A Letter of My Own - Erik Kancler, Bend

Dear Senator Walker,

As the executive director of Central Oregon LandWatch, I have spent a fair amount of time talking to people about the importance of SB 30 and urging them to write letters to you, to the other members of the Senate General Government and Education Committee, and to their own friends, in support of this important piece of legislation. It occurred to me, however, that I have yet to submit a letter of my own.

The following letter does not reflect my professional views, nor those of Central Oregon LandWatch, but rather my own personal views as a concerned citizen of Central Oregon, and my belief that SB 30 is a just, fair, and badly needed piece of legislation that can offer protection for one of the state’s greatest and most imperiled natural treasures.


First off, in response to comments made by Shane Lundgren at the first hearing: as far as this country goes, I’m not a fourth generation anything. On both sides, my family immigrated here from Central and Eastern Europe in the early 1900s in search of a better life. I have trouble believing that my perspectives and viewpoints and concerns are therefore less valid than someone who’s family has been here since the 1700s. Yet, Mr. Lundgren has appealed to your committee to dismiss the arguments of those with less “tenure” than himself.

My wife and I are trying to start a family and make a life for ourselves in Central Oregon, and someday we hope that our children will grace us with grandchildren. Shouldn’t we be talking about them and what the Metolius may mean for their generations, not our grandparents? I’m not trying to sound canned here, but I really do think this is what the debate is all about.

As for the hundreds of residents who have lived near the Metolius for less than twenty years and have shown tremendous commitment to protect the river and its surrounding environment, it’s disappointing that someone would suggest their testimony should be disregarded. Or the countless people who have regularly visited the Metolius to fish or to spend time with their families. Or the countless more people who have been casual visitors to the Metolius but who upon visiting have taken home an impression of the place and an appreciation for places like it and for the natural environment in general. Then there are those who have never been to the Metolius but who take solace in the fact that it’s there, whether it’s an hour out their door or ten. Maybe they’ll go some day, may not. Either way, its natural presence has value.

Personally, I fall into the category of casual visitor. I’ve been there a mere handful of times. But I’ve walked miles of its shores, marveled at the headwaters, sat on a log with my wife snacking on crackers and cheese, content to sit silently, fully aware that the energy we were gathering from those few moments, far from the hustle and bustle of our lives, would satisfy us for weeks to come.

Not only am I not a fourth-generation Metolian, I haven’t (yet) hiked the entire Pacific Trail. I admire Mr. Keane for completing such an impressive journey, but I have to ask whether or not it’s relevant to the matter at hand. After all, it’s the ethics that a person lives his or her life by, both personally and professionally, not the places he or she has been that make them a friend of the environment.

I have lived in the West my entire life, in our near places of great beauty. I’ve backpacked, hiked, set up camp, climbed peaks, soaked, fished, surfed, canoed, kayaked, and lay in the sun on countless rocks of every color throughout the American West. The list of places I’ve been, experiences I’ve had, and wonders I’ve seen is long. I could go through them in detail, but to what end?

After all, none of that makes me a good friend to the environment. What it means is that I’ve busted my knees, run out of water, fended off hypothermia and heat stroke, endured mosquito bites, fallen into poison oak, taped up blisters, nearly fallen off cliffs, or been swept away by roaring rivers in order to enjoy some of the most amazing places in the West. What it means is that I can recognize the value and rarity of a place like the Metolius when I see it. And I’m acutely aware of the places whose beauty have been diminished – not enhanced – by inappropriate development or lack of proper management.

I can say unequivocally, that if the Metolius if allowed to succumb to destination resorts, much of its unique beauty will be lost.

I realize (or am told) that things seem to be heading in the direction of compromise. I had hoped that in this case a line in the sand would be drawn, and in fact I still hope that one is drawn, because you can’t put a price an what it means to have large primitive areas of such natural beauty devoid of and far from intense development. I worry that this perspective is easily lost when invariably pitted against the more tangible considerations that must be made when coming to decisions regarding development and the environment.

Only very rarely does environmental protection seem to be sought by developers above financial returns. Sometimes the two can coincide to an extent, and I admire developers who seek this ground, but in most cases environmental protection must be demanded by the market or – in one way or another – by the government. The Metolius is not going to protect itself, and Jefferson County is clearly unwilling to do so. The resort market places little premium if any on environmental protection. The matter has fallen to the state legislature, and so it seems, you’re its last line of defense.

I’d urge that – if a compromise is the only political option available – where the developers make promises of being sensitive, being green, being “eco-friendly,” you find ways to hold them to their word. Otherwise one thing after another will fail to pencil out, and the resulting development may provide no special protections at all. I hate to believe that this is the case, and it may not be anyone’s intention at the outset, but it seems to happen with remarkable regularity.

For what it’s worth, and despite the imbalance of time given to the pro-resort interests thus far in hearings and (I’m told) in last week’s work group, I have appreciated the comments you have made, the questions you have asked, and the context you have brought to the debate. I don’t know how you are planning on voting on SB 30, only that your perspective seems to me to be a healthy one.

Please, don’t allow the Metolius to be unnecessarily compromised by resort development. The legislature has already protected the Columbia River Gorge. Jefferson County has plenty of room elsewhere for resorts. None of what they are proposing is necessary. Even in areas of little natural significance resorts and their impacts have proven problematic – a problem to be addressed at a later time.

That’s all I have to say. Thanks for listening, for keeping an open mind, and for the many hours you’ve no doubt already devoted to this matter.

Regards,

Erik Kancler
Bend, OR