We Can’t Hold State Responsible In Wildlife Crises

Reactions from the crowd that gathered to watch a moose drown at Lake Pend Oreille this week tell more than we want to know about people and their relationship with wildlife.

As a cow and a yearling bull walked onto a frozen bay near Sandpoint, a crowd gathered. Some say it was people trying to snap photos who drove the moose onto thin ice in the first place.

Animals make mistakes and die every day. But when it happens in front of us, the response is predictable.

“It’s a damn crime you let them out there that long,” an angry man yelled at an officer who responded to calls about the wildlife emergency.

Which makes you wonder: Why wasn’t Mr. Big Mouth out there on thin ice saving the 800-pound cow moose that ultimately broke through the ice and died?

For a citizenry that wants to downsize government, we have awfully high expectations for the mere mortals who get a state paycheck.

Taking care of wildlife isn’t the state’s responsibility.

It’s ours.

But we’ll never make any headway until we get as riled up about the big picture as we do about individual wildlife crises.

Following is a collection of news and views that give a perspective on whether we’re bucking up to that responsibility.

A few years ago, animal-lover groups spent a million dollars to save three gray whales stranded by an ice floe near Barrow, Alaska. Ultimately, a Russian ice breaker was hired to clear a path to the open sea.

Perhaps another quarter million dollars was spent by news agencies that flew from around the world to cover the spectacle.

All this for three whales that were saved to spread through their progeny a genetic ineptitude for surviving the onslaught of winter.

Although the cow moose drowned in the spectacle at Lake Pend Oreille this week, the yearling moose was rescued and brought to shore, where it nibbled on brush behind a condominium complex.

This seemed like a refuge, considering that everywhere else the moose looked, there were gawking people, cars, highways, resorts, cabins, dogs and snowmobiles.

Washington Fish and Wildlife Department officials continue to get complaints about pet dogs that are allowed to run loose in rural areas. The dogs are making a game of chasing winter-weary deer that flounder to exhaustion in the crusty snowpack.

“We’re not getting just a few complaints,” said Madonna Luers, Fish and Wildlife Department spokeswoman in Spokane. “We’re getting tons of calls.”

Big-game animals cannot disperse back into the mountains during winter. The snow drives them to the lowland winter range. The productivity of this winter range is the limiting factor for most of our region’s wildlife.

People aren’t just gnawing away at big-game winter range anymore. They’re taking gluttonous bites.

A farmer who had burned and plowed out the brush in virtually every draw on his property, scolded a hunter last week for the decline of pheasants.

A letter to the editor this week said it’s crazy to expect rural people to want to cluster their homes to preserve wild open areas.

Fragmentation of farm lands and forests is one of the greatest threats to wildlife species ranging from songbirds to elk.

Spokane County commissioners this week upheld the Conservation Futures tax for one year until the public can vote on whether to reauthorize it.

The tax collects about 6 cents a year for every $1,000 in assessed property valuation. The money is earmarked for securing natural areas, such as those at Liberty Lake, the Dishman Hills, Little Spokane River, Long Lake and near Downriver Golf Course.

But the commissioners had to stand up to some stunning ignorance from the usual cast of naysayers.

“If you buy (land) and can’t develop it, what’s the point?” testified Susan Knapp of the Spokane Home Builders Association.

Almost any real estate agent, in a closed room where he won’t be intimidated by peers, will admit that natural areas and open spaces increase the long-term value of nearby property. But the real estate industry rarely supports politicians who will stand up for natural area protection and growth management.

Idaho can barely afford to have 13 Fish and Game agents assigned to the field in the Panhandle. That’s one agent for every 590 square miles, assuming they’re all on duty at the same time.

Idaho has a remarkably easy way for people to contribute to non-game wildlife programs. Simply check a box on the state income tax return and designate how much of your tax refund you’d like to contribute to wildlife.

As easy as this is, the program netted only $44,000 last year - about half of what it raised 13 years ago.

If every Idaho resident would donate a mere dollar a year for wildlife, the take would increase to $1.1 million.

I’m curious. How do YOU think we’re doing in our commitment to wildlife?

, DataTimes MEMO: You can contact Rich Landers by voice mail at 459-5577, extension 5508.

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Rich Landers The Spokesman-Review