Letters To The Editor
WASHINGTON STATE
I-655 passage would create problems
Animal rightists are attempting to bypass Washington’s successful wildlife management system with Initiative 655. If it’s on the fall ballot, voters will determine whether cougars can be legally hunted with hounds.
The emotional pitch to ban such hunting is barking up the wrong tree. Current laws provide a tightly regulated system to assure thriving, balanced populations of cougars and bears. Upset this and we all lose.
Assume the ban passes and controlled harvesting of cougars is gone. Cougar numbers increase, requiring larger food supply. This results in more deer and elk kills because deer are cougars’ principal food source. An adult cougar will kill a deer every 10 to 14 days.
In 1994, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife reported a cougar harvest of 177. If one cougar kills 25 to 36 deer yearly, 177 cougars would consume between 4,425 and 6,372 per year. Factor in the number of years a cougar lives and every pregnant doe killed and the number of lost deer is staggering. Every doe lost diminishes our breeding herd, so our future overall herd suffers. Cougars are strictly carnivores. The habitat required to support a cougar is constantly diminishing, meaning livestock, humans and pets are being forced into closer contact as these animals search for food. Cougars are virtually impossible to take without dogs. If cougar and bear hunting are further restricted, as they would be under I-655, the state’s successful game management and preservation will be negatively affected. Logan K. Urice Spokane
Reject bid for mismanagement
I have raised hunting dogs for 30 years and have hunted cats in Washington for 18 years. I feel that the state Department of Fish and Wildlife is most qualified to regulate game seasons in Washington. Backers of Initiative 655 feel they are more qualified than the department.
Fact: Abundant wildlife would indicate the game department is doing a fine job.
Fiction: Cougars are endangered or threatened.
Fact: Attacks committed by cougar involving humans, livestock and pets are at record levels for the last three years.
Fiction: Other species of wildlife would benefit from I-655.
Fact: Deer and elk herds would sharply decline in direct proportion to increased cougar population.
Fiction: Cougar would benefit from I-655. Fact: As the cougar population increases and the cougars’ food supply (deer and elk) dwindles, they would be forced out of their traditional hunting areas into contact with humans, pets and livestock. At that point, the Fish and Wildlife Department would be forced to eliminate them at taxpayers’ expense - not as a respected big game animal but as an invading predator. Jack Barron Newport, Wash.
Bad policy tool being used
Regarding Initiative 655, why hasn’t the Washington State Game Commission acted on this type of hunting long before it became a citizens’ initiative? With 41 other states already prohibiting bear baiting and hound hunting, why didn’t our commissioners see the writing on the wall and act before this initiative became an issue?
Hunting regulations should be based on sound biological and game management practices, not on hot rhetoric and emotion. Voters are no more capable of determining what’s best for bears, cougars and bobcats than they would be to manage pheasants, ducks and deer.
Responsible hunters accept limits, seasons and weapon restrictions, as well as all other hunting regulations, as necessary, normal and not a threat to our “rights.” Long ago, many hunting practices deemed socially and biologically unacceptable were prohibited. Outdated hunting practices such as spring waterfowl hunting, shooting after dark and pursuing deer with dogs were outlawed, not by voters but by game commissioners.
Initiatives like this one do harm by polarizing people. Some hunters see this as “the camel’s nose in the tent,” and fear anti-hunting sentiment will grow if this initiative passes. Even though they may be offended by the type of hunting targeted by 655, they perceive a subtle threat to traditional hunting and will oppose the initiative.
I expect our game commissioners to have the vision necessary to recognize changing social and ecological factors, and to adjust regulations accordingly. It should not take an initiative to implement change. Harvey Morrison Spokane
SPOKANE MATTERS
Good show, Chester Creek
High marks to the Chester Creek residents and the people and organizations which held the storm water program at Chester Community April 27.
It was a hands-on opportunity to see and learn about area drainage problems, as well as Spokane County’s water quality program.
As our population continues to grow, the need for proactive, responsive storm water management increases. Understanding and action at the local level are absolutely essential for the protection of our precious water supply. Ruth Peterson Spokane
ENVIRONMENT
Sierra Club goes too far - again
The radicals have come out of the closet!
Just about the time we think we know what the goals of the Sierra Club are, they move the goalpost. The vote taken in the club was 2 to 1 in favor of banning all timber harvest on public lands.
They say that only about 15 percent of our timber comes from public lands, so we won’t even miss it. Well, let’s consider what we have lost from our resource base over the past few years.
Due to President Clinton’s forest summit in 1993, our harvest was reduced from 5.1 billion board feet to 1.2 billion board feet, and because of the endless appeals we have realized far less harvest than that. The state Department of Natural Resources under Jennifer Belcher’s leadership has tied up another 1.6 million acres of our public lands.
If we are to depend on private lands for our needs, we are going to see more intensive logging on those lands to meet consumer demand. One thing we can count on, the price of wood products can go nowhere but up.
There was quite a split in the Sierra Club on this issue. Even Dave Forman, formerly of Earth First!, voted against this radical move. He said the idea of the Sierra Club taking over management of public lands would anger the public.
Sierra Club membership is lagging, as is the organization’s funding, because of overzealous preservation efforts in behalf of the spotted owl. Gary M. Garrison Kettle Falls, Wash.
Right to oppose Sierra Club
This is to let the editorial board know that I respect your willingness to go on record in opposition to the Sierra Club’s position of ending all commercial logging in national forests (“Conehead policy will hurt forests,” Our view, April 24).
In this instance, D.F. Oliveria has said what I feel. I believe compromise is necessary to solve the problem and survive, but it isn’t just the natural resource industries that need to compromise. It has to be a coming together of both sides, such as was done with the Seventh American Forest Congress, and put all the facts on the table, so that man, nature and the economy can survive in harmony. Norma Foxx Cusick, Wash.
Recycling is the obvious answer
In his April 24 editorial (“Conehead policy will hurt forests”), D.F. Oliveria says ending commercial logging in national forests is shortsighted. One reason he gives is that “Our insatiable demand for timber and wood products isn’t going to go away.”
What about recycling? A few years back an internal Forest Service study of wood consumption showed that if we in the United States were to recycle at the same rate as Europeans, we wouldn’t have to cut a stick from the National Forests.
All public lands contribute only 20 percent of our wood products. Some analyses show that an aggressive wood products conservation and recycling program could cut our consumption by as much as 50 percent. Our whole public lands system could then be managed for biodiversity without any reduction in our standard of living.
The Forest Service loses $500 million a year on timber sales. These are direct subsidies to big timber companies. This money could be used instead to pay timber workers to rip up roads, repair logging-induced damage to streams and so on.
The workers would win, forests would win and all Americans would win. There is no reason not to embark on this course, except, of course, shortsightedness. Vicki Lopez Spokane
All who use land should be alarmed
The other day the Sierra Club voted to support the fight against all logging-timber harvesting on all public federal and state lands. This, people, is one more step toward locking up lands for everything from fishing, hunting and driving forest roads that are getting locked up and wiped out faster than you can keep up with to picking Mother Nature’s berries and mushrooms. How about cutting firewood to keep your home warm?
This fight the Sierra Club is making is not only with the timber industry, it’s with everyone who lives and works in timber areas, and everyone who would use our public lands.
When the Sierra Club or any other group fights natural resource groups it’s against all multiple land uses like timber harvest, cattle ranching and mining. All you people out there should stand up and say no to thinking and actions like this. These people are going too far. Dwayne Ross Kettle Falls, Wash.
THE MEDIA
Film an affront to witches
Freedom of speech is of the greatest importance to Americans. Yet wisdom should dictate that we not abuse that right.
I urge people to boycott a movie that will open soon. It’s called “The Craft” and it purports to tell the story of young witches who control their school through terror and who all look like a parent’s worst nightmare.
This film, which is supposedly based on the old religion of witchcraft, referred to in modern times as Wicca, bears absolutely no resemblance to any true practices by genuine witches, and I was horrified by the previews I saw on television recently.
As coordinator for the Inland Northwest Pagan Alliance and regional director for the Witches Anti-Discrimination League, I vigorously protest this deliberate insult to the Wiccan faith.
Why should you care if witches are slandered? Because many of us are your friends and neighbors, your co-workers and associates. We are members of a religion that has only one precept: Harm no one and honor the Earth.
The portrayal of witches in movies like “The Craft” and Disney’s “Hocus Pocus” can serve only to perpetuate ancient hatred and mistrust. The very reverence witches feel for this planet and for nature itself is deliberately maligned. The characters are an offense to the hundreds of thousands of sincere believers.
Please send this message to Hollywood: You shall not profit from lies. Abigayle Murray Spokane
Paper exploited crazy persons
It seems The Spokesman-Review got what it was asking for this week.
A few days before the anniversary of the bomb explosion in Oklahoma, the paper printed full front-page stories asking, “What will happen here?” It seemed that the paper was eagerly anticipating and inviting disaster.
Well, you got what you asked for. Someone has taken up your call. Bombs going off at City Hall and threats at other locations around the city. What more can a paper ask for? News! News! News! And fame for some crazy.
Shame on you, Spokesman-Review.
But I guess you’ll do anything to generate income and news - even advertise acts of violence. Mary L. Martin Spokane
Sorry about that unwanted e-mail
Recently, I sent an e-mail Kootenai County issues questionnaire to a number of Internet users. I also established a World Wide Web home page.
My purpose was to utilize the information superhighway to provide citizens with a direct way to participate in framing Kootenai County issues. I also intended to provide citizens with a means to communicate their thoughts and concerns directly to me.
Many citizens chose to participate in the Electronic Town Hall. Some were offended by my use of the Internet to communicate with them. To those who were offended, I am truly sorry and I hope they will accept my sincere apology.
As a computer consultant, I have been using technology to improve efficiency in business and industry for over 30 years. This method of communication seems a more efficient and environmentally friendly one than the usual bulk mailing using the U.S. Postal Service.
Again, I regret having caused any offense. Reed Simpson Harrison, Idaho
GOVERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Fuzzy thinking of no help
Staff Writer Anne Windishar’s editorial, “Working poor deserve more,” and Managing Editor Scott Sines’ Hot Seat from April 29 are full of holes and fuzzy thinking.
Sines indicates union wages should be tied to minimum wage by some exponential number. Great news, Sines: it already is. What did you think the payoff would be for union ads on national TV? Good thinking, this after two years of a Democrat-controlled House with no action on minimum wage.
No mention of these ads in this newspaper, but the editors sure jumped on Hillary Clinton’s speech, warning that the Republicans might finally strike back with their own ads.
Windishar’s editorial is as goofy as possible. No one can support a family on $4.25 an hour - not on $5.25 or even $8.50 an hour. I don’t believe her figure that 40 percent actually support a family. How will $1 an hour help? I wonder how she got that figure of $8,850.
Fifty-two weeks a year and no tax deductions? Try to buy food or pay rent from taxes the government deducts from your paycheck.
But, blindly, she comes close. If the Democrats want to help people, they could cut government costs, cut tax deductions, cut government wages and balance the budget. If poor people can support a family on $4.25 on hour, why do we need government programs? If they’re that clever they could write for this newspaper or run for Congress. Jim Allen Spokane
Minimum wage raise ruinous
President Clinton is promoting an increase in the minimum wage. This is an incredibly bad idea when the natural consequences are examined.
Most businesses that offer minimum wage employment are small, with equally small profit margins. If they are forced to pay their employees more, one of several things must occur:
1. The employer swallows the increased expense. This is unlikely to happen, but if it does he may go broke, costing all employees their jobs.
2. The employer passes the increased cost along to his customers. The net result is that bagels now cost a dime more. Thus, income has been redistributed from bagel eaters to the minimum wage earners. (Unless the bagel eaters decide to switch to English muffins, whereupon the bagel company goes broke because nobody is buying bagels. Again, all employees lose their jobs.)
3. The employer decides he will go broke if he raises prices or absorbs the increase, so he fires two employees. The result, again, is that income has been redistributed; this time from one low-income worker to another.
Thus, in any scenario, while some people are better off, it is always at someone else’s expense. This is the liberal solution. Those unfortunates who lose their jobs will go unnoticed by President Clinton. Besides, they can always go on welfare. Hal Dixon Spokane