THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
EDITORIAL
State risk
level plan
is unfair
Baker County’s rate of new COVID-19 cases
has dropped to its lowest level in more than three
months, and our reward is ...
Well, there is no reward.
The county will instead continue to be subject
to the most severe restrictions on businesses and
events, under Oregon’s current system, through at
least May 27.
This is grossly unfair.
Consider these statistics:
For the 10-day period May 9-18, Baker County
reported 15 new cases. The county had zero or one
new case on seven of those 10 days.
That’s the fewest new cases in a 10-day period
since Feb. 4-13, when the total was 13. At that time,
Baker County was at the lowest of the state’s four
risk levels. At that level, restaurants and bars could
have indoor dining up to 50% of capacity, with no
limit on the total number of people, including diners
and staff.
But today Baker County is at high risk (the top of
the risk level, extreme, is no longer an option for any
county — a meager consolation). Indoor dining is
limited to 25% of capacity or 50 total people.
The reason the county is not benefi ting from its
signifi cant drop in new cases is that Gov. Kate Brown
and the Oregon Health Authority continue to use
a rigid, outdated set of criteria to determine county
risk levels. The specifi c problem for Baker County is
its percentage of positive COVID-19 tests.
For the most recent two-week measuring period,
May 2-15, the county’s positivity rate was 8.9%. To
drop from high risk to moderate risk, the rate would
need to drop below 8%. The county’s total new cases
during that period was 40, which would qualify for
moderate risk. At that risk level, restaurants and
bars can have indoor dining up to 50% of capacity,
or a maximum of 100 people — double the current
limits.
The state’s reliance on test positivity rate to set
risk levels is terribly fl awed, and in two ways.
First, by sticking to the two-week measuring
period that’s been in place since early December,
state offi cials utterly ignore the rapid progress that
the county has made. The test positivity rate for the
second of the two weeks (May 9-15) was 5.5%. Our
businesses are being punished solely because of the
11% positivity rate for the week May 2-8.
Second, the state metric utterly fails to acknowl-
edge that the total number of tests has dropped sub-
stantially, a completely predictable trend given that a
substantial portion of the population has either been
infected or been vaccinated, and thus would have
no reason to even consider being tested. In Baker
County, the weekly total of COVID-19 tests dropped
from 236 from May 2-8, to 146 from May 9-15 (dur-
ing February, by contrast, when the county had simi-
lar numbers of new cases, the weekly test total was
much higher, exceeding 300). As any fourth-grader can
tell you, if fewer people are being tested, even a small
number of positive tests will yield a higher positivity
percentage, despite the actual prevalence of the virus
in Baker County plummeting. The number of positive
tests dropped from 26 from May 2-8 to just eight from
May 9-15.
A reasonable person would call that a meaningful
improvement, one that totally justifi es relaxing the
restrictions. Oregon offi cials, unfortunately, are not
reasonable.
There are other reasons to move Baker County out
of high risk. Most recently state offi cials have tied
risk levels to the number of COVID-19 patients in
hospitals. From May 1-15, the largest share of new
cases in Baker County — 22.2% — was among 5- to
9-year-olds. Kids in that age range almost never need
hospital treatment for this virus — 1% of Oregon’s
total during the pandemic.
Baker County Commissioner Mark Bennett has
pleaded with state offi cials to drop, or at least modify,
the test positivity rate metric in setting risk levels. So
far his efforts have proved fruitless. The state contin-
ues to punish businesses for no legitimate reason.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
Your views
Be respectful of private
property along Pine Creek
The many benefi ts of living up Pine
Creek as we do include ready access
to the upper road and the very scenic
Pine Creek Reservoir. My partner and
I have enjoyed multiple hikes and ATV
rides up this scenic drainage for sunny,
warm picnics beside the reservoir and
photo opportunities, which are abun-
dant, including close-ups of our beloved
goats.
Dave McCarty and his partner,
Joelleen, are our neighbors (in country
terms) and we have found them to be
friendly and accommodating. We met
both of them at different times while
hiking the road through their property.
Dave’s recent purchase of the 1,500-
acre parcel above us on the hill has
been a godsend. He is currently logging
and thinning the thick forest growth
that has accumulated over the last sev-
eral decades. That overgrowth has been
a major concern of wildfi re. Listening to
his helicopter logging on the job every
day is music to my ears.
His property borders Baker City’s
watershed area and reducing fi re fuels
in this area is a boon to all of us. Any
time we can reduce forest fi re threats is
a step in the right direction. Living in
an overlay area, the threat of wildfi re is
forefront on our minds (and that of our
insurers).
Using the Pine Creek Reservoir
Road has been a privilege that too
many people have taken for granted
and come to view as a right. There has
always been a huge sign at the begin-
ning of the property notifying the pub-
lic that the next 2 1/2 miles are private
property and please stay on the road.
However, as with most good things, a
few bad apples have spoiled the whole
box requiring the current owner to take
steps to ensure the safety of his own
property. Admit it. You would do the
same.
In a two-week period late last fall, it
was reported to me that no less than
three half-dead campfi res (half-dead
meaning still warm and smoldering)
were found abandoned on this parcel of
land with no one in attendance along
with the discovery of an illegal elk trap
(archery season). That’s when Dave
installed the gate and I for one am
damned glad he did!
Late last fall — keep in mind what
our weather is like at this time. A stiff
wind could have whipped up any of
these abandoned fi res and turned them
into a raging inferno!
Remember Paradise, California?
Don’t think it can’t happen here. The
Elkhorn forests are way overdue for
a major burn. Ask the Forest Service
about that. A good downslope wind
from such fi res can carry embers deep
into the ripe, dry wheat fi elds of the
valley as well and then we’re all in
trouble.
Some of you are up in arms over
the closure of this access and whether
or not there is deeded public access
through (not “to”) this property is still
being debated.
This property is not mine and it is
not yours. It belongs solely to Dave
McCarty. He has stated that he will
allow hikers to go through (not while
he’s logging though — get real!). All you
have to do is call. He’s posted his phone
number on the gate. A little respect is
in order here.
The defi ance exhibited by some of
you is worthy of a good old-fashioned
trip to the woodshed! This is NOT
your property! Ask permission and
use a little common sense. No owner
of a logging show is going to allow the
public to go through the middle of their
work area. It is extremely dangerous
and liability is a huge concern along
with theft and you know some idiot
will go up there and help themselves to
whatever is not nailed down.
Wait until the logging is over and call
the owner. If we show a little respect,
it may work out for all of us. As for the
rest of you crybabies, get over it! It is
not public land and public access is yet
Letters to the editor
We welcome letters on any
issue of public interest. Writers
are limited to one letter every
15 days. Email letters to news@
bakercityherald.com.
to be determined. Obey the law.
Cindy Birko
Baker City
Greater Idaho website
addresses issues in op-ed
I’d like to answer some questions
raised by an op-ed opposing the reloca-
tion of the Oregon/Idaho border.
Oregon state assets such as snow-
plows, prisons, land, buildings, and
pension funds were paid for by all
the people of Oregon, including East
Oregonians. We paid for some of it, and
so it’s certain that any deal negotiated
between Oregon and Idaho will allow
rural Oregonians to take their share of
the assets with them when the border
is relocated. We propose that any
legislation to move the border give 21%
of state assets and liabilities to Idaho,
since 21% of the population of Oregon
would become citizens of Idaho. This
applies to the state debt as well.
We recommend that the legislation
to relocate the border should grand-
father in the professional licenses,
driver’s licenses, and local election re-
sults. If the law is clear, no court battles
will be necessary. Idaho doesn’t require
professional licenses for as many pro-
fessions anyway.
All of these questions and more are
answered in our FAQ and our proposal
at greateridaho.org
Mike McCarter
President, Citizens for Greater Idaho
La Pine
Phillips Lake prescribed
burns leave an ugly mess
What a beautiful site the Forest
Service has once again created by their
wonderful prescribed burns. If you
haven’t you should take a drive up to
Phillips Lake and take a look.
Burned through campground, so
everyone will have the beautiful site
of seeing black ash under every tree
and kids and pets alike will be able to
take advantage of walking and rolling
around in this beautiful mess once
again created by our wonderful forest
circus at work. Great job!
Brian Erwin
Baker City
OTHER VIEWS
Pride parade wrong to exclude cops
Editorial from The New York Daily
News:
A quarter-century has passed since
gay NYPD cops sued for and won the
right to march in the annual Pride
Parade in their police uniforms, notch-
ing a small victory in the decades-long
battle to end anti-LGBT discrimination
within the now 36,000-uniformed-
member force.
The long arc of history just bent the
wrong way. The woke folk at Heritage
of Pride, the nonprofi t that’s run the
parade since 1984, have just imposed
a new ban on cops in uniform partici-
pating in next month’s COVID virtual
Pride March. Somehow, people chroni-
cally discriminated against — with
a shameful history of being sidelined
from other parades — see no irony
in kicking a group to the curb just
because of their jobs.
Organizers said the ban is war-
ranted because cops in uniform can
create “an atmosphere of fear or harm,”
particularly for Black and transgender
people. Shame on them; while cops, like
some of every group, do bad deeds, far
many more routinely risk life and limb
to protect members of the city’s LBGT
community. Which is, frankly, beside
the point when considering whether a
gay man or lesbian woman who hap-
pens to also be a police offi cer should be
able to celebrate their sexual orienta-
tion at the same time that they express
pride in their profession.
Since its creation in 1982, the trail-
blazing Gay Offi cers’ Action League
has advocated insistently for LGBT
offi cers and helped address discrimi-
nation in the department. What good
is served, for example, by banning a
transgender offi cer like Aiden Budd,
who marched in uniform in the parade
in 2016, from showing the world that
gender identity and sexual orientation
don’t stop a person from practicing
any occupation with dignity and skill?
Maybe the parade’s organizers should
read their own mission statement,
proclaiming that “we respect, value,
and celebrate the unique attributes,
characteristics and perspectives that
make each person who they are.”
Or would organizers prefer that gay,
lesbian and transgender cops partici-
pate in the parade, but in plainclothes,
hiding who they really are? That’s
called closeting.