Guest Opinion: The Idea of Public Lands Needs No Defense, It Only Needs Defenders
Millions of acres of high desert public lands in Central and Eastern Oregon include some of the region’s most beloved areas like Steens Mountain, the Owyhee Canyonlands, the John Day River and Hart Mountain. Those who enjoy exploring these sinuous canyons, awe-inspiring vistas and vast expanses of sagebrush may be familiar with Edward Abbey’s often-cited quote from 1977: “The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders.”
In the decades since this was written, community-based organizations like Oregon Natural Desert Association have worked tirelessly to defend wilderness as an imperfect but effective conservation tool to protect federal lands from mining, industrial development, road construction and other activities that permanently alter an ecosystem’s ability to provide clean water, sustainable recreation and healthy wildlife populations.
For more than 35 years, ONDA has joined with local communities, Tribal Nations, business leaders and others to protect species and habitat, recreational experiences, sacred sites and many other values. Through the years, we have fended off countless threats to wildlands, wildlife, rivers and places we all hold dear. In fact, a small group of Oregon desert defenders formed ONDA in 1987 specifically to push back against archaic, weak, loophole-riddled federal public lands laws used by the extractive industries to turn a profit, rather than benefit all Americans as intended.
We’re now entering an entirely new era in which it is not just the wild places that need defense, but the mere existence of public lands. As Senator Martin Heinrich said during a recent roundtable about the gutting of the federal workforce, “Trump and Musk created this chaos with one goal in mind: to… sell and take your public lands.”
ONDA invites you to take action for the very survival of public lands and the federal agencies we rely on to manage them. If you enjoy the millions of acres of public lands in Oregon, now is the time to be vigilant. Public lands need defenders. Fortunately, your defense of public lands puts you in good company: Recent polling shows an astounding 82% of voters oppose selling of federal public lands while 88% support keeping existing protective designations in place. These are astonishing majorities, particularly given today’s ideological divides.
And, if you hear tepid replies from elected leaders — things like, “the courts will take care of it” or “they won’t actually do that” — just ask yourself how many times these assertions have been proven false in recent memory. Speak up, be persistent and demand that your representatives actually represent you by taking immediate, proactive actions to protect public lands and their management agencies. Make sure your elected leaders know you will oppose rollbacks, sell-offs or weakening of the laws protecting the public lands that have been called “Americas best idea” and “our common ground” for good reason. Thank you for your vigilance and advocacy as we join together to be the defenders imagined decades ago. It may not be a new concept but it is, once again, a timely one.
—Ryan Houston, Executive Director, Oregon Natural Desert Association
RE: “Bridge Crossings Could Ease Traffic Woes, But Wildfire Concerns Should Factor In, Too,” Opinion, 3/13
I am disappointed by the “Opinion” (3/13/25) on a new southern bridge crossing. Given the Source is partly a newspaper, an editorial should at least include a summary of reasons why people oppose the proposed bridge. Most of those opposed don’t live in those few houses along the river. Reasons for opposition include: The U.S. Forest Service and affected landowners along the river are not interested; the necessary exceptions to the scenic waterway plans that will have to be sought and fought over in court; impacts of additional disturbance to wildlife (especially declining population of mule deer); and the increasing human congestion and degradation of the overused National Forest land west of the river that the footbridge would access.
Those who live within the Bend Park and Recreation District east of the river have present access to the river and the present footbridge via River Canyon Park. Those who live outside the District, in Deschutes River Woods and elsewhere, and therefore don’t pay taxes to the District, will have access to the new trail to Lava Lands and the bridge above Benham Falls. This will provide access to a considerable amount of National Forest.
People who are given questionnaires need to better understand the issues with the proposed footbridge and that it would not connect north along the river to the present footbridge. People should not be provided a one-sided presentation like the Source Opinion. There are so many higher priority projects in Bend (e.g., trail easements, park land acquisition and development) that the people in Bend who pay the District tax levy expect the District to accomplish. A compromise might be to look at the feasibility of a trail from the present footbridge over the Deschutes River south of the Bill Healy Bridge up to the paved trail along Century Drive that connects to National Forest.
—Robin Vora
Eliminating Fire Risk Maps
According to your recent reporting, state Sen. Broadman states that fire risk maps were “clearly a distraction” from important risk mitigation work. How is informing residents about the level of risk — whether it be fire, flood or earthquake — a distraction? The idea that a state fire map leads to increased premiums is a red herring. Insurance companies employ various tools, including wildfire risk scores, AI-powered models and geographic information systems to assess wildfire risk, enabling them to make informed decisions about underwriting, pricing and risk management. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has a National Risk Index that assesses wildfire risk across the country. People who think that an Oregon fire risk map is the only tool insurance companies use to set premiums are woefully uninformed.
While not all states have fire risk maps, many use local resources and tools to assess and manage wildfire risks, and a variety of wildfire risk maps are available. For example, the First Street foundation has a model that shows the probabilistic risk of wildfire based on vegetation, topography and likely weather. My wife and I used the First Street model to evaluate where we wanted to buy a home a few years ago. We chose Bend, knowing that the health risk from wildfire smoke was high in late summer.
I equate the push to eliminate the Oregon fire map to what the administration is doing with climate change at the federal level. Federal websites are being scrubbed of information about climate change, whether it be sea level rise, more intense storms or longer duration heat waves. Taking away information does not make the problem go away. As Thomas Gray said, “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”
—Dave Morrow
Knowlege is power, Dave. As a former wildland firefighter, our resilience lies in our ability to come together as a community and take collective action.
—Chris Young
This article appears in The Source Weekly March 20, 2025.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Robin Vora’s letter of opposition (RE: “Bridge Crossing” Opinion, 3/13) is right.
Here’s my opinion:
The lobbying group Connect Bend has done an effective job of green-washing, starting with choosing an eco-sounding name. However, these are the same folks who wanted to dredge Mirror Pond.
Your Editorial simply restates the propaganda of a special interest group without explaining why environmentalists oppose the bridge at the proposed location.
The Source mischaracterizes the opposition to demonize it. (No, I’m not wealthy nor do I own a home). Worse, the Source uses a derogatory slur to dehumanize people with opposing views.