Opinion A second look at the Squaw Creek swap

Your article on the proposed Squaw Creek land exchange legislation was timely and thoughtful.

The Sisters community should appreciate you bringing this proposal out into the light, as it is likely the only public scrutiny that this exchange will receive.

No one in the community, not the Forest Service, nor those who use and love this area have a seat at the table where this deal is being made. It is not my intent to question efforts to protect lands on Steens Mountain. The exchange is simply a bad bargain for Sisters residents and the public as a whole for several reasons.

First, it would remove 690 acres of Forest Service lands from public access including over one mile of the west bank of Squaw Creek. This area, only a few miles above town, is virtually the only portion of the creek that is easily approached by folks wanting to enjoy a healthy stream and riparian forest.

Bill Marlett asserts that Mr. Stroemple would do a better job of managing this area than the Forest Service does. Why then is he so worried about Mr. Stroemple's management of lands within the Steens? No, Squaw Creek is not pristine; and it has had inappropriate uses from some insensitive visitors.

But this is not an adequate reason to deny public access. Few communities have a wild area of this quality within two miles of their city center.

Secondly, a legislated exchange sets dangerous precedent for public land management. It means anyone with enough money to write and push legislation can acquire any public lands they desire.

Similar deals in the Rockies have cost taxpayers millions.

As Ranger Bill Anthony noted, these are not lands that the Forest Service would normally consider for exchange. However, if the Squaw Creek exchange is successful, the small isolated parcel of public land along Squaw Creek between town and Mr Stroemples' new estate would not likely remain in the public domain for long.

Does this community truly want to extend the boundaries of potential development far out Three Creek Road?

At the very least, the public should demand more control over the outcome. Neither the draft legislation or the referenced map include any clear guarantee of public access for the area between Three Creek Road and the creek. Also, the legislation does not propose to prohibit all commercial development as reported. It specifically only prohibits golf courses and "destination resorts." There are other options for development that would be equally inappropriate. Mr. Stroemple's objectives may truly be to protect and maintain this area, but it would be naive to think that he or his family could own these lands forever. What would the next owner do?

As I mentioned before, there will be no public review of this proposal, as there is for virtually all other federal actions of this scale. Paul Dewey and ONDA are pushing this deal hard to the Oregon Congressional delegation, hoping to tack it on to some more important legislation in the current session. Senator Wyden has said that the exchange will not happen without strong support from the community. I know the community cares about this gem in our backyard. Now is the time to write or call your representatives. You can only lose what you let someone else take away from you.

For the record, I am an employee of the Sisters Ranger District. The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect the positions of the Forest Service.