For those of you that fish the Elk and Sixes rivers in Southwest Oregon, I’m sure you’ve been following the Sportsmen for Copper-Salmon Wilderness campaign to protect the Elk River’s headwaters. This wilderness proposal has support from both of Oregon’s senators — Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith. It also has the support of the local chambers of commerce, Governor Kulongoski, the mayor of Port Orford Oregon and a slew of environmental and sportfishing organizations.
So what’s holding this up? Oddly enough, it’s some jackass senator from Oklahoma that doesn’t have a damn thing to do with Oregon. Tom Coburn (the guy trying to bring guns into the National Parks against the will of park employees) is strangling Copper-Salmon, and a slew of other wilderness bills in Oregon.
The Register-Guard ran an editorial today, blasting Coburn for holding up popular wilderness bills in Oregon. The Mail Tribune in Medford ran an article about Kulongoski’s efforts to push this legislation forward.
Help keep pressure on Coburn by calling his office in DC (202-224-5754) and telling his staff how important the Elk River fishery is to you and other Oregon sportsmen. Or email Coburn and give him a piece of your mind.
Contact Us:
12 responses so far ↓
1 John Galt // Mar 9, 2008 at 5:05 am
Thanks for posting his number. I’ll have to call and support his efforts to allow concealed carry in national parks.
2 Doug W // Mar 9, 2008 at 8:37 am
Whether guns are eventually permitted inside national parks or not should not be decided by park employees. They work those very generous jobs to serve the public, not to tell the public how the parks should be run. Clearly there are areas in our national park system where firearms should not just be permitted but encouraged. You people pushing your own special little land grab would do well not to square off against other agendas.
3 cvanderbeek // Mar 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm
John Galt-
Why don’t you use your real name.
That Ayn Rand pseudo philosophy is sooo 80’s.
It’s just an old and tiresome cliche at this point.
4 MD // Mar 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm
There are no reasons why we should not be able to travel to the parks without the fear that some drunken camper will pull out his gun and blast at some wildlife that he “percieves” as a threat or when he gets into an agrument with some other camper.
You can take guns into many parks that allow hunting etc. You can also take guns into other parks as long as they are not immediately available — like right on your hip.
I want parks to be a place to go without all the craziness.I have guns and believe in my rights. I don’t feel that the parks infringe on those rights.
Whenever I’m traveling in the parks I have pepper spray which is more effective with wildlife. Also very effective for people.
Its worked fine for years- changing the gun policy is just politics. And not very good politics.
5 Bob Loblaw // Mar 9, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Hey rednecks! Find another place to bring your guns other than national parks! You only have 99% of the country you can roam around in, so go at it and hopefully you’ll pull a Cheney on each other.
6 lyn // Mar 9, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Oregon has enough wilderness areas as it it. Our forests need help. Put it in wilderness and it just piles up and burns. It destroys everything.
7 Karl Mueller // Mar 9, 2008 at 6:09 pm
What’s his beef with Copper-Salmon?
8 Karl Mueller // Mar 9, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Lyn,
Copper-Salmon Wilderness is a area characterized by steep slopes and old growth douglas fir/red cedar port Orford Cedar. It is actually the type of forest that is very fire resistant. Changing the designation of the area has nothing to do with its susceptibility to fire. Oregon has less wilderness as a percentage of the states area than Washington, Idaho are California. I don’t think we do have enough.
9 Tom Hines // Mar 10, 2008 at 2:25 am
Its great the the National Park Service does not believe in, abide by, or operate within the bounds of the Constitution.
As for wilderness? That should not ever be a FEDERAL goverment. The Fed goverment should not determine what a states people can or cannot do on land within that State.
10 Matt Stansberry // Mar 10, 2008 at 6:02 am
Well said Karl. Just for the record, I was the one editorializing on the gun/parks issue — which has nothing to do with fishing and I should have left it out.
So… if you want to debate the worthiness of the Copper-Salmon wilderness proposal, I’ll publish your comments. If you want to get into a second ammendment debate, you’ll have to find another forum.
11 Mark // Mar 20, 2008 at 5:38 am
lyn,
I think you have an unfortunate misperception about how much of Oregon is protected as wilderness for my children and their children’s children to enjoy. Look are our neighbors: Washington 10 percent protected as Wilderness; California, 13-14 percent….Oregon, just 3.7 percent. I think Cooper-Salmon, Lewis and Clark Mt Hood and other proposals are special places that absolutely deserve to be protected for future generations to enjoy for fishing, hunting, hiking and camping. I appreciate that my grandparents and the generations before them had the foresight to protect some of the areas I enjoy today with my children. I hope my generation will leave such an wonderful legacy as well.
12 House of Reps pass Copper-Salmon wilderness, DeFazio applauds « Trout Unlimited Oregon Council Blog // Apr 24, 2008 at 4:02 pm
[…] now be passed by the Senate before it can go to the President to be signed into law. Unfortunately, Tom Coburn, a senator from Oklahoma is holding up the works in the Senate. But Coburn is more like a speedbump than a roadblock, since […]
Leave a Comment