NAIA: A day in town

Bitter irony and broken promises

Sharon Beck, President Oregon Cattlemen's Association

I left a little after 11 a.m. for Portland after talking to Bob Skinner who said the weather was fine and he was leaving from Jordon Valley to Troutdale via McDermit at the same time, in his airplane. I got to the Troutdale airport a little after his arrival with his passengers, George Wilkinson and Hugh Smart. We went to downtown Portland, drove by the new Mark O. Hatfield Federal District Courthouse so we could do a reconnaissance on the next morning's objective. The guys were looking out the windows and up, establishing landmarks in their minds so they could find it again. No one noticed street numbers or names. If they ever got lost they could just climb a ridge and spot that courthouse.

We took some time scoping out hotel prices with Bob's cell phone and finally settled on the lowest priced one with food and a watering hole close by and within walking distance of the courthouse. I met them and two more ranchers who had driven from Jordon, for breakfast at 7 a.m. next morning. They had been up since 4 a.m., visiting, symptoms of a time zone change and calving heifers.

We had breakfast for the next two hours, waiting for the appointed 9:30 a.m. hearing in Judge Redden's court on the issue of whether 54 families in the Owyhee canyon lands would lose their grazing permits and their way of life, forever. We talked about cougars, wolves, good dogs, trichomoniasis, road conditions, cattle and country. We did not talk about the impending hearing.

At the courthouse we went through the metal detector and the ranchers checked their pocket knives with the guard to be picked up on the way out. We were awestruck by the white and black marble entry with two-story waterfalls in the pillars and on the wall. Huge words were inscribed in the stone making dramatic phrases about JUSTICE. It did not say how much justice would cost. The ambiance suggests plenty.

On the 15th floor in Redden's court is more marble, abundantly embellished with imported matching wood seats, tables, the bench, wall and door trim. Can there be marble left in quarries after this? Is there a clear-cut in some rain forest to get this wood? Was there an environmentalist chained to a tree in protest?

The lawyers took their places, ours on the left, US Bureau of Land Management's left center, Oregon Natural Desert Association's on the right center. Like at a wedding we sat on the left side and filled our section with ranchers from Jordon Valley and McDermit, from other eastern Oregon communities. Sherril Anderson, whose husband Jim was claimed by the Owyhee River little more than a year ago, was there. On the right side was Bill Marlette and a few others who came and went during the proceeding. I saw no mingling of the two groups, indeed not a single exchange between them, so any other similarities to a wedding evaporated. BLM got as near to the center in the back as they could.

The judge opened the proceedings by stating the issues that brought us here: ONDA was seeking an injunction against the ranchers that would force them to remove all cattle from allotments in the 67 miles of the Owyhee Wild and Scenic River corridor based on their contention that the cattle were destroying the "outstandingly remarkable values" for which the river was designated. The injunction was requested to be immediate.

Bitter irony and broken promises

Heavy irony struck me that we who fought the Oregon Omnibus Wild and Scenic Rivers Act so hard over 10 years ago were now sitting in the MARK O. HATFIELD Courthouse, dedicated to the Senator who wrote, sponsored, and hammered through that bill with the help of environmentalists who were now suing us based on that act.

I wondered what the ex-Senator was doing today while we sat there listening to the ONDA lawyer say that grazing "hammered" the riparian areas of the Owyhee. I wondered if he would care; what he would see if he looked into the eyes of these courageous, beleaguered few ranchers who are trying to save their livelihoods and preserve a way of life. I had written him, and all of Oregon's 1988 congressional delegation and their current replacements, when the lawsuits started, to remind them of their promises. The fact that those rivers and streams met the criteria for Wild and Scenic after 130 years of grazing assured that grazing, using the same good management practices would continue unchanged. I did not hear back from him. I wonder if he is proud of that act and the Endangered Species Act and others that we who make our living from the land have to deal with every day, acts that cost us so much. I wonder that men are honored by having their names carved on buildings and bridges and streets and airports and yet have
left such a bitter legacy for so many. I wonder that men are honored though they cater to the whims of the masses at the expense of the individual, contrary to the constitution of this republic.

Would those revolutionaries who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor be outraged that the system of governance they conceived could turn on the very citizens it was designed to serve and protect?

I ponder the possibility of getting answers from the congressmen about their feelings now after our fears, pointed out to them in 1988, have developed into full blown nightmares. I want to look Mr. Hatfield in the face and say, "come join us in the court room and listen to the arguments that demean and disparage what we do on this land, that make judgments and even resort to lies about our lives, our purpose, and our intentions even though they, like you, have never seen this land let alone walked it, communed with it, read it, understood it and loved it like these few ranchers do"; "come sit with me on this polished wood and feel the tension all around us caused by the knowledge that one man will decide our future based on evidence brought to him by people who care nothing about the whole truth. Hear the short release of cynical laughter when the complainant's attorney says ranchers are not in the cattle business to make a profit anyway, and listen in disbelief as he offers the judge a compromise that would allow some of the cattle to stay on allotments that have no 'areas of critical environmental concerns' for this year and then take all of them off next year which he believes would give the ranchers time to find a place to take the tens of thousands of cattle."

I want Mr. Hatfield to remind the complainants and the judge of what he said in a letter to me, "The intent of the law is to preserve the existing character of the rivers - not to turn them into wilderness areas or withdraw them from multiple use activities. ... The Forest Service's Handbook makes it quite clear that existing practices can continue. ... Although row crops are prohibited in wild river segments, grazing and hay production are allowed to the extent currently practiced."

I want to remind Mr. Hatfield that he wrote "I do not believe that the act represents a danger to agricultural interests, and intend to scrutinize the administration of the law (once it is enacted) to ensure that private property rights are not invaded."

In another letter he assured me he intended "to watch closely the Forest Service and the BLM as they administer the rivers to ensure that private property rights and activities are not trampled on and abused." He did not answer my letter telling him how it was working.

I would remind the Honorable Les AuCoin that when he heard the Forest Service's testimony indicate that "... designation would have little effect on day-to-day management of the river corridor" he was "confident that these statements will be borne out." "If they are not, I would welcome the opportunity to hear from you again, to help resolve any conflicts you see arising." I see a conflict, Mr. AuCoin heard from me, he did not answer and he has not helped.

The Honorable Peter DeFazio in a handwritten note said I had "received some very misleading information on the bill. ... grazing and ag practices are fully protected under the act." He urged me to reread my copy of the act to help correct the misinformation I had. I did. He did not answer my letter telling him of the removal of grazing from the Donnar und Blitzen wild and scenic river two years ago.

Senator Packwood wrote me not long after the bill was passed. ... "The law will allow ... the continuation of all existing uses that are in accordance with the ... Act. For instance, agricultural uses, such as grazing and farming, will not be affected by this law." He wrote me again after I told him about the environmentalist's Donnar und Blitzen lawsuit opposing grazing. "I am shocked by your letter. I had no idea this outrageous, unfair situation had happened to you. I don't understand it."

Representative Denny Smith voted for the bill after getting language included that said "The Committee recognizes that a variety of uses including, but not limited to, such activities as grazing, timber harvest, mining, agriculture, utility, transportation, and residential uses will continue to take place on private and public lands within the wild and scenic corridors." We continue to disagree on the outcome.

Representative Ron Wyden praised the bill in the Congressional Record and assured us that our fears that the bill would be used to dispossess ranchers of long-held rights on public and private land were groundless. Now he is a Senator. He did not answer my letter of two years ago telling him how the environmental industries were using the 1988 Act.

Eighty five percent of the rivers and streams proposed in the Hatfield bill were in Congressman Bob Smith's district, and he never once wavered in his opposition of the bill. He knew it would come to no good end. He attempted amendments that failed because he had no support from the rest of the Oregon congressional delegation.

Betrayal

So this is another chapter in a story of consistent betrayal of the natural resource industries. Every one of the those people had their reasons, their excuses, their agendas. Once the bill was passed we began to see emphasis on words change, protect and preserve the outstandingly remarkable values for which the river was included in the W&S designation metamorphosed into protect and enhance or preserve and enhance.

The environmental interests could no longer see a river's wild beauty if any sign of man or man's activities was present; they could not happily recreate if they could see a cow on distant hillside while rafting a river and God forbid if they should see a tree stump. They attempt to convince judges that rivers and streams cannot function in the presence of livestock or timber harvest, mining or farming. They lead them away from the facts that show the Owyhee to be 98 percent fully functioning, two percent designated functioning-at-risk in an upward trend, and zero non-functioning or in a downward trend, according to BLM assessments. They avoid information that shows only 18 miles of the 67 mile segment to be accessible at all by livestock There is no harm to the values for which the Owyhee River was included in the bill.

As I sat in that court room I wished with a passion that I could dub over the present day arguments about the Owyhee, with the volume on loud, Senator Hatfield's own words now a part of the Congressional Record October 7, 1988: The act does not attempt to undo developments which are already in place, nor does it attempt to interfere with activities which already exist in the designated river area. For example, timber harvesting, mining, agriculture, grazing and the recreational uses are all grandfathered uses in the act and are allowed to continue to the extent they are currently practiced. For example, if a rancher has cattle grazing in a designated river corridor - that grazing would be allowed to continue. In fact, with our programs designed to enhance and restore riparian areas from overgrazing, I can envision the day when it would be possible for grazing units to increase with improved riparian management.

So many promises made, so many broken!  

The wait

In fact riparian areas have improved as have whole watersheds, and all in the presence of livestock grazing, managed by these very same ranchers who sit to be judged by a man who has never walked a mile in their boots, indeed who cannot ever walk a mile in their boots because there is no way for him to duplicate their multi-generational frame of reference, their philosophy of life in general, their sense of their own purpose and their own worth, their loyalty to what's right and what's good, who believe they were chosen by God to do what they do and who never expected to be judged by other than Him.

Now the hearing is over, the arguments have been made and the wait has begun. Those ranchers who flew or drove the long distance from their homes to Portland quickly scattered at the conclusion of the two-hour hearing, back to their ranches where calves were being born, where signs of spring renewed hope of early grass. They got calls from their neighbors to ask about the hearing and when a decision would come about their fate. "Our lawyers did good," they'll say, "don't know how he can rule against us." "No way to tell how long until he rules."

The ranchers of the Owyhee will go on about their work as usual but at the edge of their mind will be the judge's impending decision. They will second guess what the lawyers said or didn't say, they may do some what-ifs, I shoulda's, I wish's, but ultimately they will settle on the belief that this one man who should not have such power over their lives, but does, will rule in our favor. The alternative is unthinkable.