Guest Opinion: BLM Rule Making Input
Public lands are one of the great institutions of American democracy — they are open to all of us. But now some extremists are complaining about a new Bureau of Land Management rule that allows conservation to exist as an equal use on public lands, alongside grazing, drilling and off-road recreation, claiming that it would end ranching and as one former Trump administration official put it, would "end the American cowboy" as we know it in the West.
Consequently, most grazing on BLM lands has been done without analysis of the potential negative impacts of that activity, meaning many of these areas don't meet land health standards according to the agency's own analysis.
The new BLM rule will give regular Americans a seat at the table next to agricultural special interest groups, oil and gas companies and everyone else who uses these lands — which again, belong to ALL federal taxpayers.
Oregonians may remember that the BLM rejected Dwight and Steven Hammond's application to graze on federal lands because they were convicted for felony arson after lighting federal lands on fire without permission. At that time, the same special interest groups now attacking the new BLM rule rushed to attack the Bureau's decision, likening the Hammonds' destruction of public property to "normal agricultural practices."
Montana Congressman and part-time rancher Matt Rosendale said the quiet part out loud when he shouted at Interior Secretary Deb Haaland that grazing and conservation are "not supposed to be on equal footing."
This is the sort of extreme entitlement that develops when you've been allowed to act like something belongs only to you.
It's time for special interest groups and the members of Congress to realize the idea that we want to have a seat at the table. It's the least we can expect when it comes to places that belong to all of us.
Please weigh in on this issue and send your comments to BLM for conservation language to be added to their rulings.
— Mary Fleischmann - Leader, Central Oregon Bitterbrush Broads & Bro's Broadband
RE: West Side Versus East Side, Take Me Home, 5/25
I like the fact that this article does not promote a "West side vs. East side — Who is Superior?" attitude. There are advantages/disadvantages to living, working and shopping on both sides of Bend.
—Clark Aungst via bendsource.com
RE: Is this really what Republicans wanted? Opinion, 5/25
Tim isn't ignorant. He is raising his name recognition to run for a statewide office, instead of SD27, which he knows he cannot win. He is doing this at the expense of his constituents, his own caucus members' careers, and all of Oregon. Tim has always been willing to throw anyone under the bus to advance his political career (just ask Chris Telfer). Now he's done it to 4 million Oregonians. He's getting lots of media attention, though, so it's a win for Tim.
—ET Kiely via bendsource.com
The walk-out is holding up bills that deal with drought relief, common sense gun safety, infrastructure repair (White Salmon-Hood River bridge, e.g.), expanded counseling in Central Oregon for at-risk school children, priority for veterans contracting with the state, reproductive rights, etc., etc. I don't think what Sen. Knopp is doing improves his chances for State-wide office. Though Tim calls himself "moderate" and espouses reasonable points of view on many issues, his party calls from the MAGAverse at times like these to abandon all reason. And he must obey.
—Foster Fell via bendsource.com
HB 2002 and "Who is dystopian now?" RE: Letter to editor May 25 from "Dr. David Coutin"
Sadly, while this man is a doctor, he hasn't truly consulted all the information available on Oregon HB 2002. Here's a link to the bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2002/Introduced.
Here's one piece. NOTE:
"A hospital or a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, naturopathic physician, dentist or optometrist providing care, diagnosis or treatment to a minor as described in ORS 109.640 (2) may advise [a] the minor's parent or legal guardian [of a minor] of the care, diagnosis or treatment [of] provided to the minor or the need for any treatment of the minor, without the consent of the minor, and is not liable for advising the parent or legal guardian without the consent of the minor."
It's right there. A minor can walk in for help, guidance, etc... but treatment of any kind will be discussed as noted above.
HB 2002 is really about Health Care not just for kids but ALL OF US. The bill gives us rights and protections as to how we.... male, females and others... want our health care to be managed. All parts of it including reproductive rights.
Please, read the bill. And "Republicans," encourage your senator to go back to work if there are parts of this bill you don't like. The only thing "dystopian" about this bill is Coutin's scare mongering.
— Richard Alleger
Letter of the Week:
Thanks for that letter, Richard. Come on by for your gift card to Palate!
—Nicole Vulcan
