Letters to the Editor for March 21, 2012
Travel plan surprise? Not to me
To the editor:
No one should be surprised at the Travel Management Plan released last week by the Forest Service. No one who has paid attention to the track record of TMPs around the West that is. No one should be surprised when the BLM equivalent is published in final form either. It is all about government “environmentalism” and the public be damned. No news here for anyone that has been objectively following the actions of the current administration in D.C. Just one of many ways the U.S. government has sold out to the United Nations and its menagerie of environmental whackos.
So what if recreational and other uses of the forest, which have gone on for a hundred years without any provable damage to the environment, are no longer permitted? So what if grazing allotments on BLM land so vital to our county’s ranchers are drastically reduced in number and size if not eliminated altogether?
Think I’m exaggerating the government’s efforts to deprive the public, who owns the land by the way, of reasonable and necessary use? Do a little research. It is not just the TMPs and the BLM uses but the increased designated wildlands spaces (millions of acres just in the West) that make it clear that to this administration the public will simply doesn’t count. Same approach as “Obamacare.” The administration ignores public input, lies, and then does what fits its agenda not what is in the public’s best interests. Counties can protest all they want. To Obama and his minions that is all meaningless and will be ignored.
The only real solution? Vote the liar in chief and his band of thugs out of office come November. This will be the most important election in U.S. history — our future as a free nation depends on the outcome.
Make mule deer the top priority
To the editor:
Do wolves and other large predators only kill the weak, sick, or infirm? I, as well as others, including state wildlife officials have witnessed documented cases where wolves and other large predators such as cougars have killed mature, healthy, bull elk and mature healthy deer. This is the norm, not the exception.
Dr. Jared Teter, Dr. Charles Kay, and Doug Day, former Director of Utah Fish and Game, have done numerous studies that show this to be true. I also have had numerous conversations with Dick Humphreys, the former state wildlife and game manager for the Baker area. He agrees this to be true.
After the 1950s and 1960s, when mule deer populations were at their peak throughout the West, changes took place and mule deer numbers began to decline and never recovered. Three major changes occurred: a change in deer management direction; protecting wolves, cougars, and bears; and outlawing poison such as 1080 for predator control.
Almost all of the theories and focus nowadays, with respect to the mule deer decline, is directed at habitat. The above mentioned changes coinciding with the mule deer decline have been conveniently lost by the “Pro-Predator Habitat Doctrine” (PPHD) that is prevalent today.
The goal of this doctrine is to change your perspective to align with theirs: that the changing landscapes are the cause of the mule deer decline for the last 40 years and that predator impact is negligible.
I am not advocating the legalization of poison or cougars going back to being totally unprotected. I would simply like to heighten the awareness of wildlife experts and the public that Proactive Predator Management would greatly benefit mule deer rather than focusing on habitat, in an effort to subtly promote predators.
Wolves being re-introduced to our regions without the public’s consent is another issue that needs to be addressed.
I challenge wildlife experts to read the studies of the above mentioned professionals, rethink their management strategies, put our mule deer at No. 1 priority. Contrary to their fatalist and pessimistic perspective, it is very much possible, IF they would simply make it a priority.
Wolves don’t live in fantasy land
To the editor:
Mr. Wally Sykes obviously gets his information from “feel good” fantasy land, as evidenced by the story of the pregnant cows in Wallowa. In the same paper an article tells how wolves are opportunists that will kill whatever is there and at their advantage, like crusted snow they can run on but the victim breaks through.
Wolves always kill at their victim’s disadvantage (pregnant and newborn) and even just for fun. Some people live in “feel good” fantasy land all their lives. If you watch predator animals like cats and dogs you will see what they will do when a prey animal makes a mistake, gets careless or just unlucky. The predator will take advantage of it.
Way to go, Kyle
To the editor:
Good, Knight. It’s too bad that not all our school board members were as conscientious and dedicated as almost twenty-year-old Kyle Knight.
I loosely mention Kyle’s age because the article in the March 9 paper found it important to mention Lynne Burroughs’ age (70) and the reason for her vacation of recent. I took it upon myself to look up the law Kyle is complaining in favor of (ORS 294.336) and find it spot on. Why have a board and appointees when you can just have “buddies” after all were just a small community. I really liked the part in which attorney Dan Van Thiel’s appointment comes into question and Superintendent Walt Wegener says “the question was raised, we reviewed it and talked it over and in an abundance of caution we said ‘we’ll find someone else.’ ” I almost broke into a belly laugh! Can’t this guy make a decision? It’s obvious Kyle can. It is public record this guy makes well in excess of 100k and I’m afraid to think what Van Thiel makes.
Remember here, the OSBA advises, “You should not appoint anyone to the budget committee who has any official role in the district or who receives any amount of compensation from the district.” And to think this “kid” is taking this situation on by himself. You are a man after my heart, Kyle. The rubber really meets the pavement where Van Thiel notes — best qualified people to review the district’s “corporate-like budget” are our business owners and their reluctance to participate because it might have a negative impact on their “bottom line”...What? I wonder if Kyle is considering his “bottom line?”
And lastly Ms. Burroughs, you say if Mr. Knight wants to make a change in the policy “you” follow, he should make a recommendation and you’ll vote on it. No Ms. Burroughs, you are wrong, there is nothing to vote on, it’s the law.