2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

It would be nice, if certain groups in their press releases (and their associated supporters) stopped using the word "playground". It is intentionally derogatory and totally unproductive in terms of facilitating compromise.  It just confirms my worst fears as I stated earlier.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

I'm an alpine climber, backpacker, hiker, mountain biker and avid backcountry/xc skier.  I'm also a decade+ monthly financial contributor to Oregon Wild.  Incongruously to some, I also own 3 motorcycles one of which is a dirt bike. Do dirt bikes cause damage to the ecosystem and do they create noise pollution?  Yes.  So does logging, ranching, downhill ski resorts and lots of other things that take place in our National Forests.  OHV access clearly needs to be controlled and I grudgingly support the MHNF rule change.  My more general objection - one that I think will eventually cause me to cease contributing to organisations such as Oregon Wild - is what I perceive as the secret desire to eliminate all OHV usage on public land. OHV users pay taxes to the federal government and they should be able to recreate - in selected areas - in their National Forests *even* a if it causes some level of damage.  I was never aware that the old MHNF policy allowed OHV access anywhere unless posted so I only ever rode at official OHV areas such as McCubbins Gulch.  So to me, the expansion of OHV areas as part of this "compromise" is really rather paltry.  A win for Oregon Wild and Bark?  For sure.  As for more enforcement. I would be happy to have the OHV fee raised significantly to pay for more enforcement and also be subject to more "education".  The problem is that, in an economic downturn, or perhaps in general, the government cannot be trusted to not redirect such funds into other uses, case in point the recent reallocation of WA NOVA funds.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Procedural question.  Since both these measures already passed (I believe Governor signed them in July 2009) and therefore this is a referendum rather than an initiative,  why are they worded as yes to pass tax increase and no to reject increase in the voters pamphlet?

I would have thought they would have been worded inversely.  Yes to reject passed increase, no to retain passed increase.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I'm amazed at the reaction to this.  Not so much here on OPB but there is amazing anger and venom on other forums.  PMR and the Crag Rats are all volunteer.   There is indeed expense to Clackamas County Sheriff, expense to Timberline (snowcats) and expense to the Air National Guard (assuming you don't buy into the "they need to train regardless" reasoning) but rescues of this magnitude are infrequent. 

I wonder what each individuals tax liability is here.  Pennies at best I would think? Given all the places our tax dollars get wasted, this issue just doesn't seem worth the raised blood pressure.

Claims that people are making "selfish" choices and engaging in "reckless" activities are misplaced not to mention a fairly slippery slope as if we all get together and combine our views on what constitutes selfish and reckless behaviour we'd better have a really large piece of paper.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

My understanding is that other climbers reached Terry because they happened to be on the mountain at the same time.  Totally incidental to the activation of his MLU.  It was the South Side and even in the Winter you're rarely alone on that route.   Also activation of an MLU means nothing unless someone is listening for it.  They are not a PLB.  Mandating MLUs .... a clear example of why you don't want the "government" involved in specifying technology ;-)  

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

One has to seriously question Sam Adams' judgment here. I have zero interest in grubbing through the minutia of his personal life and I'm sure he's not the first 41 year old to have a relationship with a 17-slash-18 year old but he was a city commissioner with well-developed political aspirations. I think it's reasonable for the electorate to expect their elected officials to engage in somewhat age-appropriate dating practices and lets face it, this was borderline.

Many seem happy to accept that the sexual portion of the relationship did not begin until after the eighteenth birthday but given that he has already lied once and convinced Mr. Breedlove to do the same, this faith seems somewhat misplaced.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context