Wolves do not bring benefits to Northeast Oregon
Suzanne Fouty wrote a very articulate letter (Dec. 20) in defense of wolves but I staunchly disagree with her. Wolves may be part of our history but that does not mean they belong. Cholera, typhoid, plague, slavery, the Civil War, wars with Native Americans, and other wars are part of our history too but that doesn’t mean they belong today either. Some things are better left in the past.
Yes, there was a study that showed the presence of wolves pushed elk away from riparian areas which, in turn, promoted aspen and other brushy foliage. However, that study was based in Yellowstone National Park where there is no hunting, not in general forest areas. I travel through a lot of forest and grassland areas in Northeast Oregon and Southeast Washington for my job, cowboying, and hunting. I have never seen a riparian area that was overgrazed by elk. Typically riparian zones are so brushy it’s almost impossible to ride a horse through them and they can be difficult to walk through. If wolves were to have any effect on streams it is more likely they would be fouling streams from elk and stock cow/calf carcasses.
Wolves are not going to do anything positive — for water or anything else in our environment. They are just killers — predators of any animal they feel like killing, whether game or livestock. Killing game animals is bad enough but killing livestock is taking a chunk of the livihood from our farmers and ranchers, the people who feed all of us. Furthermore, the so-called wolf compensation program for wolves killing livestock is a sad joke. It only partially compensates for confirmed kills and does nothing for indirect livestock damage such as wire cuts, aborted calves, lost weight, scattered stock, and nervousness when handling.
The wolf controversy could readily be solved the way it was in the middle of the last century — by extermination. It worked then, it would work today. That is history worth repeating.
Israel has had much of its land taken away
I would like to comment on a letter by Mr. Dielman written before the holidays regarding the logic of returning land in the U.S. to its original native owners if we have also accepted the return of land in Israel to the descendants of Abraham. There is solid logic to that position if one does not believe there is a God who created the earth, who owns it still, who can give it to whomever He wishes, and can remove them whenever He wishes. He can restore a people also whenever He wishes as He is doing presently with the Jews. We learn in Joel 3:2 what He thinks of our present meddling: “They have divided My land.”
Perhaps it is not common knowledge that when Britain was given the job of managing the land carved out for the Jews, one of the first things Churchill did was take about 70 percent of the area and create a Palestinian nation. Some Palestinians moved into it. Some didn’t. It is called Jordan. No Jew is allowed to enter it.
The Palestinians who did not go to Jordan and the world leaders have continually insisted on more land inside Israel in exchange for peace. Israel has one-tenth the land originally carved out for them.
A personal note regarding American Indians — my brother nicknamed our great-grandfather Chief Step Out’ A Line because he didn’t go to Oklahoma but carved out a place for himself and his family in Indiana. The name delights me, but time wise, think it’s more logical that he left from Oklahoma.