RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
lotusland's comments:
on The Big Bad Wolf?
On the "East vs West" divide. I come from family who ranched in Central Oregon, - Ashwood. My grandfather whose father homesteaded the land in the 1800's made a point of NOT killing animals he wasn't hunting for food (well, other than rattle snakes I guess) because he understood that nature kept it's own balance. He knew that "private property" is an invented notion that has meaning only for the people that live there but plants and native animals species don't give a hoot about divisions of private property, they live their lives as they best live there lives and to quote a friend it's best to "give it a good leave it alone".
There are many from the east who are interested in a compassionate and informed way of living in support of healthy eco-systems.
posted 4 years ago
view in context
on The Big Bad Wolf?
A request for perspective shift on two levels . . .
One, to inhibit the drama involved with describing actions of predatory animals - carnivors kill animals to eat, it's nothing new and nothing new to humans. Listen to the desciption of a man gutting a dear or fish and it would sound no different than what I just heard as a description of the killed lambs. I would ask you to inhibit the manipulation of an emotional tug when describing the every day actions of a wolf (any predator) getting nourishment. The drama is provocative not informative. In a charged issue like this the emotional pull feels inappropriate.
Two, I would like to request a shift from the presentation of this kind of charged issue as a polarization of opposites to a broad collection of opinions and choices for action. There are always more than two sides to an issue. After I found myself fuming for hours about the issue, I realized what I want is a forum that presents more than two sides, more than for or against, pro or con, right or wrong.
"Rancher" vs "Environmentalist" - is an old and inacurate plot relying on old and inacurate labels that folks are still eager to draw lines in the sand over. An oppositional forum results in conflict and does not produce resolution or forward movement on an issue. Please let go of this old and ill-fated perspective.
The issue is about grey wolves in Oregon, there are many possible choices to make with many corresponding consequences. Can we shift the discussion to the many choices affecting a broad community and a larger ecosystem rather than an opposition between predators and ranchers or environmentalists and ranchers? Lets grow forward in our thinking and our actions.
I am greatly appreciating the respectful and non emotional discussion, thank you.
posted 4 years ago
view in context
on The Big Bad Wolf?
A reply to the above quote that equates wolves to "marauders" . . .
It is common in my rural community for groups of men in the name of entertainment to drink, get high and drive out to uninhabited properties (clear-cuts) adjacent to inhabited properties (such as my own) to shoot random targets, litter, and vandalize property (no matter that there are animals and children just behond the trees that they cannot see). These men are contemporary maurauders, they are dangerous to my family, my animals and my property yet no one in their right mind would give me permission to shoot them, the idea is horrifying.
How can you validate killing an animal who is simply living it's life as it would if you were not there - no intoxicants or vandalization involved?
The comparison does not hold. Rather, it provides an over dramatic reason to kill wild animals for the sake of killing.
It seems that there must be a way to protect the sheep that are in danger. Our very large dogs do a good job of keeping most everything off of our property, is that a possible strategy for protecting the sheep? Otherwise, it seems like a strange choice to continue to ranch sheep in an area where they are vulnerable to predation.
posted 4 years ago
view in context
on The Big Bad Wolf?
I write to offer a voice in support of protection. Predatory species are vital to the health of native ecosystems. I hear the frustration of the rancher whose income is based on producing an artificial, non-native and honogenious population of animals whose young are possilly ideal targets for local predators.
My question would be did you not understand the risks of ranching on land where predators are common? Consider the original populations of the area, it was much more likely the predators than it was the homesteaders, farmers, and ranchers. (I come from a Central Oregon ranching family so I can say this) It makes me think of the logic of sending a child into a candy store to study and somehow expecting the child to concentrate on history and not on the chocolate on the shelves around her.
To expect predators in their native habitat to not act as predators is problematic logic. Their predation helps moderate an important balance of wild animal populations, yet if given a simple and easy non wild or native target, why should they distinquish?
It's often the case in Oregon that predators are killed simply because there is a false or overly dramatized fear that they pose a danger to animals or people (consider most cases of wildcat observations and the associated unwarrented hysteria). In most cases, the fear is not valid yet it provides permission for individuals to kill an animal for sport derriving an aggressive sense of power over his environment.
May we please evolve beyond the need to kill animals (which we do not use for nurishment or products) to establish a sense of power and control in the world. Let's call it what it is, barbaric, and just say no more.
A vote for moving beyond barbarism,
Shannon
posted 4 years ago
view in context
on Within Bounds
Also,
Go METRO! Your doing a great job. Please continue limiting the power of development interests. I know they have a strong hold on most local governments. There are greater priorities to consider (environmental, health, sustainable living) than the increased income of developers.
It is important to remember that the machine of development is run by the motivation of increased income (not necessarily a bad thing but usually bad when not tempered by larger human values) and not on conscious, sustainable values. I feel strongly that these values have to be imposed and protected by those who actually care about future generations.
thanks
posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Within Bounds
May I offer a strong and resounding voice in support of NOT EXPANDING the urban growth boundary. In my 42 years of observation, expanding the urban growth boundary in an age of unenlightened commercial architecture results in the horror that is Gresham.
Yes, yes, yes to infill and REDEVELOPMENT of established residential and commercial areas that need some economic support and vitality. We have plenty of homes and land devoted to living.
Yes, grow up. I lived in NYC for years in a wonderfully vertical environment that had a greater sense of community than any suburb will ever offer.
Please, please start to think outside of the outdated box of growing wide. Prioritize sustainability, consider greeen and garden space planning, environmental health.
And, as a resident of North Plains who visits Forest Grove often, I see a huge opportunity for redevelopment in this community. Please consider creatively re-crafting the space that is, before spreading half-heartedly into the blandness of Starbucks and McDonalds and McMansion.
There may be figures about how many people will come. Why not limit that growth by limiting development and keep our beautiful home beautiful. We can say "no" to communities that echo Pheonix and Las Vegas. It's exciting to see areas like downtown Hillsboro come back to life - let's continue to support this inner rebirth.
Managable, sustainable, healthy. Please keep your focus on primary values and away from the dollar sign.
thanks,
posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Local Lunch
Yes, yes, yes, this is such a positive direction - even through the strained optimism I hear in the voices on the air, you have to admit that connecting local agriculture to school food programs is a perfectly wonderful direction for school nutrition (probably a direction backward to wiser times).
I support the voices that speak to whole food nutrition. Whole nutrition may not be synonymous with local but it CAN BE. Nutrition is primarily in the hands of those who purchase the products and design the menues. This is a charge to those decision makers to have the courage to do the right thing and make healthy changes.
I love the post that reminded us that not so long ago (this was the case when I went to grade school anyway) that there was no choice in our meals. Can we all agree that youngsters habituated to processed foods will not necessarily make the best food choice for their long-term health. Can we consider school a learning environment for life as well as for information? Make the meals an opportunity for learning about whole food nutrition.
Include the students (of course the level of engagement depends on the age of student) in the proces of food growing, menue planning and food preparation. It seems sad how disconnected our contemporary culture has become from what forms the cells and tissues of our bodies. Food comes in some amorphous package from goodness knows where. This kind of disconnect does not support life learning.
I encourage school representatives not to consider nutritional planning an economic burden but rather an opportunity to provide valuable live long learning. What a great curriculum - whole nutrition, permaculture, local agriculture, whole foods cooking . . . There is a great opportunity here!
thanks to all!
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Local Lunch
Hey friend,
There are three primary issues: climate change/carbon emissions; human health; and local econimic vitality.
The farther food travels the more carbon emmissions are produced thus the increase in factors creating climate change. Also the farther food travels the less nutritional value it holds - there are several easily accessibly studies to document the loss of nutrients in produce over time (not to even go into GMO and chemically treated products), and finally when you buy out of state, the money goes, well out of state - not really a rocket science relationship there, huh?
Check out the book "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kingsolver. She expresses this issue with great compassion and personal investment.
And, final statement. I would support programs that encourage the purchase of local products in schools of all kinds possible - furniture, food, whatever.
Supporting the local economy is a hugely valuable action on many levels. It is not simply Oregonian/liberal propaganda.
Love it! Thanks to all supporting this process.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Cows v. Elk v. Wild Horses
Dear friend,
SUSTAINABILITY is no "flag", it happens to be the paradigm under which your grandchildren will have a healthy world to live in. How can you be so short sited as to view preservation as "under-utilization". We are not living in this environment with an agenda to manipulate it. We are here because we are supported by our environment. Arrogance and aggressive relationships will eventually undermine our long term well being.
And, if you are listening at all, this is not an all or nothing arguement. Have you been to the area they are discussing? It is terribly sensitive wetland area - a complex ecosystm that is supports a huge diversity of species and is easily messed up. Why can't the cows just go somewhere else that is less sensitive? Doesn't seem like such a big deal.
Has anyone yet, considered the larger picture - How to maintain the health of the whole ecosystem which would include predators of elk, deer, and perhaps even the horses - wolves and wild cats. Could we let nature settle the balance and stop killing the animals at the top of the food chain. The predators would do a lot to balance that damage from wild grazing animals.
So, I would say that your narrow minded arguement is NOT with conservationists but actually with the State Fish and Wildlife Department.
Take a bigger look,
Shannon
posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context
on Limiting Fertility?
Thank you so very much for this discussion! I am a 41 year old woman who made choices throughout her most fertile years to pursue carreer and adventure. I am now newly married to an amazing man who, like me, very much want to parent a child. I quite literally would give my right arm to give birth, so like many, I am seeking medical fertility support for pregnancy.
I am also someone who is passionate about making healthy choices for the sustainability of our environment. Neither my husband or myself have had children before. I would support legislative limits to fertility practices that look honestly at the human footprint on the planet. I would not support fertility treatments for couples who already have two children. This seems like a fair and legitimate limit.
In general, it feels irresponsible to reproduce using fertility treatments when those new children are adding either to the burden of a family or the planet. I have never understood the choice to have many children when one cannot support those new lives. Even as I personally understand the deep desire to give birth, I strongly support the filters of wisdom, responsibility and consciousness in making reproductive choices.
posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context
on Nuclear Northwest
Dear Mr. Kafoury, I am greatly relieved by hearing a logical voice in opposition to nuclear energy. I am fearful, even horrified that there is a renewed discussion regarding the new and increased use of nuclear fuel to solve the carbon emission problem. Why would any responsible human choose to look backward in technology and burden generation after generation with the dangerous and costly polution from nuclear fuel?
My confusion and fear echo the anger I hear in your voice.
Dear Mr. Landry, how can engineers move forward with such dangerous and irresponsible technology without having to answer the ethical questions simultaneously? Could you not harness all of the same intelligence and university resources to step out of old boxes and look ahead to the wonderful challenges of new energy sources.
This is a tired saying but, how do you and Mr. King sleep at night knowing the costs of nuclear fuel when you support the continuation of such old and even wrong technology?
I appreciate the pubic forum on this dangerous issue.
posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context
on Gambling in the Recession
Risk takers? Sorry, not buying it. I have personally taken great risks in my life and know friends and family members (rock and ice climbers for example) who regularly risk their lives navigating the land in physical endeavors who would no more gamble a dollar than they would sell their first born.
The risk taker explanation lacks a whole lot of substance. Hmmm, let's consider addictive personalities, education factors, culture & family of origin . . .
posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context
on Gambling in the Recession
I am saddened by the abstract discussion relating "the smoking ban" solely to a change in state revenue. Is there no acknowledgement of the benefit to large numbers of individuals saved from the toxic environment of smoke and perhaps the benefit of changing behaviors away from sitting in a chair for hours and playing video poker. I am hearing no discussion about the health effects (for better or worse) related to gambling/video poker.
I have to admit, even though my father's hugely valuable state environmental program is largely supported by lottery revenue, I would be thrilled to see the public stop smoking and stop gambling all together. Who cares about the income when one can imagine people changing their lives for the better - spending time outside, with family, exercising . . . think about all the money saved in health care when the public get's healthy, now that's a consciousness shift that could pay big rewards.
posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context
