Moscow Pullman Daily News 2/13/07
By Chuck Pezeshki
HIS VIEW: Why is Butch afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?
The latest scandal coming out of Idaho, ecologically speaking, is Butch Otter’s publicly displayed bloodlust for shooting endangered wolves in Idaho. With such public pronouncements, he is putting undue pressure on the agency to de-list the wolf from the Endangered Species Act, and the protections it provides. Promising to shoot the first wolf himself, Otter has set up Idaho Fish and Game for bad decision-making and a botched process.
For Otter, facts are what he wants them to be — and the biggest fact that they seem to be obsessed with is that wolves eat elk.
Wolves do eat elk, of course. They usually kill the weak, keeping sickness down in elk herds. They serve a keystone ecosystem role by keeping elk from trampling meadows and streamside vegetation. This helps a variety of other species, from rare streamside birds to beavers. When wolves move into an area, they typically will wipe out the coyote population, which also is good for lots of smaller critters that the coyotes like to eat. And uneaten wolf kills provide the backbone of diet for rare pine martens, fishers and wolverines — scavenger carnivore species that are all headed down the extinction tunnel in the Northern Rockies.
Theoretically, all this information should be making it to Otter’s desk, from the Office of species conservation, headed by Jim Caswell. You’d think that someone in charge of species conservation might be interested in conserving species. And by looking at the list of species that benefit from wolves’ interaction in the ecosystem, you’d think that Jim would be pro-wolf. But Jim has a checkered past. As past forest supervisor of the Clearwater and Targhee National Forests, he helped create lots of checkerboard. As the forest supervisor of the Targhee NF, he had the dubious honor of helping create a mosaic of clearcuts on the border of Yellowstone National Park that could be seen from space. And as someone intensely familiar with the Clearwater NF, you’d think he’d spill the beans on the biggest reason for elk number decline in the northern part of the state — the massive elk die-off that occurred in the winter of 1996 due to a freakish combination of rain and snow events.
But facts and “truthiness” don’t make much difference to Otter. He’s pandering to his base, whose members have declared that they are indeed afraid of the Big Bad Wolf. Otter isn’t going to change his mind based on any ecological consideration.
But he might do some real thinking about how Idaho looks to the rest of the United States and the world. Because how Idaho looks means real tourist dollars. And not just to people who want to see wolves, of course, but more pedestrian folk who don’t want to spend their money in a place run by someone who sanctions killing wolves or clearcutting our remaining forests. Butch might learn a lesson from Utah Gov. Jim Huntsman, who only two weeks ago pulled a huge U-turn on his plan to release Utah’s roadless lands to the clearcutters, miners and energy drillers. The Outdoor Industry Association threatened to pull the plug on its hugely lucrative trade show in Salt Lake City. And Huntsman, looking at a huge blow to an industry that contributes $7 billion to the state, backed down big-time.
Think tourism doesn’t matter to Idaho? According to the Department of Idaho Commerce and Labor, one out of nine jobs in the state is directly associated with travel and tourism. In 2004, the industry contributed $2.1 billion to the gross domestic product of the state. And suffice it to say that folks aren’t traveling to the Gem State to see the suburbs in Boise.
Can anyone whisper “boycott” in Otter’s ears? It could happen if he keeps up his shenanigans about shooting the first wolf, or keeping his pledge to annihilate the wolf population. His base might hear that. Republicans are supposed to be all about business and money. Will Butch wake up before he kills off one of the most magnificent animals in the wild, and costs the state a ton of greenbacks? It’s time to let our state legislators know how we feel — because what Butch is going to end up killing is the economy.
Chuck Pezeshki is a professor in mechanical and materials engineering at Washington State University.
Hey, Chuck. Get a clue. Rational people who understand how the food chain works don't want to encounter wolves in the wild. Rather than rehash things, see my previous post on this subject. Go back to your lab and quit showing your ignorance.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Who's ignorant now?
From the 1/20/07 Moscow Pullman Daily News
Iverson’s ignorance strikes again
Once again I find myself writing a letter in response to something ignorant said by Ed Iverson (Opinion, Jan. 13 & 14). And once again I am confounded by the fact that you give him a column in the first place. There are many fine conservative right-wing people in this town who, while I may disagree with their beliefs, their facts would be straight and it wouldn’t be an advertising column for the hate-filled evangelical right.
This week he has the audacity to call Islam violent and merciless. Did he miss the inquisition? How about the crusades? How about all the hate-filled pedophile clergyman? How about the slaughter of the American Indians in this country? Even Hitler’s atrocities can be traced back to evangelical Christianity. Now, I am not saying that all Christians are filled with hate. I am saying the blanket assessment that Islam harbors merciless, violent barbarianism is just more if his ignorant rhetoric.
Then he goes on to give us the must-read list for the religious right. Why don’t you just print his op-ed piece on the religion page where it belongs, or better yet in some Christian church’s newsletter?
Donal Wilkinson, Moscow
Mr. Wilkinson,
Without addressing Mr. Iverson's viewpoints, I submit that your points regarding religious and political abuses of the past are precisely the reason America and every free nation on earth must work dilligently to either expunge Islam from the planet or force it to reform its ways. You rightly point out that other groups have used religion as a shield for contemptable acts in the past. While that is so, it does NOT excuse Islam's bad actors in this era. If anything, the lessons of those past acts should point the way to what must occur before Islam can be accepted into society.
In its current form, Islam is a threat to modern civilization. Unless and until its rank and file members stand united against and defeat the violent activist elements among them, it is a blight on mankind. Its members must find a way to reform the errant ways of those who exercise unrighteous power or the organism must perish. In this, it is no different that the abusive religous of the past.
I find it disquieting that you freely express such ill considered opinions and bolster the cause of those who would do us harm. You obviously have a very weak grasp of history and human nature. Should this message find its way to you, I stand ready and offer a challenge to debate these points.
Iverson’s ignorance strikes again
Once again I find myself writing a letter in response to something ignorant said by Ed Iverson (Opinion, Jan. 13 & 14). And once again I am confounded by the fact that you give him a column in the first place. There are many fine conservative right-wing people in this town who, while I may disagree with their beliefs, their facts would be straight and it wouldn’t be an advertising column for the hate-filled evangelical right.
This week he has the audacity to call Islam violent and merciless. Did he miss the inquisition? How about the crusades? How about all the hate-filled pedophile clergyman? How about the slaughter of the American Indians in this country? Even Hitler’s atrocities can be traced back to evangelical Christianity. Now, I am not saying that all Christians are filled with hate. I am saying the blanket assessment that Islam harbors merciless, violent barbarianism is just more if his ignorant rhetoric.
Then he goes on to give us the must-read list for the religious right. Why don’t you just print his op-ed piece on the religion page where it belongs, or better yet in some Christian church’s newsletter?
Donal Wilkinson, Moscow
Mr. Wilkinson,
Without addressing Mr. Iverson's viewpoints, I submit that your points regarding religious and political abuses of the past are precisely the reason America and every free nation on earth must work dilligently to either expunge Islam from the planet or force it to reform its ways. You rightly point out that other groups have used religion as a shield for contemptable acts in the past. While that is so, it does NOT excuse Islam's bad actors in this era. If anything, the lessons of those past acts should point the way to what must occur before Islam can be accepted into society.
In its current form, Islam is a threat to modern civilization. Unless and until its rank and file members stand united against and defeat the violent activist elements among them, it is a blight on mankind. Its members must find a way to reform the errant ways of those who exercise unrighteous power or the organism must perish. In this, it is no different that the abusive religous of the past.
I find it disquieting that you freely express such ill considered opinions and bolster the cause of those who would do us harm. You obviously have a very weak grasp of history and human nature. Should this message find its way to you, I stand ready and offer a challenge to debate these points.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Happy New Year
Here's to a happy and health new year!
My top ten things to do in 2007
10. Have various failing body parts repaired by my orthopedic surgeon
9. Prune fruit trees and vines to increase productivity
8. Attend more city and county council meetings
7. Get apple/plum brandy ready for rafting season
6. Challenge more statements by local "experts" who are blocking progress
5. Make venison sausage
4. Push my employer to inprove its business and environmental performance
3. Plague our children with visits to see new grandkids
2. Drink at least one beer at local breweries in Berlin, Pilzen and Budejovice
1. Finish kitchen construction
My top ten things to do in 2007
10. Have various failing body parts repaired by my orthopedic surgeon
9. Prune fruit trees and vines to increase productivity
8. Attend more city and county council meetings
7. Get apple/plum brandy ready for rafting season
6. Challenge more statements by local "experts" who are blocking progress
5. Make venison sausage
4. Push my employer to inprove its business and environmental performance
3. Plague our children with visits to see new grandkids
2. Drink at least one beer at local breweries in Berlin, Pilzen and Budejovice
1. Finish kitchen construction
Friday, December 29, 2006
Lost - One "Y" chromosome
Moscow Pullman Daily News (online) 12/28/06
Nothing sporting about hunting
I am saddened to read how some residents of Idaho, such as Jim Hagedorn (Opinion, Dec. 26) believe wolves should be removed from the endangered species list.
Perhaps we need to add these so-called Idaho sportsmen to the endangered common-sense list. After all, wolves are vital to maintaining a healthy environmental balance by doing what human hunters have no business doing, which is to say let’s leave the hunting of the elk up to the wolves, nature is better at taking care of the balance than man is.
If you really want to do something sporting play a real sport like basketball. There is really nothing sporting about hunting, unless you want to arm the elk and deer and let them get off a few shots at the crazy humans dressed in fluorescent orange. “Sport” implies each side is competing with the other and has a chance at winning. Hunting wildlife, or as some call it, “big game” is really just about the selfish slaughter of animals. It would be one thing if humans still had a physical need to hunt for their food, but the last time I checked we can get all the protein we want at our local grocery stores.
What Idaho needs is hunting management, not wolf management. If you want to complain about decreasing elk herds then why not decrease the amount and frequency of hunting? The wolves were there long before the human hunters arrived with their modern ATVs, rifles, and Gore-Tex jackets. Leave nature up to nature and try not to upset the balance again.
If the wolf population had not been decimated to begin with then reintroduction would never have been necessary. This issue is not about the wolves, it is really about man wanting to manipulate nature for his own benefit.
Matt Saavedra, Pullman
It appears poor Mr. Saavedra has never heard of Darwin's theories on evolution nor does he understand how the food chain works. Hey, Matt. It's too bad you are too feminized to do your own killing. You are either a sniveling little coward who has to pay others to do your dirty work or you are an idiot vegitarian that doesn't understand why we have sharp teeth. In either case, you are a contaminant in the gene pool. Please remove yourself without reproducing. The world doesn't need more sissies like you.
Now that doesn't even begin to cover all the things wrong with Mattilda's position. Reintroduction of wolves would be fine, if the prey in the impacted area were used to dealing with them. They aren't. It's been generations since wolves have been a threat in most areas. That's why it's called "reintroduction." If the wolves were present in the first place, they dissapeared for a reason. I doubt they were hunted to extinction out in the wilds of Idaho (quasi historical anti hunting lore notwithstanding). Ranchers sure weren't spending their days traipsing through the forests after them, prospectors didn't care and there never were enough trappers in the area to do the job, even during the heights of the fur trade in the west.
So, just why did the wolf dissapear? He wasn't able to compete. He was most probably driven out by humans. We moved in on his habitat. We attracted his food sources to our agricultural lands and easy pickings in the winter and he followed. Once he got too close, he became a dangerous nuisance and we did him in because WE, not the wolf, are at the top of the food chain. Until mankind is prepared to relinquish his position at the top, wolf populations will be unsustainable. They are already causing headaches. Once it gets real and the first wolf caused human casualties are reported, we'll take the wolf out of the equation again.
Remember the stories about the Three Little Pigs and Little Red Riding Hood? Well, it wasn't the Big Bad Bunny Rabbit who ended up dead at the end. Man (intelligent, not head up his butt man) has always feared and loathed the wolf. It will always be so. If you threaten me in the forest, don't be surprised when you grow a large calibre hole in your head. It's what I do to things I want to eat or that look like they want to eat me. It's what MEN do, Matt.
Nothing sporting about hunting
I am saddened to read how some residents of Idaho, such as Jim Hagedorn (Opinion, Dec. 26) believe wolves should be removed from the endangered species list.
Perhaps we need to add these so-called Idaho sportsmen to the endangered common-sense list. After all, wolves are vital to maintaining a healthy environmental balance by doing what human hunters have no business doing, which is to say let’s leave the hunting of the elk up to the wolves, nature is better at taking care of the balance than man is.
If you really want to do something sporting play a real sport like basketball. There is really nothing sporting about hunting, unless you want to arm the elk and deer and let them get off a few shots at the crazy humans dressed in fluorescent orange. “Sport” implies each side is competing with the other and has a chance at winning. Hunting wildlife, or as some call it, “big game” is really just about the selfish slaughter of animals. It would be one thing if humans still had a physical need to hunt for their food, but the last time I checked we can get all the protein we want at our local grocery stores.
What Idaho needs is hunting management, not wolf management. If you want to complain about decreasing elk herds then why not decrease the amount and frequency of hunting? The wolves were there long before the human hunters arrived with their modern ATVs, rifles, and Gore-Tex jackets. Leave nature up to nature and try not to upset the balance again.
If the wolf population had not been decimated to begin with then reintroduction would never have been necessary. This issue is not about the wolves, it is really about man wanting to manipulate nature for his own benefit.
Matt Saavedra, Pullman
It appears poor Mr. Saavedra has never heard of Darwin's theories on evolution nor does he understand how the food chain works. Hey, Matt. It's too bad you are too feminized to do your own killing. You are either a sniveling little coward who has to pay others to do your dirty work or you are an idiot vegitarian that doesn't understand why we have sharp teeth. In either case, you are a contaminant in the gene pool. Please remove yourself without reproducing. The world doesn't need more sissies like you.
Now that doesn't even begin to cover all the things wrong with Mattilda's position. Reintroduction of wolves would be fine, if the prey in the impacted area were used to dealing with them. They aren't. It's been generations since wolves have been a threat in most areas. That's why it's called "reintroduction." If the wolves were present in the first place, they dissapeared for a reason. I doubt they were hunted to extinction out in the wilds of Idaho (quasi historical anti hunting lore notwithstanding). Ranchers sure weren't spending their days traipsing through the forests after them, prospectors didn't care and there never were enough trappers in the area to do the job, even during the heights of the fur trade in the west.
So, just why did the wolf dissapear? He wasn't able to compete. He was most probably driven out by humans. We moved in on his habitat. We attracted his food sources to our agricultural lands and easy pickings in the winter and he followed. Once he got too close, he became a dangerous nuisance and we did him in because WE, not the wolf, are at the top of the food chain. Until mankind is prepared to relinquish his position at the top, wolf populations will be unsustainable. They are already causing headaches. Once it gets real and the first wolf caused human casualties are reported, we'll take the wolf out of the equation again.
Remember the stories about the Three Little Pigs and Little Red Riding Hood? Well, it wasn't the Big Bad Bunny Rabbit who ended up dead at the end. Man (intelligent, not head up his butt man) has always feared and loathed the wolf. It will always be so. If you threaten me in the forest, don't be surprised when you grow a large calibre hole in your head. It's what I do to things I want to eat or that look like they want to eat me. It's what MEN do, Matt.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
