2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

You pose the question -- should ranchers be able to protect their property?  Well, what about when their property is on our property?

Grazing on public lands is the epitome of the tragedy of the commons.

Our public lands are owned by all of us - hunters, hikers, city folks, ranchers, doctors, fishermen, and janitors.  Not just a small number of cattlemen who profit off our public land.

If it comes down to them, their cows, and a welfare-supported industry vs. the vast majority of landowners (the public) and native wildlife, I vote for the latter.  Wolves are more valuable alive than dead - According to a report by the University of Montana wolf related-tourism brings in $70M annually that wouldn't be spent there otherwise.  Say nothing of our multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation industry.

As Mr. Sprout said on your show a few weeks ago "no, ranching isn't profitable.  But it's what we do."  Sounds more like a lifestyle choice than a real industry.  His family may have been here since 1860 but wolves, elk, trout, and coyotes have been here a lot longer.

As your questions demomstrate, ranchers have done a good job framing the argument here.  They won't show you a picture of a dead gut-shot wolf or post this on OPB, however it did appear on an Idaho website where wolves are now a "game species":

"We need to get the word out to hunters this fall, always aim for the guts untill you see one you want on the wall then go for the vitals on the last one and tag it.  The rest will simply run off and become food for the other critters.  Together we can ruduce there numbers in a hurry...read the regs. they say you cant kill a wolf doesent say anything about shooting'em"

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Grazing on public lands is the epitome of the tragedy of the commons.

That the Stouts are getting the time of day on this is more a testament to the ridiculousness of their claim than its credibility.  It's a man bites dog story -- an attention grabber for sure, but not very credible.

A pair of ranchers comes to the conclusion that native wildlife and feral horses are destroying our public lands and that it's not their couple hundred head of cattle -- not shocking!

Our public lands are owned by all of us -- hunters, hikers, city folks, ranchers, fishermen, doctors, and janitors. Not just a small number of cattlemen who profit off our public land.

If it comes down to them, their cows, and a welfare-supported industry vs. the vast majority of landowners (the public), native wildlife , and an outdoor rec. and tourism industry that brings in hundreds of billions of dollars nationally, I vote for the latter.

The Sprouts may have been here since 1860, but the elk, wolves, trout, (and Native Americans for that matter) have been here a lot longer.

Thank you ONDA and other organizations that, backed by sound science, stand up for the public interest.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

One of the biggest ways that the Department of Ag. effects Oregon is through its control of our National Forests.  How will you protect old-growth (read carbon sinks)?  How will you protect the recreational values of our National Forests for quiet recreation?  Will science or influence of extractive industries guide management decisions? 

Oregon has traditionally been one of the biggest supporters of the roadless rule.  Will you support it's reinstatement and enforcement?

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Someone once told me -- "never ask a barber if you need a haircut". I might change that to say -- "never ask a 'forest products advocate'(Tom Partin) if you need to 'manage' a forest"

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I second Seans statement. While this is a worthwhile and interesting conversation, the more important question is how do we best protect all of our forests, wild places, and old growth. There is not much left. I am tempted to say old-growth fits the old definition of "you know it when you see it". Oregonians (and our visitors) value a stand of old-growth (whether 80 or 100 years old) much more than a clear-cut and a box of kleenex. Healthy, intact forests, however defined, do much more for our state than the clearcuts. In our states national forests, outdoor recreation generates five times more revenue than logging. It certainly inspires more wonder, encourages more tourism, better protects our planet from global warming, keeps our water sources cleaner, provides for better best recreational areas and wildlife habitat in the state, and improves our quality of life better than a clearcut.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context