Page 4A
East Oregonian
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
CHRISTOPHER RUSH
Publisher
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Managing Editor
WYATT HAUPT JR.
News Editor
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
Round-Up leadership takes all kinds
T
he Pendleton Round-Up has
another record-setting year under
its belt. More people attended
the 2018 edition of the rodeo than any
other in its long history, spending $1.3
million on tickets over the four days.
Trademark income topped $2.1 million.
The lines for food, beer and liquor
were packed, and the increase in
spectators certainly rippled through
the rest of the town and into greater
Eastern Oregon.
An increased online and social
media strategy, paired with a popular
whisky bearing its name, have certainly
introduced the iconic rodeo to a wider
and more diverse audience than ever
before.
It’s been a remarkable triumph in a
sport that has been on the decline for
decades. By trading on its good name
while refusing to betray its core values,
the Round-Up has become not just an
historic event but a must-see spectacle,
and one that draws both dedicated
repeat viewers and a growing number
of first-time guests.
The formula is no secret, but
it’s not easy to recreate, either. The
ground has been laid year after year
over the past century by an army of
volunteers, willing to put in a week or
more of work (sometimes much more)
to make sure the rodeo and all of its
auxiliary events and attractions operate
smoothly.
It has also put special care into
showcasing new and interesting
additions, and has been willing to
Staff photo by Kathy Aney
The annual Round-Up stockholders meeting held news of revenue records and
awards, but also some disagreement on Nov. 20 at the Let ‘er Buck Room.
let the entire event breathe across
an afternoon instead of cutting and
shortening in an attempt to appeal to a
new audience.
And of course to make a great rodeo,
you need great stock and competitors.
The Round-Up has never scrimped on
that front, making sure every ride is
a potential thrill and every top-level
cowboy and cowgirl has its date circled
on the calendar.
To reach the next plateau, however,
the Round-Up has been proactive,
hiring a general manager to dedicate an
entire 52 weeks a year to the Round-Up
and Happy Canyon’s development and
promotion. It has also selected board
members for their specific skill set
rather than just their history with the
organization.
For instance, Randy Thomas isn’t
a Round-Up lifer. He joined the board
as an ex-officio member when he was
the president of the Pendleton Chamber
of Commerce and showed a knack for
communication and professionalism,
so he was brought on as a full member.
His last few years on the board have
— not coincidentally, in our view
— coincided with the years of the
organization’s greatest growth. He also
showed a willingness to make the rodeo
more transparent, an important part of
building trust with those of us who live
here year-round.
It would have been a lost opportunity
to pass over Thomas because he hadn’t
spent enough time moving fence or
taking tickets to meet a volunteerism
quota before joining the board.
Paradoxically, the time of the
rodeo’s greatest growth has led to some
contention among stockholders. Not
all are willing to give up the old ways,
where a few decades of sweat equity
was a primary requirement for a seat on
the board.
The Round-Up is something to
be proud of, and we’re seeing that
play out. No one involved with the
event wants to see it shrivel. It has a
long history of innovation, from its
collaboration with Indian tribes to the
spin-off parades, meals and concert that
have always kept it marching on.
In rodeo as in any other business,
if you’re not moving forward you’re
moving backward. The Round-Up
is fortunate to have a passionately
dedicated group of volunteers who
sincerely want the best for it. These
disputes are a symptom of that passion.
The next few years will see more
radical change on the Round-Up
campus, but in the history of the event,
that’s nothing new. We hope they
continue to embrace the evolution.
OTHER VIEWS
Why not build a border barrier?
he news is filled with images of
migrants massing at the U.S-Mexico
border in California. Why haven’t
they been able to enter the United States?
Because a physical barrier prevents them
from doing so.
It is just another example of a barrier —
a fence, a wall, whatever
— providing real border
security.
Of course, building
a wall on the U.S.-
Mexico border was
President Trump’s premier
campaign promise. So
far, in nearly two years
Bryon
in office, he has made
York
almost no progress toward
Comment
making it happen. Trump
has had opportunities to
win wall funding in exchange for amnesty
for recipients of President Obama’s
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,
or DACA, policy. But the White House
loaded its wall proposal with add-on
demands, and it never happened.
Building a wall would cost an estimated
$25 billion. Trump often says that he has
already gotten $1.6 billion to start work.
But Congress has specifically dictated
that most of that money not be used for
the president’s wall. Some of it can be
used to build new fencing — not the wall
designs that the administration has tested
— while other money is restricted to the
replacement of existing fencing.
There was talk that Trump might win
$5 billion for wall funding during the
lame-duck session as House Republican
lawmakers finish their last few weeks in
power. The chances of that happening are
not good.
So what now? Even as events on the
border are showing the value of a wall,
politics in Washington are making it
impossible to construct one. What to do?
First, understand the problem. In
California, the migrants are targeting a part
of the border where there is a barrier. But
much of the border’s 1,954 miles remains
uncovered. According to the Border Patrol,
T
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the
East Oregonian editorial board. Other
columns, letters and cartoons on this page
express the opinions of the authors and
not necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
354 of those 1,954 miles are protected by
what is called pedestrian primary fence,
which is a single-layer fence. Another 37
miles are pedestrian secondary fence, that
is, double-layer fencing. And 14 miles are
pedestrian tertiary, or triple-layer fence. In
addition, 300 miles are covered by vehicle
fencing, which will stop a truck but allow
anyone to walk through with no problem.
That is a total of 705 miles — 405
miles of some kind of pedestrian fencing
and 300 miles of vehicle fencing.
No one, or almost no one, says a fence
should cover all 1,954 miles of the border.
A significant part of the border is terrain so
dangerous and imposing that it would be
very difficult for migrants to cross. During
the campaign, and during his presidency,
Trump called for a wall along about 1,000
miles.
But Democrats oppose even that.
And since Republicans could not pass
wall funding when they controlled all of
Congress and the White House, how could
they possibly do it with Nancy Pelosi in
charge of the House?
Unlikely. Still, there is one possible
course for Republicans. It is Public Law
109-367, better known as the Secure Fence
Act.
The act was passed by big, bipartisan
majorities in 2006, receiving 283 votes in
the House and 80 in the Senate. It required
the federal government to build reinforced
fencing, at least two layers deep, along
about 700 miles of the border. It specified
areas in California, Arizona, New Mexico
and Texas where fencing would be
installed.
If the law had been followed, many
vulnerable parts of the border would now
be secured. But the very next year, 2007,
after Democrats won control of the House
and Senate, Congress amended the Secure
Fence Act. The amendment said that
“nothing in (the original legislation) shall
require” the installation of fencing if the
government determines that a fence is not
the “most appropriate” way to secure the
border.
That was that. No 700 miles of fence.
The story of the Secure Fence Act
is a perfect example of why so many
Americans distrust their government.
In 2006, an election year, there was
a bipartisan consensus to pass a law
requiring the construction of a border
fence. In 2007, after the election, there was
a bipartisan consensus not to enforce it.
Still, Public Law 109-367 remains on
the books. And it still calls for a border
barrier.
What the president needs is money,
and that has to come from Congress. Of
course, Democrats won’t want to give
it to him. But if Trump called for an
appropriation to fund the fence, he would
at least have a new argument: Democrats
have already voted for it. And not just
illustrious Democratic former senators
like Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary
Clinton. Democrats in power now, too.
Sen. Charles Schumer, the minority
leader, voted for the Secure Fence Act.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein did, too. So did Sen.
Ron Wyden and Sen. Debbie Stabenow
and Sen. Sherrod Brown. (Brown voted
for it when he was in the House.)
In the House, Reps. Bishop, Brown,
Cooper, DeFazio, Kind, Lipinski,
Lynch, Maloney, Pascrell, Peterson,
Ruppersberger, Ryan and Smith all voted
for the Secure Fence Act.
Obviously, the Democratic Party has
moved far to the left on immigration in
the last 12 years. Many, if not all, of those
Democrats would now oppose what they
once supported, especially if Donald
Trump wanted it. So any fight on a border
barrier would be uphill for the president.
But masses of migrants are pushing
toward the border. And even when the
caravans are gone, illegal crossing of the
border is still common. There is a law on
the books that could strengthen border
security. Why wouldn’t the president try
it?
■
Byron York is chief political
correspondent for The Washington
Examiner.
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for publication in the
newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual
services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the
city of residence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published.
Send letters to managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or email editor@eastoregonian.com.