Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 7, 2021)
ANDREW CUTLER Publisher/Editor KATHRYN B. BROWN Owner WYATT HAUPT JR. News Editor JADE McDOWELL Hermiston Editor THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2021 A4 Founded October 16, 1875 NOTE TO READERS The East Oregonian editorial on Tuesday, Jan. 4, “Bentz has bright future in Congress” was written before our editorial board be- came aware of Rep. Cliff Bentz’s Dec. 15, 2020, statement in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, stating he supports GOP efforts to investigate election irregularities. We find this alignment with the so-called “sedition caucus” intent on overthrowing the election deeply alarming. Bentz has declined to comment on how he planned to vote on Jan. 6, before rioters shut down the U.S. Cap- itol. We urge him to join with the Republican members of Congress who respect the choice of American voters, and allow for the peaceful inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden on Jan. 20. OUR VIEW Single-payer plan in the works for Oregon Pondering electric bikes and nonmotorized roads and trails A state task force is meeting regularly, charged by the Oregon Legislature to figure out how a single-payer health care plan might work in Oregon. It’s a big deal. Single payer is often called “Medicare for all.” It would be a lot like Medicare in that everyone would have the same health insurance plan, though people get to choose where they get care. Could it be an improvement? Yes. There’s sure room for improvement. But there are also complicated problems to sort out, and others that such a program could create. The first obstacle is public opinion. Try telling people: Your health plan is going away. And we have some new taxes. The new system will be better. Your state gov- ernment will get it right just like always! Oregon’s Joint Task Force on Universal Health Care is looking at the big questions. How would Oregon pay for it? How much care is the “right” amount? How would eli- gibility work if people come to the state? Would it be allowed under federal law? This week the task force takes on the issue of the federal ERISA law. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 sets standards for retirement and health plans in private industry. ERISA also sort of creates a roadblock, stopping states from experimenting with health care reform. If a single-payer option was created in Oregon, it might be challenged under ERISA. Employers that are self-insured might argue that a state, single-payer plan funded by a payroll tax would put pres- sure on employers to drop their cover- age for their employees or they would be effectively paying twice. That happened in Maryland and the plan was struck down, according to documents for this week’s meeting. It’s not clear that Oregon would stick to that script. What Oregon would likely do is seek a waiver from the federal government from certain requirements of ERISA. If that was granted, one problem could be solved. As problems go with creating a sin- gle-payer system, dealing with ERISA may be one of the easier ones. It would be a mis- take for legislators to assume that because there are clear Democratic majorities in both houses of the Legislature and in Ore- gon’s top elected offices that Oregonians are ready for a state takeover of health care. That’s still a tough sell. Smaller steps would probably be smarter than one big swooping change, to build trust and to build government compe- tency. We’re not saying that’s what the state should do. Just that it would be smarter. BILL ANEY THIS LAND IS OUR LAND magine it’s early September and you hold a coveted Mount Emily archery elk tag. After a restless night, you rise three hours before dawn and drive 45 minutes to a trailhead where you are happy to see no other vehicles. Loading up your hunt- ing pack and bow, you walk past a closed road gate for a 3-mile hike into your secret elk hunting spot, far from the disturbance of motor vehicles. You and the elk have an affinity for this place, and the quiet and soli- tude it provides. The eastern horizon is just starting to turn pale pink as you near the familiar sad- dle where elk trails cross the still dark ridge. Ears, eyes, nose — all senses are on full hunting alert when you become aware of the crunch of tires on the road coming up quickly from behind. You are no longer the only human in these woods. A bicyclist, also carrying a pack and hunting bow, glides effortlessly past you on the steady uphill grade. Other than the tires rolling over the ground, the only sound you hear is a low whir. You’ve just been overtaken by a hunter on an e-bike, a bicycle powered by an elec- tric motor. You curse under your breath, realizing that this hunter has invested less boot leather and effort than you, and slept more last night, while accessing the same remote backcountry. This scene plays out more and more on our public lands as land managers and for- est users sort out the latest development allowing more people to easily access the deep backcountry. As owners of these pub- lic lands, we should be thinking about this I new tool and how it impacts our natural resources and recreational pursuits. To be clear, this is not about Wilder- ness with a capital “W.” By law, federally designated wilderness areas are off-limits to mechanized travel of all sorts. E-bikes, ATVs, motorcycles, mountain bikes and, yes, even wheeled deer carts are not permit- ted in wilderness. This is not really open for debate, although some people are using this as part of a fallacious slippery slope argu- ment against allowing e-bikes on public trails and roads. More than 90% of federal land in Oregon and Washington is not designated wilder- ness, but not all this area is treated the same. Some areas are not open to any motor vehi- cles, some are open only to motorcycles and/ or ATVs, and some are open to motor vehi- cles only in certain seasons (like snowmo- bile trails or dry season ATV trails). Where do e-bikes fit? Are they just an easier and faster cousin of mountain bikes? Or are they more like quiet motorcycles and only appro- priate where motor vehicles are allowed? To work through this puzzle, it helps to understand why some areas are closed to motorized travel in the first place. I see two broad sets of reasoning. First, reducing dis- turbance provides areas of security for wild- life and a place for humans to find quiet and spiritual renewal. Traffic, noise, safety, security and solitude are all good reasons to have areas far from motor vehicles, and as our ambitious archery hunter knows, such areas can hold more elk. Second, natural resource damage can occur when the rubber meets the mud, cre- ating rutting and erosion, impacts to soils and sensitive vegetation, and in general tends to put mud in the crick. Motor vehicles are among the worst culprits. So where do e-bikes fit? They are quiet, less powerful and slower than motorcycles or ATVs. Still, our early-rising bow hunter would argue that his or her solitude and backcountry experience was ruined by this technology. And while e-bikes can’t do the same kind of damage to soils, water and vegetation as motorcycles or ATVs, they can probably do more damage than mountain bikes or foot traffic. The biggest impact of e-bikes may be the way they allow easier access into the deep back country. Motorcycles, three-wheel- ers, four-wheelers, side-by-sides and e-bikes each represent an incremental evolution of technology with impacts that we may not fully appreciate at first. Opportunities for solitude and adventure should require some commitment of time, energy and dis- comfort, and whether it is new ultralight backpacking gear, satellite communica- tions or vehicles, people are using technol- ogy to get further, and more easily, into the backcountry. As land managers wrestle with e-bikes and the next new type of vehicle, it helps to have a bright line of distinction. For example, with respect to designated wil- derness areas, mechanized equipment is not allowed. Wheeled equipment is mech- anized and wheels don’t belong in wilder- ness. Simple. I suggest there is another useful bright line with respect to e-bikes. If it has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle. Roads, trails and areas that are open only to nonmotorized travel should be off limits to e-bikes because they have a motor. Simple, clearly under- stood and without nuance. Stick to the established standard and keep motorized vehicles out of nonmotor- ized areas, no matter how quiet. This is bet- ter for backcountry, better for wildlife, and better for the pursuit of peace and quiet. ——— Bill Aney is a forester and wildlife biolo- gist living in Pendleton and loving the Blue Mountains. cies Die” in 2018. They note that democ- racy no longer dies with a revolution or coup, but with the slow, steady weaken- ing of critical institutions, the judiciary, the press, and the gradual erosion of long-standing political norms. Trump’s behavior, with the support of many Republicans, is the biggest threat to our democracy since World War II. Chuck Wood Pendleton But the continuation of this perfor- mance still depends on the acceptance of proven and medically unanimous pro- cedures enacted by the state. Such pro- cedures, even though mandated, are not 100% enforceable, but we only need review examples where they are either not in place, or have been neglected, to observe soaring contagion, overwhelmed hospital facilities, and rapidly increasing mortality. Most of us do not want that for Oregon. No system is perfect, and business should work with public health services to discover ways to innovate and safely continue their activities. The media reports almost daily examples of these occurrences. Importantly, this is not a basis for political divide. This is not about consti- tutional rights, or the last election. It is about defeating the pandemic. We have the knowledge of the methods required to best contain the virus and now the vac- cines to suppress it. With some patience, and a level of trust, there is a rational way forward. Donald Fisher Powell Butte YOUR VIEWS Trump’s behavior a threat to democracy I remember sitting at the kitchen table with my two daughters 40 years ago tell- ing them, “This is a very special day.” It was Jan. 20, and we were watching the inauguration of the president of the United States. I emphasized it was a spe- cial day because we were one of the few countries to have a peaceful, orderly and respectful passage of presidential power. The girls, now grown women, won- der, “What happened to that democratic process?” Never in my wildest dreams could I imagine a narcissistic, serial-lying dem- agogue refusing to relinquish presiden- tial power. Trump has taken a timeout from playing golf and ignoring the pan- demic to motivate 140 members of the House and 12 senators to contest the election that he lost, stoking insurrection and the far right to arm up and protest on Wednesday, Jan. 6. Harvard professors Levitsky and Ziblatt spent 20 years studying the death of democracies in Europe and Latin America and published “How Democra- Oregonians support you, governor Despite the harangues of a couple hundred uninformed, misguided, and radicalized protestors in Salem on Jan. 1, I believe the overwhelming message to Gov. Kate Brown and Oregon public health authorities is that the vast major- ity of Oregonians support the measures taken to control the spread of COVID- 19. Oregon’s rank as 45th among the 50 states in terms of infection rate is a testa- ment to the success of state policies and the assumption of responsibility in the absence of national leadership.