Letters to the Editor for Oct. 5, 2011
What would Jesus do? Not war
To the editor:
I’ve heard about this road all my life but I never thought I’d actually see it being traveled by us, but it is and it’s happening right now. We’ve truly become “The Divided States of America,” eating away at our national psyche and many other sacred cows we’ve nursed into the spotlight. Ours is an undeniably dysfunctional government, caught in a stunning two-way inability to reason our way to solutions, given free reign by many to act in such a savage, stupid manner.
There’s a great flap about us being a Christian nation to which I say “No we’re not”! Jesus was the original Christian and He didn’t have the insatiable lust for war that this confused country has. I read recently that our number one export is death due to munitions, armies, troops, weapons of war of every ilk. We can slaughter from land, sea and air with power and impunity but we don’t seem to win any of these insane contests. No, the Jesus I’m familiar with would never condone our preoccupation for blood and slaughter, which seems to have become what we’re all about, and talking about Jesus, since he took it upon himself to bust up the money changers in the temple just before he was murdered, I believe He would be angrier now with the financial world, and the cunning hustlers who run it, then He was then.
Talk about moral bankruptcy — look around, see what’s happening! What about racism, one of the sickest dilemmas of all, in this great Christian nation. I’ll never understand the twisted thinking that pushes this obscenity. Why, just because I am a white man, do I have any legal or moral right to consider my ethnic group better than the other four races that populate this earth, and please God don’t think for a minute that racism isn’t alive and well in this nation, because it is.
I was proud of my country once, volunteering for service in World War II, but I sure wouldn’t do it now, not for the con artists who’ve wrecked it.
Doing the research on climate change
To the editor:
Pete Sundin’s recent letter regarding climate change made two points, that climate change is a hoax (based on his assertion that scientists falsified and destroyed data in order to support their theory) and that warmer global temperatures will benefit mankind (based on unnamed sources and a book he wrote). He asked us readers to look it up, so I did.
I read about the Medieval Warm Period which included prolonged droughts in North America and a peak in North Atlantic cyclone activity. Study of Native American habitations have corroborated settlement disruption, deterioration of long distance trade and population movement with this warm period. This information leads me to believe that benefits to a warmer climate in the northern regions will be offset by detriments in other regions.
I also read about the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and the release of emails. Mr. Sundin failed to state in his letter that six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. While the CRU has problems, it in no way reflects on the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which bases it’s opinion on data from countless sources and researchers.
Everything said above is all a matter of public record. Look it up for yourself.
A new approach with wolves
To the editor:
Two Imnaha wolves are scheduled to be killed because ODFW suspects that they killed a calf. What is appalling is that Mr. Nash, owner of the calf, and ranchers in Wallowa County, know how to prevent depredations. In 2010, Timmothy Kaminski of the Mountain Livestock Cooperative gave a talk in Baker City about wolf-livestock interactions and how to minimize depredations. He then met with Mr. Nash and other ranchers in Wallowa County, at their request, to discuss the same. Defenders of Wildlife also worked with these ranchers to decrease depredation potential. However, despite these efforts, Mr. Nash, the ranching community, and land management agencies have done little to prevent conflicts. Given their refusal to be proactive, ODFW’s decision to kill these wolves, at the same time expecting the public to “compensate” Mr. Nash for his loss, is absurd. He should not be compensated and the wolves should not be held accountable for poor animal husbandry.
The taxpayer-funded Compensation Fund and response of the taxpayer-funded ODFW are flawed because they require nothing of the ranching community or land management agencies. A new approach is needed, an Adaptation Fund, which focuses on adaptive management and accountability. This approach would use monies to 1) facilitate collaborations between ranchers, land management agencies, groups like the Mountain Livestock Cooperative, and others that lead to changed grazing practices and reduced conflicts, 2) assist with the costs to make those changes, and 3) compensate proactive ranchers who have a depredation during the adaptation period. Depredations would be analyzed to determined cause and further adjustments made.
If ranchers and agencies make no changes, then no compensation and no wolf deaths. As Mr. Nash and others learned from Mr. Kaminiski, wolves are smart and predictable in their behaviors. If ranchers and agencies remain predictable then they clearly find depredations acceptable. Given choices freely made, ODFW needs to stop misusing taxpayer dollars. They need to stop punishing wolves, watersheds, taxpayers, and other businesses because some continue outdated livestock management practices and dismiss the economic and ecological needs of the larger community. We are capable of better.