Ron Wyden has a way to go to exceed the Oregon public lands conservation legacy of his predecessor, Mark Hatfield, but he can do it before he retires.

The excesses of the executive branch will need to be checked by the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and/or the people.

The Trump administration believes that unless it can be sold or collateralized, it has no value.

We don’t have one national election for president in 2020. Rather we have fifty-one elections (in fifty states and the District of Columbia) that will decide the next president of the United States. Today, we can predict with certainty the total number of votes that will be cast for the presidency: 538.

Trigger warning: Dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, liberals, leftists, and/or the excessively woke may find this post hazardous to their hopes, dreams, stereotypes, and/or prejudices and may wish to seek refuge in a safe space.

This is the second of three Public Lands Blog posts that examine the increasingly difficult political decisions facing Oregon’s public lands conservationists. Part 1 posed a still hypothetical—but prospectively probable—public lands conservation package that contains some great, some good, some bad, and some ugly provisions. Part 2 examines what Oregon public lands conservationists have done in the past when faced with such choices. Part 3 will wrestle with the devil of principle and the angel of pragmatism and make recommendations.

This is the first of three Public Lands Blog posts that examine the increasingly difficult political decisions facing Oregon’s public lands conservationists. Part 1 poses a still hypothetical—but prospectively probable—public lands conservation package that contains some great, some good, some bad, and some ugly provisions. Part 2 will examine what Oregon public lands conservationists have done in the past when faced with such choices. Part 3 will wrestle with the devil of principle and the angel of pragmatism and make recommendations.

If not for Mary Gautreaux, many good things would not have happened for Oregon’s public lands. Several wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers or additions to them would not have happened. Portland’s drinking water sources, the Bull Run and Little Sandy Rivers, would be dirtier.

Any well-run business has its key performance indicators (KPIs) to judge the health of the firm beyond its current balance sheet and profit-and-loss statement. Let’s delve into the pertinent KPIs for Oregon’s place in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

The public lands conservation community has long been wary of the existential threat to the nation’s public lands posed by a fringe group of right-wing crazies who seek to privatize public lands (perhaps via a brief period of state or county ownership).

America’s public lands are often in need of a good lawyer, and they have one in John Leshy. He has served America’s public lands (and its owners) as an academic, author, and advocate. In his long career, he’s published legal textbooks, written briefs, argued cases, and taught law students, and he was the top lawyer in the U.S. Department of the Interior for almost as long as Bruce Babbitt was secretary of the interior.

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond. The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land. The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges.

This is the second part of a two-part examination of what “rural” really means in Oregon and how statistically insignificant (and in all likelihood to become more so) the rural population is today.

No one will know for sure until the completion of the constitutionally mandated decennial census in 2020. Politically, a sixth member of Congress from Oregon could be better for Oregon’s environment. (Actually, the best thing for Oregon’s environment would be losing enough population to lose some congressional seats—but that won’t happen.)

Why is it that public lands conservation (and other environmental) issues always poll well, but our movement is regularly getting its ass kicked in Congress (and now by the administration as well)? It’s because we’re not political enough.

The Bundys and their ilk disdain the federal government and deny it owns the federal public lands in the West. While they hate the federal government for its size, its actions and its policies, they nonetheless revere the United States Constitution. They believe the federal government (executive, legislative and judicial branches) has run amok from the intent of the founding fathers.