Letters to the Editor for April 22, 2009

Measured response

to wolves required

To the editor:

I am writing in response to the wolf predation that occurred on the Jacobs’ ranch in Keating Valley. My thanks to Russ Morgan for his rapid response and attempts to resolve the situation, to Carter Niemeyer for his willingness to come out of retirement and provide his skills, and to Defenders of Wildlife for the compensation option.

However, my deepest appreciation and thanks go to the Jacobs for their measured response at a time when they are no doubt feeling angry, raw, and uncertain.

I am and remain a strong supporter of the return of wolves to our area. I am also, and remain, a strong supporter of my local community, economic diversity, and the ability to ranch on private lands and make a living.

Therefore last Thursday I wrote Ms. Stone of Defenders of Wildlife urging her to provide to the Jacobs the full compensation they requested without delay. Even if uncertainty had remained about which wild or domestic carnivore had done the killing and, in reality, the wolves were simply taking advantage of a free meal, I would still feel strongly that in this case, with photographs documenting their presence at the site, that one err on the side of the Jacobs.

Wolves have an important role to play in assisting us in restoring our stream and riparian ecosystems by altering elk and deer movements — a restoration that is critical if we are to successfully survive an increasingly unpredictable climate. Improvement in the condition and function of stream and riparian ecosystems will increase summer stream flows and the quality of water that comes off the mountains for use downstream.

The wolf also has some downsides as demonstrated on Thursday and Sunday night. My hope is that with the help of Defenders of Wildlife and the measured response of the Jacobs, we will choose to maintain a dialogue on this complex, important, and emotionally charged subject. 

Suzanne Fouty

Baker City

Proposed litter law

not harsh enough

To the editor:

Our editor thinks that chucking a butt out the window of one’s car is not particularly serious.

I beg to differ. Pretty soon our area will enter its annual dry season, and could become very flammable, depending on the heat, humidity, and vegetation growth. For a smoker to toss a stub into this environment is nothing less than attempted arson, whether or not the act was “intentional”.

I’d like someone to explain how such an act could be performed accidentally. Thoughtlessly or carelessly, I could believe, but still an inexcusable act, which threatens property and public safety.

I agree with the editor that the proposed law is out of proportion to the act, but my view is that it does not go far enough.

Buck Pilkenton

McEwen