secretary, the group is “very interested in making the land better.”
Good “stewardship” is the professed goal of both sides in the protection debate. Proponents have been fairly clear what that means to them, their goals, how to achieve them and measure success. What the opponents mean is not so clear.
In their testimony, the OBSC should clearly describe their goals, the specific measures to achieve them, and the failures of past range management that necessitate “making the land better.” For those of us who sincerely want to understand the opponents’ position and discuss the matter civilly to arrive at the best policies for all, vague references to the alleged drawbacks of protection contribute little.
Ontario Argus Observer January 7, 2016
Escalante school drop likely demographic and social, not economic
Jan 7, 2016
Your paper’s recent piece “Monumental Impact” (AO 12/27/15) is a welcome effort at introducing hard facts into the discussion over proposed protection for the Owyhee Canyonlands. Still, some of the points presented merit closer examination. I address one.
Garfield County Commissioner Leland Pollack is quoted as saying that since the monument was designated (1996) enrollment at Escalante High School dropped from 150 to 50 students. It is suggested this resulted from economic decline caused by the designation. This raises a few questions.
Escalante HS is one of three high schools — nine schools total — in the Garfield school district. What is the enrollment situation in the other schools?
According to the U.S. Census, the county’s population in 1990 was 3,980, 1,427 of whom were age 17 or younger; the July 2014 estimated population was 5,024, 1577 being 17 or younger. This suggests county-wide school enrollment should have remained constant or increased a bit. The Escalante HS decline likely results from demographic (fewer children of school age) or social (families choosing alternative schooling) factors. In any case, some decline should be expected given Escalante’s population decline of about 500 from the late 1990s to the current 800 or so, though total county population increased.
Interestingly, president of the Escalante Chamber of Commerce Dennis Waggoner, while recognizing the challenges his town faces, wrote in The Salt Lake Tribune (9/5/2015) that Escalante is “thriving” and his board members report having a “record year.” He specifically credits the monument.
Of what relevance is this for the Owyhee Canyonlands proposal? It reflects the inaccurate information surrounding this issue being directed at Malheur residents. Potentially that could raise questions about the validity of the March referendum as the considered expression of a well-informed electorate. That would be unfortunate.
Bill Crowell, Portland
Ontario Argus Observer December 15, 2015
Cheatgrass, vandalism, stagnant economies show need for plan
Dec 15, 2015
I have followed the debate over protection for the Owyhee Canyonlands with interest and concern.
My family has long ties to Malheur County, and my godparents ranched in the Owyhee Canyon; the home they built still stands in Hole in the Ground. I visit annually to reflect on their lives and the beauty of the setting. On my last visit, I was dismayed to find cheatgrass and cow pies replacing the green blanket of mustard. Cattle grazed illegally in the river corridor. The petroglyphs down river had been vandalized.
Equally dismaying is the economic stagnation of nearby communities. Efforts simply to preserve traditional extractive activities can at best bring transitory economic boomlets subject to world commodity price fluctuation. Ultimately, such a policy augurs continued stagnation.
Protection for the Owyhee would commemorate my godparents’ contributions and stimulate economic diversification in surrounding communities. It would assure preservation of an important landscape and the cultural artifacts of early inhabitants.
Comparisons with Garfield County, Utah, and the impact of the Escalante national monument are misleading. It would be wise to study the case more carefully. The economy was in trouble well before designation. For example, county residents employed in mining and construction fell from 210, and 379 respectively in 1980 to 7 and 23 in 1990 — six years before designation of the national monument. Subsequently, leisure and hospitality contributed more job growth than those sectors combined. (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. Utah, June 2008) Studies show in other cases that neighboring communities bene"t economically from Wilderness designation. Malheur residents should not let the possibility of similar opportunities escape them.
The question of Owyhee Canyonlands protection is too important to the county’s future to be decided based on selective facts and unsubstantiated assertions. It deserves thorough study and honest and reasoned discussion.
Bill Crowell, Portland
Malheur Enterprise, 11/10/2010