I note the ongoing saga of the Greater Idaho movement. Every six months, forever, until a more promising outcome appears, the Wallowa County commissioners are required to discuss the possibility of joining the county to the state of Idaho.

This outcome is likely an impossibility. The state of Oregon has no interest in it and neither has the state of Idaho. Wallowa County is one of six “frontier” counties in Oregon (U.S. defines “frontier” as counties with populations of six or fewer people per square mile). These counties represent less than 1% of the state’s population. Idaho has a similar population statistic with 16 “frontier” counties that make up less than 1% of the population. With that narrow representation in the state Legislature, it will require representatives with superior negotiating skills or a friendly government body to protect the interests of these “frontier” counties.

Wallowa County and likely most “frontier” counties consider themselves conservative. The state of Oregon and the Oregon Legislature is primarily Democratic and not recognized with a strong conservative history. While the Republican Party comes from a conservative background, it is now known for its obstructionism. By continuing to send Republican representatives to a Democratic Legislature whose negotiating skills are limited to walking out of negotiations, very little is accomplished for “frontier” counties and obstructionism wins again.

If the purpose of Greater Idaho is to make improvements in Wallowa County, it would seem logical to send a Democratic representative who could negotiate the unique issues and problems common to “frontier” counties with the majority of the Legislature and relieve the antagonistic atmosphere common to opposing parties. Perhaps we could save the “conservative” and “progressive” monikers for larger issues.

On the other hand, if the Greater Idaho movement is to provide opportunities for corporate farming or mining interests, they are on the right track,

David Ebbert

Enterprise