Saturday, January 2, 2021
VIEWPOINTS
East Oregonian
A5
Taking the next right steps in the new year
LINDSAY
MURDOCK
FROM SUNUP TO SUNDOWN
ight and warmth filtered through
the trees as the road wound its way
through the winter wonderland. Occa-
sional patches of ice had turned into groomed
snow as my sister and I headed west, seek-
ing opportunities to breathe in fresh air and
reflect on the year we had proven could be
lived well, regardless of circumstances.
We hadn’t been together for months, each
navigating our respective careers as a teacher
and a nurse, staying as healthy as possible
through the ups and downs of the worldwide
pandemic, living a year that I’m certain nei-
ther of us, nor the rest of the world, truly saw
coming. A year filled with death and life,
fires and floods, gains as well as losses. It was
month after month of opportunities to watch
the world we live in come undone, but at the
same time, be put back together again. Essen-
tially, it was a year filled with time and space
that begged for solace.
The road narrowed, the snow deepened,
and a path found alongside crystal clear water
seemed to call out our names with each rip-
ple and splash. Within minutes, we were
parked alongside a road, strapping on snow-
L
shoes, and grabbing for sunglasses and stock-
ing caps. My sister led the way as we crossed
the tapered, yet far from precarious, bridge.
My eyes moved from the left to the right,
as well as up and down, finding everything
about this winter trek strikingly impressive. It
was a paradise of sorts. Snow instead of sand,
pines instead of palms, and boots instead of
sandals. The beauty of the glittering snow
was breathtaking, sunlight bouncing in every
direction, making way for our souls to draw
in, and exhale out.
About 1 mile in, we stopped to catch our
breath, and readjust our boots. The trail had
been packed down by hikers who had gone
before us, and the snowshoes were not neces-
sary. We laughed out loud, poking fun about
the half hour we had spent waiting at the ski
shop for the shoes we were now carrying
instead of wearing. Just like most everything
in 2020, our best-laid plans had changed
direction right in front of us, and the best
option, the only option, was to keep pressing
forward. Not five minutes had passed, and
again, we stopped, searching the pack we’d
carried in for a bandaid or gauze. The boots
that hadn’t been worn in months were now
rubbing their way through my sister’s heels,
making each step tender and raw.
I looked forward, and then back down the
trail, scanning for a marker to let us know
how far we’d come, or even how far we still
had to go, as Kirsten continued rummaging
through the pack, looking for anything that
would ease the pain. Nothing. Chapstick, gra-
nola bars, and bottles of water littered the
ground, along with an extra pair of gloves,
and two pairs of snow pants that we hadn’t
needed either. We had thought of almost
everything before we left, and the months we
had just lived seemed to be playing out right
in front of us yet again — prepared for so
much, but not really prepared at all.
“Should we switch boots?” I quietly asked,
hoping for a way to continue to the falls that
we had every good intention of reaching.
“It’s worth a try,” she replied, as I reached
down to untie the laces.
Instant relief spread across her face as
she slipped on the boots that had carried me
all afternoon. With our snowshoes in hand
and new boots on our feet, we continued on,
talking about the things we had experienced
over the past several months. The top five
things we’d read, listened to, watched, and
made provoked reflection more so than goals
as we talked about our hopes and dreams for
the year to come. There’d been games we’d
played, food we’d cooked, projects we’d tack-
led, and shows we’d watched with our fam-
ilies that had allowed us to connect in ways
we didn’t know were even possible, and the
intentionality of slowing down, rather than
speeding up had allowed both of us to experi-
ence the solace we knew we needed all along.
Had it been detrimental to find new ways
to live? No.
Was it painful to continue pressing on
when it might have been easier to quit?
Absolutely.
Had we been on both the giving and
receiving end of solace in the form of cheer,
comfort, and even peace? Certainly.
In the end, did the good outweigh the bad?
Without a doubt.
Pressing toward the gentle roar of the cas-
cading water, our feet continued to carry us
as we shared the highs and lows of our days.
Single steps moving in a forward direction
was all 2020 had asked of us, and now, at the
top of the falls, we stood in awe of one of the
most glorious sights on that beautiful Decem-
ber day, high above everything that seemed
to matter.
A new year is here, and with that, oppor-
tunities to take the next right steps — wher-
ever and whatever they may look like —
knowing that the future always comes. It may
not look like the future we were expecting,
but I believe that if 2020 taught us anything,
it’s that one step at a time is all we have to
take.
I also know that when given the opportu-
nity to walk a mile in another person’s shoes,
one should take it. It may just save both of
you.
———
Lindsay Murdock lives and teaches in
Echo.
Cattle as fire retardant works best in small, controlled plots
GEORGE
WUERTHNER
OTHER VIEWS
hen I worked for the BLM, us
“ologists” (hydrologist, ecolo-
gists, biologists, archaeologists,
geologists and botanists) used to refer to
range conservationists as range “cons”
because they conned the public into believ-
ing many myths about livestock grazing.
It is essential to keep in mind that range
cons have a financial conflict of interest.
If there are no cows, there is no reason to
have a range conservationist on the payroll.
One of the “cons” heard continuously
from range conservationists and repeated
by ranchers that grazing can help preclude
large “mega” fires by “reducing” fuels.
This is one of those many assertions that
have a grain of truth, but is nevertheless
misleading.
Whenever you read such pronounce-
ments, be skeptical. Almost all the “evi-
dence” for the value of grazing to reduce
wildfires comes from government apol-
ogists with connections to the livestock
industry.
Many of the studies purporting to
demonstrate the influence of livestock
W
grazing on fire spread were done on small
experimental plots of land. The transfer of
these findings to the larger landscape scale
is questionable.
In a widely cited Arizona study, the
researchers had several small plots (sev-
eral acres in size). They grazed some of the
plots and kept others ungrazed as controls.
They concluded (with modeling) that light
utilization in treated sites, reduced fire rate
of spread by more than 60% in grass com-
munities and by more than 50% in grass/
shrub communities.
A real-life problem their study ignores
is that keeping cattle on the desired target
area is exceedingly difficult. Typically, this
is done by transporting cattle by truck to
the target site, then herding or using move-
able fences to keep cattle grazing focused.
All of this adds immensely to the cost
of any livestock grazing operation. Most
ranchers are simply not interested in spend-
ing that kind of money to get a bit of cheap
forage.
But the real problem with this and many
other studies that presume to show a live-
stock grazing-induced reduction in fire
spread is they do not work under extreme
fire weather.
The researchers in the Arizona study
admit as much in their next to the last para-
graph: “Although it is a promising tool for
altering fire behavior, targeted grazing will
be most effective in grass communities
under moderate weather conditions.”
The weather factors are significant
because nearly all massive wildfires burn
under “extreme fire weather conditions.”
Under such conditions, targeted grazing,
prescribed burning, thinning of forests, and
fuel breaks fail to contain or stop fires. In
attempting to reduce fuels, such prescrip-
tions often lead to more fire-prone species
like cheatgrass.
In an overview of various fuel reduc-
tions, Fire ecologists at the Missoula Fire
Lab concluded that: “Extreme environ-
mental conditions ... overwhelmed most
fuel treatment effects. ... This included
almost all treatment methods including
prescribed burning and thinning. ... Sup-
pression efforts had little benefit from fuel
modifications.”
Although they primarily examined for-
est management options, the same neces-
sary conclusions apply to reducing fuels on
rangelands.
Other evidence supporting grazing as a
fire reduction strategy is simply anecdotal.
Cattle graze a strip of cheatgrass. A fire
arrives, and the fire slows or is easily sup-
pressed by firefighters.
Without knowing the circumstances at
the time of the fire, such as topography,
vegetation, or weather conditions, one can’t
assume that grazing had anything to do
with the fire’s behavior.
Did the wind shift directions or sim-
ply stop? Was the fire even burning under
“extreme conditions,” which are the only
times you have large fires — the very fires
that cattle grazing advocates are suggesting
grazing is effective in halting or slowing?
Typically, under extreme weather con-
ditions, which always includes high winds,
any wind-blown fire spews embers up to
1 mile or more beyond the burning front.
Such a blaze will easily skip over a strip of
grazed land, making such fuel breaks or
targeted grazing ineffective.
Furthermore, the process of getting cat-
tle to remove such a high percentage of
cheatgrass or other vegetation results in
collateral damage.
This includes soil compaction, which
reduces water infiltration; social displace-
ment of native herbivores like elk and deer,
which avoid areas of active cattle grazing;
water pollution of streams; destruction of
riparian areas (the green line of vegetation
influenced by water); and reduction in grass
stubble needed as hiding cover by wildlife
like sage grouse.
Finally, since one cannot predict where
a fire would occur, so most of these treat-
ments only provide the livestock impacts
to our public lands, without any potential
“benefit” of halting a blaze.
———
George Wuerthner is an ecologist who
has published many books on environmen-
tal and natural history topics.
Looking beyond the pinstripes Removal of dams best for salmon
KEVIN
FRAZIER
OTHER VIEWS
ne of my favorite movies is “Catch
Me If You Can.” At one point,
Tom Hanks, who plays FBI agent
Carl Hanratty, encounters the target of his
investigation, Frank Abagnale, portrayed
by Leonardo DiCaprio. After Abagnale
deceived Agent Hanratty by hiding some
documents in his wallet, Hanratty asks why
he should have known to look there.
Abagnale answers, “The same reason
the Yankees always win. Nobody can keep
their eyes off the pinstripes.” To which
Hanratty responds, “The Yankees win
because they have Mickey Mantle.”
For too long, people have been dis-
tracted by the political equivalent of pin-
stripes — partisanship and flashy policy
ideas — to notice what’s actually going on
in state government. The headlines out of
Salem are dominated by walkouts, stand-
offs and stare downs. What often goes
unreported are the actual gears of govern-
ment that are increasingly grinding to a halt
after decades of use.
That’s why a recent story by Peter Wong
of the Oregon Capital Bureau, “Employ-
ment Department computer project back on
track,” was so important. Wong dove into
the details of what happens when actual
governing is neglected.
The Oregon Employment Department
“operates on a mainframe computer sys-
tem that dates back to 1993,” according to
Wong. It also “relies on a programming
language that goes back to 1959.” That
should strike you as problematic. Even
more troubling, the federal government
awarded the state funds to remedy this out-
dated and inadequate system back in 2009.
The worrisome facts don’t end there. The
vendor that’s likely to win the contract to
upgrade the system — FAST Enterprises
— has a record of installing inaccurate sys-
tems that have led to legal issues in other
states.
As if this all weren’t enough, this over-
due upgrade is meant to improve the state’s
O
ability to disperse employment benefits —
which thousands of Oregonians are relying
on during these tough times. The depart-
ment is also considering incorporating new
computer systems to run the paid fam-
ily medical leave program that the Oregon
Legislature recently approved.
Notably, this new program was heralded
by many (and, rightfully so) as a big step in
ensuring Oregonians have the support they
need to thrive. But sadly, headlines about
transformative policies are just another
form of pinstripes — things that distract us
from the far more pressing and important
questions such as do we have the players in
place to implement those big ideas?
Wong’s dive into a computer sys-
tem that’s literally older than me shows
that Oregon doesn’t have Mickey Mantle;
instead, we have Michael Jordan (baseball
MJ, not basketball MJ). In another time
and context, the state’s computer systems
were likely state of the art or at least not
decades old, but that time has long since
passed.
There’s few political points to be scored
by being the legislator focused on the
state’s programming language, but it’s
that kind of attention to detail that has to
be prioritized. Big ideas are nice. Absent
a government that’s designed to func-
tion, though, those big ideas are bound to
fail, waste money, and disappoint Orego-
nians that were counting on their promised
support.
Sadly, the state’s inadequate infra-
structure isn’t confined to the Employ-
ment Department. Steve Trout, who until
recently played a major role in running
Oregon’s elections, outlined a dozen needed
upgrades to the state’s election systems,
including security upgrades and efforts to
improve the cybersecurity of the system.
This all goes to show that as exciting
as it is to look at the pinstripes — to talk
about partisan battles and big policy ideas,
Oregon needs to think more about the sys-
tems and players responsible for realizing
those ideas.
———
Kevin Frazier was raised in Washing-
ton County, Oregon. He is pursuing a law
degree at the University of California,
Berkeley School of Law.
KURT
MILLER
OTHER VIEWS
’m incredibly honored to work as a
hydropower advocate. My organization
champions clean energy, works to fight
climate change and campaigns for fair and
equitable electricity access for commu-
nities across the Pacific Northwest. It’s a
mission we proudly embrace.
That said, I’ve learned some issues are
incredibly complex. Perhaps the most fre-
quent question I hear regards the effect of
dams on salmon and the implications of
struggling salmon populations for Indige-
nous peoples.
I’ve had many conversations with
Native American tribal members, and I’m
deeply moved by the central role salmon
play in their respective religions, econo-
mies, cultures and matters of food security.
My organization embraces the critical goal
of restoring healthy salmon populations,
and we continue to partner on efforts to
achieve that goal.
As a result, when we advocate for
hydropower, we encourage people to try
to think differently if they equate being a
hydropower advocate with being a salmon
adversary.
A multitude of studies released this year
prove you don’t have to “pick a side” when
it comes to hydropower and salmon. This
research demonstrates that climate change
— especially the effect of warming, acid-
ifying oceans — is the greatest threat to
salmon survival up and down the Pacific
Coast of North America.
Scientists have found that pristine riv-
ers without dams have seen very simi-
lar declines in survival compared to riv-
ers with dams over the past 50 years. This
finding points to the salmon’s shared envi-
ronment — the ocean — as the main cul-
prit. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries even came to the
shocking conclusion that Chinook salmon
may only have 20 to 30 years left if ocean
temperatures continue to warm at the cur-
rent rate.
I
If these studies are correct, then hydro-
power is a critical salmon recovery tool.
Hydropower represents 90% of our
region’s renewable energy, which makes
it our strongest climate change-fighting
resource.
Also, as recently acknowledged by the
Union of Concerned Scientists, hydro-
power is especially valuable in its ability to
help us add intermittent renewable energy
to the grid. Hydroelectric dams act like
giant, clean energy batteries that can store
water, and then release it past turbines to
produce electricity when needed.
That said, not all dams are created
equal, which is why my organization only
advocates for hydropower dams that pro-
vide meaningful societal and environmen-
tal benefits. A good example is the lower
Snake River dams, which produce enough
carbon-free electricity to power a city the
size of Seattle.
These Eastern Washington dams have
some of the most advanced fish passage
systems in the world.
Based upon this organizational philos-
ophy, we applaud the decisions that led
to the removal of the Elwha River dams,
Condit Dam, and the recent agreement to
remove the Klamath River dams.
None of the aforementioned dams pro-
duced large amounts of electricity, and
they were constructed without fish passage
capabilities.
As our name indicates, Northwest Riv-
erPartners stands ready to partner with
organizations on solutions that help remove
unproductive dams from service, espe-
cially if those removals can benefit salmon.
It is an approach that recognizes the
value of productive hydroelectric resources
to communities, to the environment, to
salmon, and to the people who depend on
them.
———
Kurt Miller is the executive director of
Northwest RiverPartners — a not-for-profit
organization that advocates hydropower
for a better Northwest. Miller joined NWRP
in March 2019 and has made it a priority to
find collaborative, science-driven solutions
to energy and environmental challenges.
He has spent almost 30 years in the North-
west energy and utilities industry.