Don’t feed the animals
In the first editorial Seattle Weekly has
published in God knows how long, we zeroed in on reason #3,593 why the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation in Oregon is totally idiotic. We noted that the armed men who’ve taken over the refuge would have us think that America was worse off for Western environmental policy. In fact, we argue, the refuge shows how much we have gained when we’ve committed to preserving what untouched lands we have left. By the looks of it, our readers weren’t too fond of the men either.
My question is have the locals fully developed the refuge’s tourism potential, and do the locals have hard numbers to kick around regarding the refuge’s economic input to the community? If not, producing those numbers might be the best way to laugh the whackos to the state line.
steve el,
via seattleweekly.com
I say the best strategy is to just ignore these bozos. When the publicity starts to fade because they’re not surrounded by federal marshals, they’ll just slink back home in the middle of the night.
Purrlie,
via seattleweekly.com
Seal off the perimeter, jam the cell phones, allow no one in, and cut off utilities. Let them know that if they have not caused any damage, any one of them can approach the perimeter, surrender his guns, and walk free between now and Sunday. That would be taking the moral high ground, it would negate their pretensions of martyrdom, and the whole situation ends with a whimper and not a bang. If they don’t comply, just let them stew in their own juices. This militia nonsense is getting old.
Chuck Anziulewicz,
via seattleweekly.com
Online, the original version of the editorial called the cowboys “anarchists” because of their complete disregard for the rule of law. That got a note from the anarchists.
These people are in NO WAY anarchists. The anarchists in the PNW are very vocally against Bundy and his gang. Please consider a revision.
Abbie H, via seattleweekly.com
Sorry, Abbie.
Bearing Out the Numbers
Also on the nature front, our cover story by Daniel Person documented a piecemeal but fascinating trend in Washington: A vast majority of species that have been lost in the state are coming back, either naturally or through reintroduction work. This includes the grizzly bear, which wildlife officials are now studying for reintroduction in the North Cascades.
I would love to see grizzlies back in the Cascades. They belong there. But I hope we will all do some long, hard thinking before any program to capture them in B.C. and let them loose here gets the go-ahead.
All attempts to prove an existing grizzly population in the North Cascades have failed. A few bears wander south now and then, but that is not a population. We are essentially starting from a population of zero.
In Montana’s Cabinet Yaak area, an existing, proven population of 30 to 40 bears was considered inadequate for the 2,600-square-mile recovery area there. So 11 or so new bears were brought in, with mixed results. No one has declared it a success.
The Cascades are a 10,000-square-mile recovery area, four times bigger than the Yaak, with essentially no bears. If 30 to 40 bears were officially considered not enough for 2,600 square miles in Montana, how many bears would be sufficient to repopulate 10,000 square miles here? The only answer seems to be A LOT of bears—well over a hundred, perhaps even more than that.
If just a few bears are brought in, we will still have the same problem we have now—too few bears to find each other and reproduce in such a vast landscape. But if enough bears to get around that problem are to be brought in, where can they come from? Grizzly-bear populations in any parts of B.C. similar to the Cascades are facing numerous threats from logging, roadbuilding, mining, hunting, and poaching. The B.C. populations are in trouble and cannot afford to have bears removed from them in the numbers it would take to repopulate the Cascades with any chance of success.
We can’t capture bears in Alaska because the environment is too different here as opposed to there, and any grizzly bears in the Cascades would not get any salmon, like they are accustomed to getting plenty of up there.
So, yes, grizzlies would be wonderful to have in the Cascades, but this is a big complex problem with no easy solutions. Let’s make sure that all the potential pitfalls and problems get fully examined and evaluated before they start capturing bears in B.C. and turning them loose here.
Snoqualman,
via seattleweekly.com
E
Comments have been edited for length and clarity. Does it seem weird to anyone else that anarchists have strict rules about who is and isn’t an anarchist?
