The word “unique” is the most overworked adjective in the advertising copywriter’s lexicon, but in the case of Bend’s Badlands area, it’s justified.
The rugged 30,000-acre expanse just 20 miles northeast of town holds a combination of geological features, archaeological sites, wildlife and vegetation – including rare wildflowers and junipers that were growing before Columbus landed – that would be almost impossible to find anywhere else.
For more than a decade, the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) and other conservation groups have been trying to get the Badlands protected as wilderness by the federal government, but their efforts have been stymied in Congress. On Tuesday, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden announced that he’s going to take another shot at it.
At a press conference sponsored by ONDA, Wyden said his wilderness bill will include the portion of the Badlands designated by the Bureau of Land Management as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA) plus several hundred additional acres. Creating the Oregon Badlands Wilderness, Wyden said, “will tell the world that Central Oregon is a place with an unbelievable menu of recreation, where you can ski in the morning on one side of town and enjoy the solitude of high desert wilderness in the afternoon on the other.”
Despite the tourist-brochure prose, Wyden makes a good point. As an economic report commissioned by ONDA in 2007 put it: “Current growth trends and a highly consumptive pattern of land development in the region are rapidly consuming open space and point to the urgency of protecting fragile open lands that constitute a regional competitive advantage.”
English translation: As Bend expands, it’s increasingly important to protect this island of unspoiled landscape close to the city as a draw for visitors, and also as a refuge for locals seeking escape from congestion, noise and pollution. Off-road vehicle enthusiasts charge that wilderness supporters want to “lock up” the landscape for everyone but themselves. But there are millions of acres available in Oregon and the West for ORVers to use, including more than 400,000 acres adjacent to the Badlands.
Motorized vehicles already are banned in the Badlands WSA under the BLM’s 2005 management plan. So why bother with wilderness if the Badlands already are protected? The big reason is that the protection provided by WSA status isn’t ironclad. As the ranks of ORV users grow and they clamor for more places to play, pressure to lift or loosen the motorized vehicle ban could grow.
Public support in Central Oregon for a Badlands wilderness is strong – nearly 70%, according to a 2005 poll. But Rep. Greg Walden says he won’t support wilderness designation unless all local governments are on board, and the Deschutes County Commission has balked at the idea.
There’s an election coming and a new county commission might see things differently. In the meantime, here’s the GLASS SLIPPER to Ron Wyden for making the effort again.
This article appears in May 29 – Jun 4, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
It seems that a wilderness designation for the badlands has been a long time coming. However, after attending the rally yesterday morning, it’s unfortunate to see the degree to which undesirables get applauded for their questionably-motivated involvement in all this.
For example, the first person applauded in this effort was none other than Linda Swearingen, who is the primary lobbyist for the destination resort “industry.” Perhaps Linda feels bad at all the desert acreage she’s helped convert into destination resorts at Pronghorn, Brasada, Hidden Canyon, and elsewhere in the region and wanted to make good on all that. Not likely though. I fully expect that she’s going to come out and suggest that the destination resorts played a huge role in getting this done and “what wonderful stewards of the land” they all are. I also fully expect that this means that the Badlands, once designated as Wilderness, is going to appear on brochures and in advertisements for the nearby resorts as just another of the wonderful amenities that the resorts are going to crowd up.
Bitter? Yes. Cynical? Yes. But this is Linda Swearingen people, she’s not doing this out of the goodness of her heart. She’s not interested in wilderness, and her involvement suggests to me that some deals were probably cut and she and her resort buddies are going to get a little more of whatever they want as part of getting this through.
DId anyone see her buddied up and hugging Ron Wyden? Perhaps he doesn’t know how despised resorts are becoming amongst most Central Oregonians, and the pivotal role Swearengin has had in facilitating this madness. Most likely not.
And as for Wyden, it appears that he sees this designation as a marketing tool and as a recreation opportunity rather than a wilderness designation for the sake of wilderness designation. Not once did he mention ecological or wilderness values in his short and somewhat odd speech. “Widerness is about people,” he said. Oh really? I thought wilderness was NOT about people!
Is this what it takes to get a wilderness done these days? Kinda sickening to see actually. The tone and terms used at this event were not becoming of the grand success that turning the Badlands into a wilderness ought to represent. Someone has to say it, as I suspect I was not the only one there who noticed. And if no one else knows who Linda S really is, they ought to.
Well, regarding destination resorts, politics makes strange bedfellows. Where did some of the money come from to allow wilderness advocates to buy out some of the grazing permits for the area…makes me wonder
And now Walden says he supports wilderness, but only if the “unique” mtn bike trails and sled dog training is allowed to continue. What unique mtn bike trails? Badlands is full of old roads, hardly a deficit of these throughout BLM lands in Central Oregon. For what its worth, I believe Central Oregon Trails Alliance (COTA) has allready come out in support of Wilderness designation for the Badlands, so why the hand-wringing over lost mtn bike opportunities? But heck, by all means, lets have some weird hybrid wilderness “lite”. And of course, lets make a special exemption for sled dog training so someone can have special rights just because they happen to own a private parcel surrounded by the badlands.
All the deal making makes me want to gag
Okay, so I guess i wasn’t the only one that noticed. Good. I feel a bit sorry for ONDA here. It can’t be easy to have to play along with this brand of politics and listen to all the horse-shit in order to close the deal on the decades of hard work that they and others have put into protecting this place.
Is the wilderness designation worth it? Grazing rights are already retired, and the area is off-limits to motorized vehicles. No one’s cutting down trees or mining it, and this area has absolutely zero development pressure/potential. Yes, a wilderness designation is obviously desirable, but I’m starting to wonder why and for who? For glossy brochures and economic development? Are there some vendors that hope to set up shop on Matt Day’s Hooker Creek Ranch just outside the trailhead?? If that sort of thing is what this is about – and why Linda S and others support this – a wilderness designation will have the effect not of offering more protection, but rather of bringing more people/impact to this special place. I shudder to think what some might have in mind, and given the bastardized wilderness “lite” (as rb calls it) intention that’s present at the start, I’m not sure this bodes well for future protection.
I know Katya S wrote in support of this in last week’s Source, but that was mostly an emotional appeal. I’d really like to hear how Marlett feels about this, and what this really means, but I expect given the goals at hand, he’s not quite at liberty to say. If I’m missing something, I’d love to know what that is. Maybe the Fobbits would like to offer comment?
As for me, and it’s disappointing to say this, I’m starting to wonder if a stand against this sort of wilderness designation is the right thing to in this situation.
If the benefit of Wilderness designation is its “ironclad” protection, as stated by this article – I’d love to see some examples of WSA’s that have released from consideration as wilderness by Congress and then turned into motorized vehicle parks. Maybe it has happened, but it sounds rather like the land management equivalent of WMD’s to me.
If the idea is to protect the place, what exactly are we protecting it from? And if careful resource management is the goal, then touting the economic benefit of the place to the local economy is a double edged sword. Will we see shuttle buses from nearby resorts parked at the trailhead? Commercial adventure excursions? Catered fine dining at Badlands Rock?
Whats in a name? I think Wilderness designation will give the politicians a feather in their cap, ONDA will have a well deserved public relations success after years of effort, and local business and resorts will have something to insert in their ad copy and marketing brochures to help sell sell sell. All this within the context of the present federal budget deficit and decreasing lack of land management ability of all federal agencies.