Do some people go through a transition to get a comprehensive view?
I think it is really up to the organization to provide that broader view. A lot of the success of the ’84 wilderness bill and other conservation efforts has been where you have the broader statewide constituency and then you have very defined local groups which know their particular area. You need to have all those individuals who know these different places. That’s part of the equation. Just having the broader statewide organization without the local interests makes it a lot harder.
Why do you think ONRC seems to have had so much success in bringing that together?
I don’t know how many groups have tried to be statewide in their orientation. To some extent ONRC has been an anomaly. We felt that it would have been easier to do what we were doing in Washington State than in Oregon because you have the big Seattle/Tacoma population base. I think that Andy Kerr, James Monteith, myself, [and] Tim Lillebo were these committed crazy people who were pushing this and because Oregon was the belly of the beast.
[interrupted by telephone call]
You were asking how I would characterize ONRC in developing as a statewide organization. I think we were confronted with a situation in viewing Senator Hatfield as being responsible for more environmental destruction in this state than any other single individual in the history of the Northwest (laughs). Indeed, Senator Hatfield has this benevolent father outlook; “1 will destroy wilderness and we will have these little shining examples of why I am really a wonderful person.” But Hatfield helped us in saying there is going to be wilderness. Nevermind that for every tree he saved, that he wiped out ten others with the other hand. No organization can sustain itself without funding, but we did [without] it for as long as we could. Certain people were in the right place at the right time and were willing to make that kind of sacrifice. They had that kind of dedication to the issue and had an opportunity to elevate it.
Congressman Jim Weaver, as contrary a guy as he was, happily pushed Mark Hatfield even though he was not as much of an advocate as we’d hoped he would be. He was viewed by the public and our opponents as just being our guy. I think the Oregon wilderness bill [of 19841 was just a combination of events. From the national standpoint, Congress required that the Forest Service evaluate its roadless areas. They could have just stopped at that, but Hatfield said there’s going to be wilderness somewhere. Like I said, Weaver pushed and, given the times, was looked at as being pro wilderness. That political atmosphere provided the opportunity for an organization to run with the wilderness issue. I would say also that the willingness of Andy Kerr and James Monteith to work for little or no compensation over months and years was what enabled it to happen.
