Letters, letters, letters

The Nugget welcomes contributions from its readers, which must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters to the Editor is an open forum for the community and contains unsolicited opinions not necessarily shared by the Editor. The Nugget reserves the right to edit, omit, respond or ask for a response to letters submitted to the Editor. Letters should be no longer than 300 words. Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned. The deadline for all letters is noon Monday.

To the Editor:

My letter (The Nugget, April 24, page 2) on the proposed Squaw Creek Land Exchange apparently caused some concerns.

While my letter expressed my opinion as a private citizen, some may have connected it with my position as a Forest Service employee. I regret any confusion.

Also, it was not my intention to imply that our democratic legislative process does not allow for public review and comment. Your elected officials will listen to you on this issue, and they will seek public support for the proposal before they act.

But it is time to turn this discussion towards the issues. The debate should not be about my professional credentials, or Mr. (Paul) Dewey's well-earned laurels as an environmental activist. Nothing is gained by an argument about how far the property may be from town or how easily accessible it may be.

You all can judge for yourselves.

Rather, the community needs to determine if the Squaw Creek property is better served in private or public ownership. The community also needs to decide how much they value public ownership of the forest and streambank, and if the proposal will be a reasonable and fair trade-off for the loss of ownership and access. Ask questions, visit the property, and form your own opinion. If and when the proposal reaches your elected representatives, let them know what you think.

Rod Bonacker

* * *

To the Editor:

The April 30, 2002 issue of The Nugget Newspaper presented an opinion by Paul D. Dewey defending the Squaw Creek land swap.

He spoke of draft legislation, although everyone I have talked to says no draft legislation exists. I have obtained a map of the proposed Squaw Creek land that should be made public along with the proposed legislation, rather than keeping it under cover from public comment, but still on a "fast-track" schedule before Congress recesses.

Mr. Dewey says public access is guaranteed to Squaw Creek; yes it is, but not on one mile of the west bank of the creek. He dismissed any concern that the creek would not be accessible to the public since "only a couple of existing parcels of private land exist" along the creek.

True, but under the proposal, there would be one mile more of private land on the west bank, limiting public access.

He echoed the statement of supporting groups that basically say the lands are not being effectively managed and protected by the Forest Service, so they should be locked up in private ownership. Are we going to trade all federal lands that are abused? Maybe Congress should provide better funding.

His statement about the Forest Service being excluded is incomplete. The Forest Service at three levels declined interest in the initial land swap proposal, so the local private landowner went out and upped the ante by acquiring more desirable Steens Mountain property to trade, hired an out-of-state land lobbying firm and Mr. Dewey to work the swap around the Forest Service and through Congress.

Rather than providing a "cow-free wilderness with almost two miles of Wild and Scenic River and habitat for the Redband trout," as Mr. Dewey proposes, let's keep "house-free" public lands on a mile of Squaw Creek just below its Wild and Scenic River designation for all Oregonians.

Contact members of the Oregon Congressional Delegation and request a formal public review and comment period on this proposal not dictated by the schedule of Congress.

Senator Ron Wyden

259 Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510; (202) 224-5244; Fax: (541) 330-6266; (541) 330-9142 (Bend); [email protected]