In reply to the Source (1/7)
We certainly concur with The Source’s comment printed in Letter of the Week 1/7 that this is a space for opinion and discussion. We also understand the importance of freedom of speech and press. However, just as all of us choose our opinions, newspapers also choose which letters they print. That said, we also respect the difficulty at times of doing so responsibly while allowing for differences of opinion.
In his letter printed 1/14/16, Brent asked why we felt his original letter about affordable housing was racist. It was not about the obvious demographics of Bend. As The Source noted 1/7, the issue was that he drew a direct correlation between “white” affluence and a lower rate of crime. There are many reasons for increased crime in a community including poverty, but race is not one of them. That was our point. We are so used to covert and often unintentional racial slurs in our society that we often overlook the inference we or someone else has made. That sends a message, often inaccurate, to others listening.
In response to Martin’s letter of 1/14, there are two definitions of cultural diversity. One refers to a community’s arts and entertainment and we certainly agree with him that Bend excels in that sense for a community its size. However, the primary definition in our dictionary of cultural diversity is “the existence of a variety of cultural or ethnic groups within a society.” The thesaurus indicates “ethnic” refers to a wide spectrum of social groups including racial, cultural, and ancestral. As Brent pointed out, Bend’s demographics indicate a very small percentage of minorities live and work here.
So it appears that intention, definition, and as always, each of our own filters, has played a large part in this discussion.
—Marilyn Massey and William Castell
Ode for the Malheur standoff (1/14)
We’ll shoot ya, they said
Cause you’re better off dead
If you can’t see your way
To give us our day.
Hey! Our pistols we’ll draw
If you don’t change the law
And turn back the lands
To our capable hands.
—Janet Whitney
Old bend Disappearing
“Those giant buildings over there? Can you believe it?” There’s pain in her voice as she peers out the window and watches a new three-story building rise.
Mary Jane has lived in this neighborhood, on the edge of downtown Bend, for most of 70 years. She’s watched as her neighborhood changed and families were edged out, one by one, and can tell you about the people who used to live here. Vacation dwellings took the place of what was once family housing. Mary Jane is a neighborhood icon– there’s a tiny park named after her on the corner of Georgia Avenue and Lava Road.
She remembers when 3rd Street near Safeway was once the home of sagebrush and wild jackrabbits.
The old lumber mill was the heart of the city and the families in this neighborhood could hear the whistles blowing at night. When the mill closed down, perhaps we lost a way of life?
Old Bend is just about gone now, and those who are in charge of making decisions about building don’t seem to answer to 96-year-old grandmas. How different it might be if they did.
—Vanessa Houk
Snowshoe vs. Fat Biking
Fat biking is an increasingly popular sport. I welcome it as an enthusiastic cyclist – mountain biking, road, triathlon – but there is a problem beginning to fester at Swampy and Meissner Sno-Parks. Tense confrontations between those on wheels and those on cross country skis or on snowshoes. Fat bikes are using the snowshoe and country-country trails. Even on multi-use trails the trailhead protocol explains right-of-way: those on wheels give way to those on foot but the claim that the snowshoe trails are ‘multi-use’ is by itself a point of contention given the unambiguous signage at the Sno Parks. Being asked to step aside by cyclists on trails that are a mere shoulder width wide is provocative. No doubt being invited to ‘go around’ is equally provoking when a bike and rider would sink several feet into the snow. This has led to heated exchanges which could easily deteriorate into something more. There is a real danger to hikers from cyclists on downhill trails, a bit like being buzzed by a motorbike club on the road, albeit in a snow trench. Stepping off the packed surface is for hikers often to risk being swallowed by the snow and a struggle to regain the trail. Hence the potential for tense stand-offs. Time for cool heads and some clarification by the Forest Service.
There seem to be three options.
1. Rewrite the rules of the trail – give cyclists precedence over hikers. Bound to be horribly controversial and would fly in the face of the existing protocols for trail use.
2. Segregate the users of the Sno Parks. Cross country skiers have separate trails from snowshoe hikers today, so implement a third trail for cyclists, as at Wanoga. Also controversial as cyclists would need to create and maintain a new trail system, just as hikers and cross country skiers break trail, today.
3. Ban fat biking at Swampy and Meissner. Controversial but dogs are banned at Swampy and Meissner but permitted at Wanoga so there is clearly a Forest Service precedent for restricting activities that are deemed disruptive and a precedent for park management of this nature.
Angry words will inevitably lead to pushing and shoving which will escalate at some point to something more serious. The issue needs some light shed on it to ignite a debate and provide an incentive to the Forest Service to address it before we hear of broken noses or worse. No doubt the community should be canvassed but a moratorium on fat biking until the results are in seems a sensible approach.
—Gavin Leslie
In reply to “Malheur Refuge Resident calls out Bundys” (Facebook video, 1/15)
Great message, especially about patience and about the certainty that the refuge still belongs to all of us. Stay steady. Don’t let Bundy’s Band of Bullies get the wish of martyrdom.
—Nancy Louise Clayton
This article appears in Jan 20-27, 2016.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
RE: Part Duex, Marilyn and William,
After re-reading my initial post (12/16/15) and looking at it from another angle, I see how my comment about “Bend being safer because it’s population is mainly affluent and white” may have ruffled feathers. Racial demographics aside, show me a community with wealth and I’ll show you one with less crime, which is SORT of what the poster I was responding to was trying to convey. I was posting in direct response to someone who feels Bend should stay a place for only wealthy folks. I didn’t mean to make it a racial driven letter, thank you for pointing out my transgression.
I do however have an issue with Marilyn and William’s response to my letter on or about 1/06/16, it was clearly pointed out my “affluent and white” context was “disgusting” but they failed to address the rest of the letter. If they can get past the “white” comment, can they see I am worried about Bend as a whole? About affordable housing? About some residents here not wanting any “lower income” folks living here? About the UGB and all of their effects on a community so driven by taking care of tourists and an aging baby boomer population. Please read my whole letter and the context in which I am writing it.
I am very happy that The Source printed my letter and let this dialogue continue, it shows how people can have such tunnel vision about one particular point and how some can lose sight of the whole picture. Look around people, while you’re focusing on the red light, someone is heading your way with no brakes.
Brent Howk
RE: Snowshoe vs. Fatbiking
Gavin – I applaud your desire to find a solution to this issue but cannot condone the manner in which you frame it. The very title of your letter immediately suggests confrontation and the need to choose between one or the other of these uses on the trail. We are doing our best as a user group to educate folks about trail courtesy and etiquette (including right of way and staying off of ski trails!) so that we can coexist with other users. We will continue to do so in the interest of getting along and reducing conflict.
That said, I have had nothing but cordial interactions with snowshoers on the trails over the last three winters. Most defer their right of way without even giving me a chance to stop and offer passage. Many exclaim, “wow – that looks like fun!” and we all share a smile, appreciate the day and go on our way. Unfortunately, it sounds as if you may have had, or heard of others having less than cordial interactions with bikers. My only hope is that you are willing and able to have a rational conversation with folks at those moments and take the opportunity to educate and coexist instead of segregate or promote moratoriums.
So – in your interest of “igniting a debate” and preventing “broken noses or worse” lets sit down and share some thoughts before we subject the Forest Service to mediating another “conflict” between user groups.
Peter Sussmann
I’m an avid classic xcountry skier, and have been at this for over 20 years, frequenting both Swampy and Meisner snow parks. During this time we’ve seen the rapid rise of both skate skiing and snowshoeing. Now another new winter sport appears to be gaining traction. Each of these new activities requires thoughtful consideration of trail use. Initially when snowshoeing was gaining advocates we would encounter crushed xcountry ski tracks, which can greatly detract from the skiing experience. The subsequent creation of separate snowshoe trails and signage has helped considerably, although on multiple occasions this winter I have still encountered snowshoers or their tracks while on the xcountry trails. I think this is a continuing education problem and we can all help by politely informing people. More signage may also help. The grooming at Meisner (thank you!) has allowed both classic and skate skiing to flourish there and to generally coexist without one group hindering the other. From my experience both groups love the outdoors and show respect and friendliness to each other. My only concern is in preserving some peaceful, classic only, non-groomed trails for those that enjoy this experience (Swampy offers this as do a side trail or two at Meisner as of now). When it comes to multi-use my question is always whether the uses involved are compatible or does one greatly diminish the experience of the other. I don’t snowshoe but it’s hard for me to imagine that walkers and bikers sharing a narrow snowshoe trail would be a good solution. So much of the enjoyment in our winter wonderland comes from the peace and quiet as well as not having to worry about jumping out out of the way or wearing a rear view mirror on one’s head. So I’d vote for separating these activities and I would certainly not be in favor of adding fat biking to existing xcountry ski trails.
John Farwell
Re: Snowshoe vs. Fat Biking
As an avid member of the growing fatbike community (and skate skier who donates for grooming at Meissner, as well as xc skier and snowshoer), it saddens me to hear of suggested negative conflicts between snowshoers and fatbikers. In the several winters of fatbiking on multi-use snowshoe trails, I have never had a single negative encounter when meeting other users. Nearly every encounter has been met with smiles, amusement and curiosity. I’ve even had a few snowshoers sit on my bike and pedal for a few strokes – and sure enough I see an ear-to-ear grin. Not one snowshoer has grumbled about having to step to the side (and Gavin, I’ve not ever heard of anyone wearing SNOWSHOES “swallowed by the snow and struggling to regain the trail.”(Please, the whole point of snowshoes is you stay ABOVE the snow.) And I’d hardly equate the speed of a fatbike like being “buzzed by a motorbike club” – I think my top speed is about 5 mph in snow. Lookout! 😉
Granted, we do not condone fatbikers riding on classically groomed tracks as we realize the damage done. And I would discourage large groups of bikers or perhaps not riding at peak snowshoe hours on weekends. Where the best places to ride will take education on our parts as well as perhaps the many bike shops that are now renting fatbikes to newbies who aren’t aware of those places to ride or proper trail etiquette. For now, a smile, versus stink eye and rudeness – goes a lot further in helping to resolve user conflicts. To anyone who hasn’t tried it (including you, Gavin?), fatbiking is super fun and allows a winter experience for those who are not skiers. Yes, fatbike-specific trails are beginning to be established at Wanoga Snopark (which currently, by the way, welcomes skiers and snowshoers). Please be patient, perhaps try not to act so entitled to public lands that are for all of us to enjoy. Embrace change and the inevitable introduction of new sports. Fatbikers are nice people. Really.
If you really want to gripe, worry about the people walking in BARE BOOTS on the trails. They are creating big post-holes that destroy the trail quality for everyone – but that’s another letter…
Natalie Herse