Earth Day is an annual event held on April 22 to demonstrate support for environmental protection. It was first held on April 22, 1970, and now includes a wide range of events coordinated globally through earthday.org.
Its conception was in 1969 at a UNESCO conference, after activist John McConnell proposed setting aside a day to honor the Earth and the concept of peace, to first be observed on March 21, 1970, the first day of spring in the northern hemisphere. This was later sanctioned in a proclamation written by McConnell and signed at the United Nations, and a month later, Senator Gaylord Nelson proposed the idea to hold a nationwide environmental teach-in on April 22, 1970. It grew well beyond this original idea for a teach-in to include the entire United States, and got the name coined, “Earth Day”. Key non-environmentally focused partners played major roles in this growth; notably the United Auto Workers union, which was unusual for the day.
Early Earth Day commemorations were focused on the United States, but in 1990, Denis Hayes, the original national coordinator in 1970, took it international and organized events in 141 nations.
The theme for Earth Day 2025 is Our Power, Our Planet, inviting everyone around the globe to unite behind renewable energy, and to triple the global generation of clean electricity by 2030.
Earth Day has been more than a commemorative event that looks back at the start of it all back in 1970; it was also intended from the beginning to be a participatory event. The participant count recently surpassed one billion worldwide in 183 countries, and there are many fine groups and organizations that are putting together local volunteer events near you, mostly on the April 19-20 weekend. These focus on repairing the damage done to our planet, and if you can find one and help them out, it would be great! Here is one that I partnered with for years to organize a local event to clean up around Portland’s Forest Park; they also list many similar events all around Oregon: solveoregon.org
Congressional leaders are proposing to sell federal public lands as part of the upcoming budget reconciliation package.
Our nation’s public lands face an unprecedented threat. A provision in the proposed FY2025 budget reconciliation bill would permanently transfer public lands into private ownership. This could:
Eliminate public access for outdoor recreation
Destroy critical wildlife habitat
Weaken environmental protections
Threaten historic, cultural, and Indigenous sites
Public lands belong to all Americans. They’re where we camp, hunt, fish, and hike. They protect watersheds that provide clean drinking water and serve as crucial carbon sinks in our fight against climate change. Once privatized, these treasures are lost forever.
Why Your Voice Matters Now:
The budget reconciliation process requires only a simple majority vote with no filibuster option. Every representative’s vote will be crucial in this decision.
Take Action Today: Contact your congressional representatives and tell them to reject any budget reconciliation bill that includes provisions to sell our public lands. These natural treasures belong to all Americans, not just the wealthy few who can afford to buy them.
Subject: Reject Public Land Sales in the FY2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill
Dear [Representative/Senator] [Last Name],
I am writing as your constituent to express my deep concern regarding provisions in the proposed FY2025 budget reconciliation package that would authorize the sale of federal public lands. Our public lands are irreplaceable national treasures that belong to all Americans. They provide:
Critical access to outdoor recreation for people of all backgrounds
Essential habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife – Protection for watersheds that supply clean drinking water
Preservation of significant cultural and Indigenous heritage sites
Natural carbon sinks that help mitigate climate change
The budget reconciliation process, which requires only a simple majority vote without the possibility of a filibuster, should not be used to make such consequential decisions about our shared natural heritage. I strongly urge you to vote against any budget reconciliation bill that includes provisions to sell our public lands. These lands belong to all Americans, not just the wealthy few who might be able to purchase them.
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name] [Your Address] [Your City, State ZIP] [Your Phone Number] [Your Email]
There’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing about to cut through our federal forests. It slipped silently through the U.S. House of Representatives, and is about to roll into the Senate.
The so-called “Fix Our Forests Act” (HB 471) is on the table, and its seemingly helpful name is a guise to pass legislation that prioritizes logging access over genuine forest conservation and would also remove judicial review of how forests are managed. This bill poses a significant threat to our ecosystems and the wildlife that depend on them.
While the bill has some positive notions included, it lacks any proposal for how they’ll be funded and function more as eco-bait than anything else. The other aspects of the bill that do have teeth to them are far more hair-raising:
The bill includes no funding for federal land management agencies or communities most at risk.
Rejects a permanent increase for federal firefighter pay.
Slashes public participation and judicial review for a broad range of forest management projects. This judicial review is one of the only remaining safeguards that exists in our legal system.
Enacts large-scale, industry-focused shortcuts of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Includes a reckless reduction of ESA protections, exempting the Forest Service from any requirement to consider new scientific discoveries, new species listings or new critical habitat designations once a forest plan has been approved – setting yet another dangerous precedent.
It also does not address the main driver of catastrophic wildfires – climate change.
What to do:
Contact Your U.S. senators. It is essential to voice your opposition. Tell others. This bill’s name makes it easy to fly under the radar; not a lot of people know this is happening.
Oregon Senators:
Ron Wyden Phone: (202) 224-5244 Email: Contact Form
Jeff Merkley Phone: (202) 224-3753 Email: Contact Form
Washington Senators:
Patty Murray Phone: (202) 224-2621 Email: Contact Form
Maria Cantwell Phone: (202) 224-3441 Email: Contact Form
Key Points to Convey:
When you reach out, consider emphasizing:
The misleading nature of the bill’s title and the real implications it holds for logging companies to exploit our forests.
The urgent need for policies that protect our natural resources and promote sustainable management practices.
Your voice is crucial in this fight. Let’s work together to ensure that the health of our forests is prioritized over corporate interests.
For 131 years, the Mazamas has stood as steadfast defenders of our public lands, advocating for access, preservation, and protection of the wild places that define the Pacific Northwest. Since our founding on Mt. Hood in 1894, the organization has worked alongside dedicated land managers, biologists, and trail crews to ensure that these lands remain open, healthy, and protected for everyone.
Today, that legacy is at risk. Public lands across the country — and right here in Oregon — are facing an unprecedented crisis that threatens the trails we hike, the mountains we climb, and the forests and watersheds we depend upon.
An Unprecedented Threat to Public Lands and the People Who Protect Them
In recent weeks, sweeping staffing cuts have deeply impacted the agencies responsible for managing and protecting our public lands. According to the Outdoor Alliance, as well as reporting from the Statesman Journal, E&E News, and the Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management have seen between 10 and 30 percent of their workforce laid off, with some reports indicating that up to half of all recreation staff have been eliminated.
These cuts are already being felt, as noted by National Parks Traveler resulting in unmaintained trails, closed campgrounds, and reduced emergency response capacity. Communities that depend on the outdoor recreation economy—an industry that generates billions annually according to the Outdoor Industry Association—also face economic impacts as public lands become harder to access and enjoy.
Industrial Logging and Environmental Rollbacks Compound the Crisis
Making matters worse, a recent executive order promotes a major expansion of industrial logging on public lands, including old-growth forests, as outlined by Oregon Wild. This directive calls for weakening long-standing protections under laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. Reporting by The Washington Post, Earthjustice, and the Statesman Journal confirms that these plans will fast-track logging projects while limiting public input and environmental review.
Rather than promoting thoughtful, science-based wildfire mitigation, this order prioritizes large-scale logging under claims of wildfire prevention and national security. Analysis from the Center for Biological Diversity and Earthjustice highlights how this move endangers ecosystems and wildlife while putting short-term industry profit ahead of conservation.
Why This Matters to the Mazama Community
As Mazamas, we know that public lands don’t maintain themselves. We’ve worked with rangers, scientists, and trail crews for generations to protect the places we love. Trails need maintenance. Forests need responsible management. And wildlife needs protected habitats to thrive. Without the trained professionals who safeguard these lands—and without the environmental protections now under attack—the future of our public lands and the outdoor experiences they offer are in serious jeopardy.
How You Can Take Action Today
Contact your members of Congress. Let them know you oppose public lands staffing cuts and the rollback of environmental protections. Ask them to reverse the staffing cuts, restore funding for public land agencies, halt large-scale logging in mature and old-growth forests, and prioritize science-based land management. Use Democracy.io to send a message quickly and directly.
Join the Mazama Conservation Committee. We need members to help us monitor and respond to these threats. Email us at conservation@mazamas.org to get involved.
Volunteer for trail maintenance and stewardship. The Mazamas regularly partner with organizations like Trailkeepers of Oregon and Washington Trails Association, which offer hands-on ways to care for our outdoor spaces. Look for trail tending opportunities on the Mazama calendar and via TKO and WTA directly.
Attend the Rally to Protect Public Lands hosted by People for Public Lands, happening Saturday, March 15 at noon in front of the Edith Green Federal Building in downtown Portland. Public lands belong to all of us, and showing up in person sends a strong message.
Finally, talk to others about what’s happening. Share this information, encourage friends, family, and fellow Mazamas to speak up, and remind them that these lands belong to all of us.
The Future of Public Lands Is in Our Hands
Whether you hike, climb, or simply find peace in nature, your voice matters. By speaking up, getting involved, and standing together, we can protect these places for generations to come. The wild places we love—mountains, forests, and trails—are still here because people stood up to protect them. Now it’s our turn.
If you’re ready to take action, email us at conservation@mazamas.org. Together, we can continue to protect and advocate for the mountains and forests that inspire and sustain us all.
I’d like to begin by thanking all of you who attended or watched via YouTube our listening session in March, as well as those of you who have taken your time to email or stop by for a conversation as we work together to define the road ahead for the Mazamas. This is YOUR organization, and it’s heartening to see the level of engagement and care that members, staff, and the board have for our mission and our future.
Your questions and feedback from the listening session, along with the ongoing work of the staff and board, have helped us to clarify our next steps. We are going to focus on the following priorities in the coming months:
Financial oversight and budget planning—to overcome the deficit and rebuild the Mazamas financial assets and stability.
Identify revenue sources and build a fundraising plan—initiate new approaches to program/activity pricing and new sources of revenue generation to improve the bottom line.
Role clarity and responsibility for decision making—clearly define the respective roles, reporting, and decision-making authorities of volunteer leaders, staff, and the board.
Propose bylaws amendments—a well-planned process to identify needed changes, share rationale with members, hold discussions, and move to a vote within a timeline that resolves issues before hiring a new permanent ED and launching a strategic planning process.
Improve communication organization-wide—develop and lead a well-planned, pro-active approach to communications to help support and maintain a positive and cohesive community dynamic and engaged membership.
We’ll be actively using all the Mazama communication channels to share the work happening on these priorities, and we’ll be reaching out to many of you to help contribute to these efforts, so please answer your door when we come knocking!
One of the takeaways I had from the listening session was a recognition that it could be helpful to clarify the most common nonprofit operational and governance structures, to explain what structure Mazamas currently operates with, and to suggest some structural adjustments that could better fit your present needs and set the Mazamas up for success on the road ahead.
With that in mind, let’s dive into a conversation to better understand and compare nonprofit structures.
What is a Nonprofit Organization?
A nonprofit is an entity that is driven by a dedication to a social cause in areas such as religion, science, environment, public health, social service, or education. Unlike corporations, all revenues earned by a nonprofit organization are used in furthering its mission-focused objectives instead of being distributed to shareholders or employees of the organization.
Nonprofits in most jurisdictions are tax-exempt, meaning that they do not pay income tax on the income that they receive. Non-profit organizations in the United States are monitored by the IRS using Code Section 501(c). The code determines an organization’s eligibility for the nonprofit organization’s status. The revenues earned by a nonprofit organization are mainly from donations from individuals and corporate organizations, as well as from fundraising activities.
The donations are tax-deductible for the individuals or corporations that contribute, and the organization is not required to pay taxes on the monies. Nonprofits are accountable to their donors, volunteers, and the community. The projects nonprofits undertake help build public confidence in the organization.
Although nonprofit organizations are not driven by a profit motive, they must collect revenues that help them further their specific social cause. Nonprofits may also receive sponsorship for specific projects and events from corporations, government funding via grants or contracts, merchandise sales, and even private investments.
Due to the important role that nonprofit organizations play in shaping the community, over the years they’ve been forced to adopt new methods of raising revenue to be financially stable. Over-reliance on donations and events may create cash flow problems for organizations when the donors fail to make contributions, or the amounts donated fall below the funding levels needed to remain sustainable.
Membership
With a nonprofit definition and their basic purpose established, let’s now talk about the term “membership.” What’s important to understand is that in the non-profit sector, membership often has many meanings.
Let’s begin with the membership structure and definition that the Mazamas currently operate under, which is a formal membership structure. A formal membership organization is a nonprofit that grants its members specific rights to participate in its internal affairs. These rights are established in the articles of incorporation and defined in more detail in the bylaws. Usually, in a formal membership organization, members elect the board and/or the officers; approve changes in the bylaws; and authorize major transactions such as mergers and dissolution of the organization. In short, members have a strong interest and voice in the future of the organization and not just in the tangible benefits that they receive as members. For example, trade associations, chambers of commerce, and churches are typically membership organizations in which the members rely on the organization to advocate for better business opportunities or the religious beliefs and practices of a particular line of business or faith community.
To a high degree this structure is a leftover of a bygone era of fraternal orders—Elks and Lions clubs, Freemasons, Rotary, Kiwanis—that quite honestly no longer play a significant role in today’s society. Formal membership structures, when set up in decades past, were not designed to welcome the general public. In fact, they were often designed to define the criteria that would allow certain people to join and intentionally keep other people out. This reality doesn’t mean that there is no place today for a nonprofit with a formal membership structure, but it does reveal a truth that you can no longer avoid. And that truth is it’s time for organizations like Mazamas, that still operates under an outdated nonprofit model, to take a hard look at adjusting your membership and governance structure to re-establish your relevance in the alpine and mountaineering community and to determine how, going forward, the Mazamas can make a meaningful impact on the general public.
The structure we’ve just discussed is a formal membership structure, so what is an informal membership organization? Informal membership is a practical way to integrate supporters or donors into an organization. This type of nonprofit doesn’t have formal members, it has a membership program. In contrast to a formal membership nonprofit that grants its members specific rights to participate in its internal affairs, nonprofits with membership programs are creating a means of incentivizing donations and involvement within their organization. The nonprofit extends additional engagement opportunities to members in exchange for donations in the form of membership fees. The benefit of a membership program is that nonprofits can not only reap the benefits of extra donations through membership fees, but they also provide specialized perks and engagement opportunities for invested supporters—without the added complexity and burden of managing a membership-based governance model. Implementing a membership program is a nonprofit fundraising and stewardship strategy. It is not connected to how the nonprofit is governed.
For instance, you may have heard an Oregon Public Broadcasting pledge drive asking for members to join and donate to the station. They are using “membership” as a way to raise money, allowing people or businesses to participate in their membership program by making monthly or annual donations in exchange for services like an insider newsletter or invitations to member-only events. These “donor members” are interested in OPB’s mission and find the benefits package useful. And giving a donor the right to proudly claim and display “membership status” (on a tote bag, for example) can be a powerful donation motivator.
Well documented in nonprofit literature is the following truth, changing a formal membership structure into a self-sustaining board structure tends to be a challenging task. It asks members to give up some of their power to help an organization become more flexible by giving the board more latitude to take action, allowing them to respond much quicker to changes in the external environment like the economy; the shifting nonprofit fundraising landscape; the prevailing social issues of the day; and many other factors that nonprofit senior staff members and board members must adapt to on a daily basis. That ask is never easy, especially for those who are long-tenured members accustomed to the formal membership structure.
Because our future nonprofit structure is what the Mazamas membership needs to consider, let’s dive a little deeper into member-driven vs. board-driven structures. A nonprofit corporation can choose to be governed by formal voting members or by a self-sustaining board. The governing body of your nonprofit organization is empowered and responsible for setting direction, strategic decision-making, compliance, operating-policy setting, fiscal oversight, and overall accountability for the organization in fulfilling its vision. Recognizing that selecting the best governing structure is vital to ensuring the success, growth, and development of a nonprofit organization, the savviest nonprofits revisit their structure from time to time with open-mindedness about making necessary changes to increase their relevance and competitiveness in the nonprofit sector.
To do this, it’s critical to understand the difference between a governing structure that is board of directors-driven, or one that also incorporates a governing membership. Membership governance typically involves individuals—members—who are allowed to vote on some or all of the following: matters of governance, direction, approval of budgets, activities, staffing, and/or substantial financial obligations that the organization might undertake, or the approval of long-term contracts. This structure may include members voting to appoint a board of directors or an executive committee to manage the day-to-day operations of the organization and then the membership only votes on specific actions as necessary for the success of the organization. The board may bring those types of issues before the members as necessary. Membership may require membership dues to be a voting member of the organization, or not. Membership may also include benefits, such as discounts to participate in activities of the organization where participants are required to pay fees, or perhaps have access to special activities for members only. Eligibility criteria for membership is clearly defined, as well as what the benefits to members and their responsibilities will be.
This structure works well for organizations who want a democratic structure where each member has a say in what happens. The following types of nonprofits are typically member-driven since their primary goal is to serve their members:
Chambers of commerce
Churches
Social clubs
Trade associations
With a board-governed organization, there are either no official members or members with only limited rights. If a nonprofit corporation does not have a membership structure, its board will be self-sustaining instead of being elected by members. In this setup, board members elect their replacements themselves, usually via a board nominating committee, and the board of directors is the highest authority in the nonprofit corporation. This means that board members must accept responsibility for setting direction, making decisions, and managing the activities of the organization, whether they hire others—an executive director, staff, or independent contractors—to carry it out or use volunteers. In this governing framework, the board is not accountable to another body. Most charities choose a board-driven structure.
It may be possible for Mazamas to retain voting members and still be governed by a self-sustaining board, this is something I believe should be considered carefully. Would the membership be willing to change the bylaws, granting the board greater ability to make decisions, set board terms of service, choose board members based on criteria that helps the Mazamas to be viable in 2022 and beyond, and conduct the daily affairs of the organization with an enhanced ability to make real-time decisions to adapt to the environment without waiting for an annual vote of the membership?
To help you sort through these important decisions, my next article will be an exploration of nonprofit bylaws and some specific recommendations around how the Mazamas could elect to update its bylaws to overcome some of the obstacles the organization is facing today and to set yourselves up to raise more money and make a greater impact in the alpine community, as well as throughout the reigon.
If you would like to learn more about the efforts to stabilize and prepare the Mazamas for the future, please join us for our next virtual town hall event on Monday, May 9. Look for the link to register in the eNews and on the Mazamas social media channels.
Written by Aimee Filimoehala, Mazama Vice President Printed in the January/February 2021 Mazama Bulletin
The Mazama Executive Council endorses the following proposed amendments to the bylaws. Updating and modernizing the bylaws will allow the organization to attract many new like-minded members, to improve operational efficiency, and to take a definitive step toward increasing diversity and inclusivity in the Executive Council, which is critical for a modern council’s decision-making ability. Understanding the reasoning for these bylaw changes will be facilitated by a town hall meeting in early spring. A special election to vote on the bylaw changes will be held in early May 2021. We continue to look to our past for a foundation, while also reaching to the future as we aspire to challenge ourselves to be better.
Glaciated Peak
According to our current bylaws, an individual must summit a glaciated peak to qualify for Mazama membership. The original intent of this requirement served to foster a sense of community and ensured that all Mazamas shared a love for the mountains. There has been an ongoing and genuine interest from nonmembers to become part of our member community while enjoying outdoor activities being offered through the Mazamas, including:
Hiking, backpacking, snowshoeing, and rambling
Rock climbing
Skiing (Nordic and Backcountry)
Canyoneering
Outings
Removing the requirement of summiting a glaciated peak allows us to:
Remove a barrier to becoming a Mazama, which is in line with the council’s goal to make it easier for participants that share the values of the organization to actively participate in and contribute to the Mazama experience.
Directly support our mission of inspiring everyone to love and protect the mountains.
Advance efforts of inclusiveness and diversity in our organization regardless of socioeconomic status, physical abilities, age, and outdoor interests.
Increase membership while improving both political presence and financial stability.
Our identity is preserved through our behavior and established culture. Other well-established mountaineering organizations such as the American Alpine Club and The Mountaineers have no such requirement and are still considered climbing organizations by their members and the larger community. The Mazamas will continue to recognize climbing achievements through badges and awards, including:
Completing the Basic Education Climbing Program,
Completing the Intermediate Climbing School,
Completing Advanced Rock
Summiting a Glaciated Peak,
Summiting the Guardian Peaks
Summiting the Seven Oregon Peaks
Summiting the 16 Northwest Peaks
Operations
Recent unpredictable and unavoidable events have highlighted limitations in conducting day-to-day business given our existing bylaws. In order to improve our ability to comply with bylaws while operating effectively, the Executive Council is recommending we separate some of the day to day operational structure currently dictated in the bylaws into a separate operations document. Recommended changes to the bylaws will:
Change the name of the Executive Council to the Board of Directors (Board), and its members will be board members or directors;
Allow board communication by electronic means according to Oregon law as needed;
Remove the requirement for two authorized signers for all financial transactions and allow the Executive Director or an authorized officer to sign for expenses up to $1,000;
Move the creation and management of committees to conduct essential work to an operations document.
Board Makeup
The existing Mazama Bylaws require board members to be a Mazama member in good standing for at least three years. A recommendation to emphasize skillset, applicable experiences, and diverse backgrounds vs. length of time within the organization is being made. The practical needs of our organization require knowledge and proficiency in specialized areas such as fundraising, accounting, and law, to name a few. With the current requirements, we have severely limited our ability to find and recruit the talent that is needed for our board. If we remove these requirements and instead place value on experience vs. length of time with the Mazamas, we will be able to recruit highly skilled board candidates and improve confidence in our members that we are operating in their and the community’s best interests.
Recommended changes to the board makeup include:
Removal of the requirement for three years of continuous Mazama membership to run for the board. These nine board members will still need to be voted in by the membership.
Three additional board members, who need not be Mazama members, will be appointed by the nine board members for their special skills or experiences, including their connections in the broader non-Mazama community, and they will share the same voting rights and responsibilities. Appointments will be made for three-year terms with the exception of the initial appointments. To stagger vacancies and to provide continuity, the initial appointments will be: first appointee for 1 year; second appointee for 2 years; and third appointee for three years.
Keep an eye out for the official voter guide in the March/April Bulletin. We will be holding a virtual town hall meeting on Wednesday, March 24, 2021, to discuss the proposed bylaw amendments.
If you have questions or comments about the bylaws, please email bylaws@mazamas.org.
Way back in September, the Mazamas received a call from the Oregon Zoo with an absurdly awesome request: they wanted the walls of their new chimpanzee habitat tested for climbability!
“It’s one of our traditions before opening a new habitat,” said Tanya Paul, who oversees the zoo’s primate area. “It’s just for fun and not a real ‘safety test’ — the habitat is designed with the knowledge that chimps have incredible upper-body strength and are much better climbers than humans. Still, it’s good to know whether our new habitat passes muster with some of the area’s most expert rock climbers.”
Lynny Brown, the Advanced Rock Committee Volunteer Coordinator, quickly assembled a task force of elite Mazama climbers to bravely tackle this challenge.
On a beautiful, sunny Tuesday afternoon, Lynny, April Henderson, and I met up at the zoo with two bouldering pads, a rope, and all our climbing gear. We were given orange safety vests. A curious elephant wandered up as if to say hi when we passed his habitat, walking through behind-the-scenes areas of the zoo that none of us had seen before.
A safety supervisor introduced herself but did not say anything as we bouldered up the ramparts to install a top rope off of a seemingly hefty eye hook that I did not know the true purpose of.
The elite climber task force fruitlessly attacking the walls of the chimp habitat. Photo: Zoo Team
I was chomping at the bit to unleash my might on this enclosure and geared up first, gleefully throwing myself at the unsuspecting walls…and…did not even get off the ground. After a few minutes of grunting and flailing I gave up. April, with her longer wingspan, fared better and managed to get a couple feet off of the ground, but still nowhere near the top. We screamed happy cries of encouragement before gravity sternly returned her to earth.
A small crowd of onlookers had gathered to supervise our attempts, among them the zoo’s construction manager. He was stern and serious at first, but his face softened into smiles, laughter, and even a bit of heckling as our attempts to scale the walls proved futile and fruitless.
Lynny attacked a wall that had a shallow dihedral reminiscent of Pure Palm (5.11a Lower Gorge, Smith Rock) to no avail, and even tried some dynamic movement to parkour up the corner above the fenced-in exit door.
April attempts a “pure palm” type climb while Lynny spots her. Photo: Kate Giraud
Exhausted, we reluctantly declared the enclosure “UNCLIMBABLE” and walked out with our tails between our legs. But, what was a stunning defeat for us was an incredible victory for the zoo, and I look forward to seeing all of the chimps living safely and harmoniously in their habitat in the near future!! We were promised a backstage tour of the new Primate Forest habitat in the near future for our efforts and happily went home, knowing the chimps will be well taken care of.
by John Rettig, from the December 2020 Mazama Bulletin
It’s previously been noted in several Conservation Corner columns that the 1960s and 70s formed a pivotal period in awaking both the public and legislators to a national environmental, conservation, and land use awareness. The year 1970 stood out above all others, and we’ll wind up this year observing not just one but two very big and influential pieces of legislation that passed late that year—the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act.
A little background is in order here: Although probably not intended at the time, the legislation coming out of that period ended abruptly in 1980, and the laws passed then still form the backbone for today’s laws. We look back at that time period as the golden period, simply because of the breadth and scope of what happened, and what was passed:
1962: Publishing of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring
1964: Wilderness Act passed, initially designating 9.1 million acres of wilderness
1967: Environmental Defense Fund founded
1967: Oregon Beach Bill passed
1968: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act passed
1968: National Trails Act passed
1968: Redwoods National Park formed
1968: North Cascades National Park formed
1969: UNESCO conference on Man and His Environment
1970: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) signed into law
1970: First Earth Day observed
1970: EPA established
1970: Clean Air Act passed
1972: Supreme Court decision Sierra Club vs. Morton, giving conservation and environmental organizations standing
1972: Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 passed
1972: DDT banned
1973: Endangered Species Act passed
1974: Discovery of atmospheric ozone depleting chemicals; phase out began
1975: Hells Canyon Protection Act passed, establishing a National Recreation Area
1976: National Forest Management Act (NFMA) passed
1980: Superfund Act passed
1980: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act passed; added 56 million acres of Wilderness
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Leading up to the late 1960s, it was widely viewed that we needed a coordinated federal response to the many problems we were seeing with air and water pollution. Up to that point, much of the enforcement, and some of the legislation, was left up to the individual states. Results were mixed, and since air and water pollution usually didn’t respect state boundaries, it was viewed as an issue needing a national solution. Following the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in January 1970, it was felt that we finally had some structure in place to have a coordinating federal agency oversee environmental protection, and that agency would be the EPA.
The EPA was created in December 1970 through Presidential executive order. Initially, it was primarily a technical assistance agency that set goals and standards. However, new acts and amendments soon to be passed by Congress gave the agency its regulatory authority. The burning Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, caused by spontaneous ignition of illegal water pollution discharges by twelve different companies lining its banks, became one of its first issues successfully addressed and resulted in immediate improvements. This particular event also became a national poster child for the reason we needed the EPA.
The agency conducts environmental assessment, research, and education, and has the responsibility of maintaining and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws, in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to U.S. states and the federally recognized tribes. EPA enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures. The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.
CLEAN AIR ACT
Although the first air pollution legislation was passed in 1955, it was only intended to fund federal research into air pollution. Starting in the 1960s—first 1963, then later 1967—we started to see legislation for actual control of air pollution. Initially the U.S. Public Health Service administered control of air pollution, mostly to address areas subject to interstate air pollution. It wasn’t until the 1970 Clean Air Act that it grew some teeth, authorizing the development of comprehensive federal and state regulations to limit emissions from both stationary (industrial) sources and mobile (primarily auto, bus, truck, and off road equipment) sources. Four major regulatory programs affecting stationary industrial sources were initiated: • National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) • State Implementation Plans (SIPs) • New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) • National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
Furthermore, enforcement was substantially expanded, and since passage occurred at approximately the same time as the EPA, the new agency administered these requirements.
Since 1970, commonly found air pollutants have been reduced by 50 percent, air toxics from large industrial sources, such as chemical plants, petroleum refineries, and paper mills have been reduced by nearly 70 percent, new cars are 90 percent cleaner, and we have ceased production of ozone-depleting chemicals.
The Clean Air Act was amended in 1977, and again in 1990. Today, the 1990 law forms the basis for the current Clean Air Act, but it is heavily rooted in the 1970 legislation.
WHAT CAN A MAZAMA DO?
If you want to know the status of EPA violations and enforcement actions close to your own neighborhood, simply enter your zip code at echo.epa.gov/ to get a listing. And as a citizen, you can also initiate reports of suspected violations at echo.epa.gov/ report-environmental-violations.
Photos courtesy of the Mountain Educator Alliance (MEA).
The American Alpine Club, Appalachian Mountain Club, Colorado Mountain Club, Mazamas, and The Mountaineers join with those speaking out and taking action against racist, sexist, and otherwise derogatory route names, and we welcome the conversation about how best to move forward as a community.
Historically in the U.S. climbing community, the opportunity and privilege of naming a route has been given to the first ascensionist. Naming a route is an earned honor, responsibility, and form of artistic expression. When done well, a route’s name tells a story. It often cleverly captures the experience of establishing or climbing the route or a unique characteristic of the formation. At worst, a route name inscribes onto the rock an individual’s prejudice, insecurity, and violence. These names deface the special places where we climb. Names like “N*****s Wall,” “Case of the F*gs,” and “Slant Eyes” signal that not all people are welcome, creating a hostile environment that we should not accept.
Recent movements across our nation, including Black Lives Matter, SafeOutside, and Me Too, have been a catalyst for many individuals and organizations to recognize the institutionalized and systemic oppression built into the foundation of our society.
Though not a new problem, we are grateful to Erynne Gilpin, Ashleigh Thompson, and Melissa Utomo, along with Brown Girls Climb, Melanin Base Camp, and Natives Outdoors, for bringing focus back to this problematic practice. As individuals and as a community, we must recognize that words matter. The climbing community as a whole is accountable for the language we use to identify and describe the places where we climb. We must own the toxicity in the practice of naming routes. It’s time for change.
As signers, our 5 organizations represent 150,000 members nationwide. We commit ourselves to building a more respectful community. That includes working collaboratively with climbers across the country to change names of existing routes, providing anti-racism and anti-harassment training for our members and volunteer leaders, and auditing our own publications and websites to determine a process for expunging offensive route names. These changes represent only a starting point. They are a necessary first step toward making the climbing community more inclusive and our crags and mountains welcoming to all.
This is not true for too many of our fellow citizens.
In the last few months, we have witnessed George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery murdered, and Christian Cooper threatened while birdwatching. In the wake of these events, our country has erupted in violence and in riots.
Dr. Martin Luther King said:
“Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention”
“The Other America” Given at Stanford University on April 14, 1967. Full text.
We have failed to hear the injustices.
In our outdoor spaces, in recreation, and in our industry, we direct indignities and injustices towards Indigenous, black, and brown people. It has been a part of the fabric of America since our beginning. There is inequity in who is welcome, who is safe, and who has access to resources and opportunities. America has systemically oppressed people.
As climbers, hikers, backpackers, trailrunners, backcountry skiers, our identity is formed on our public lands and waters, and through our activities on National Forests and Parks. These spaces were created for us by displacing those who were here before us. Parts of our industry are sustained on the backs of indigenous, black, and brown people. The outdoors today is not welcoming or just to all people.
As a 125 year-old organization in a State originally created only for white people, the Mazamas have played a role in the oppression of minorities, perhaps not with intent, but the impact is no less. As an organization whose mission is to Inspire Everyone to Love and Protect the Mountains, we have work to do. Our pillars to educate, build community, and advocate for the protection of and access to our public lands and water is sound. But, we must redefine “everyone.” We, as an organization and all of us as individuals that make up our community, have significant work in learning, understanding, and evolving our actions to create a more just and equitable world.
Our vision to inform the mountain culture in the NW must include our work to acknowledge our past and actively redefine ourselves to create equitable access to our mountains and a just future for all.
