Opinion Defending the Squaw Creek land swap

I am writing in response to Mr. Bonacker's opinion piece of April 24 criticizing a proposed land exchange involving 690 acres on the Sisters Ranger District for nearly 1,300 acres of a private land inholding within the Steens Mountain Wilderness.

Given Mr. Bonacker's knowledge of the Squaw Creek area, I am surprised and disappointed at his misleading geographic descriptions about the proposed exchange.

First, there is nothing in the draft legislation and map restricting public access between Three Creeks Road and the Creek. Only a strip for road access is provided to Mr. Stroemple from Three Creeks Road.

Mr. Bonacker asserts that the legislation and map do not guarantee public access between Three Creeks Road and the Creek, but why would the legislation guarantee something that is not being threatened or changed in the first place?

Second, this portion of the west bank of Squaw Creek is not "virtually the only portion of the Creek that is easily approached by folks." Upstream from Sisters, Squaw Creek is easily approached from Three Creeks Road and Road 1514 virtually all of the way to the Three Sisters Wilderness, a distance of over 15 miles. Only a couple of existing parcels of private land exist between Three Creeks Road and the Creek.

Third, nothing in this proposed exchange concerns "the small isolated parcel of public land along Squaw Creek between town" and Mr. Stroemple's land. In fact, in addition to this public parcel, there are three existing private landowners between town and Mr. Stroemple's property.

The Sisters District exchange lands are not "within two miles" of the Sisters city center. The proposed exchange is for lands on the west side of the Creek three to four miles from town.

Further, the legislation provides for a 300-foot easement along the west side of Squaw Creek which will protect the Creek, its riparian area and the scenic views along the creek. Ironically, this 300-foot area along the creek will be better protected by law than Forest Service lands along the creek which currently experience illegal tree cutting, and off-road vehicles crossing the Creek and tearing up the riparian areas.

In addition, this proposed land exchange is not being "tacked" onto other more important legislation, as Mr. Bonacker alleges. This is a land exchange bill to acquire critical lands on Steens Mountain. Such land exchange legislation is not uncommon, and this proposed land exchange has been in the works for two years. See The Nugget article in July, 2000, on this proposed exchange.

Finally, the suggestion that the Forest Service has been excluded in discussions on this proposed land exchange is simply false.

There have been discussions with the Forest Service, including Mr. Bonacker, for two years.

Mr. Bonacker is also wrong in suggesting that there is any precedent being set here for legislative land exchanges.

As someone who has successfully appealed and stopped Forest Service timber sales along Squaw Creek and was a primary supporter for successful designation of the upstream area of Squaw Creek as a Wild and Scenic River -- I can confidently state that the proposed land exchange is in the public interest where we obtain absolutely unique land on Steens Mountain in the middle of a cow-free wilderness with almost two miles of a Wild and Scenic River and habitat for the Redband Trout.

Paul Dewey is the attorney representing George Stroemple in the land exchange he discusses.