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.

General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “If a problem is unsolvable, enlarge it.” The military genius and Republican president may have first articulated it, but a Republican member of Congress from Idaho is seeking to operationalize this sage advice in regard to Pacific Northwest salmon and electric power.

Government protection should be thrown around every wild grove and forest on the mountains, as it is around every private orchard, and trees in public parks. To say nothing of their value as fountains of timber, they are worth infinitely more than all the gardens and parks of towns.  —John Muir

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).

Representatives of many Oregon outdoor recreation industry heavyweights, including but not limited to Columbia Sportswear, the Conservation Alliance, Travel Oregon, and Keen Footwear, testified to the business sense of conserving more of the many treasures found on Oregon’s federal public lands. Many conservationists traveled from afar to make the case for protecting their most cherished Oregon gems for the benefit of this and future generations.

This two-part series examines legislation in Congress that would reform the infamous Mining Law of 1872. Part 1 focused on how mining on public lands should be administered in the twenty-first century. Part 2 focuses on pending legislation the conservation areas in which mining should be permanently banned.

This two-part series examines legislation in Congress that would reform the infamous Mining Law of 1872. Part 1 focuses on how mining on public lands should be administered in the twenty-first century. Part 2 will focus on the pending legislation and conservation areas in which mining should be permanently banned.

Congress authorized the establishment of Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) in Marin County, California. At the time, the acute threat was sprawling subdivisions, while the chronic threat to public recreation, benefit, and inspiration was industrial dairies and the grazing of beef and dairy cattle. It still is.

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.

The Oregon Wildlands Act is now the law of the land. Neither the Rogue Canyon National Recreation Area (98,150 acres), nor the Molalla National Recreation Area (~29,884 acres), as well as the Wild Rogue Wilderness Additions (~59,512) acres was included in the final version signed by President Trump.

Late in December 2018, during the lame-duck session of the 115th Congress, a deal was almost struck to move an omnibus public lands package of legislation. The package compiled specific bills that were legislatively ready to advance. Some of the bills in the package were quite good, others quite bad.

There is white liberal guilt aplenty about the treatment of Native Americans in Oregon (and rightfully so). The Democrats who supported this legislation came down on the side of Native Americans and, in this case, against nature. As for the Republicans who supported the bill, it was more a matter of it being a politically elegant way to effectively privatize the lands.

We live in a polarized nation divided between rural and urban with the suburbs and exurbs swinging toward the Democrats, allowing that party to retake the House.

In August 2017, President Trump announced his intent to “enhance and modernize” the NEPA regulations, and CEQ responded with a list of actions the following month

The National Environmental Policy Act was enacted into law in 1970. It was signed by President Richard Nixon, who knew a political bandwagon when he saw it and knew that a veto would be overridden.

In order to provide for the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population and in order to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation, trails should be established.

Climate change is an existential threat to the human species. The rapid decarbonization of the economy of the United States and of the world is our only chance of maintaining the climate that we generally know and love.

This is second of two parts. Part 2 explains that public lands conservationists must rely more Congress enacting good legislation to achieve our goals.

This is part one of two parts. Part 1 examines how the courts are changing and public lands conservationists must rely less on litigation to achieve our goals.

For the most part, these bills are popular and uncontroversial, and when they do get to the floor they will pass. When that happens and the congressional pipeline finally does unclog, conservationists need to make sure that pipeline is full.