2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college 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 internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media 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 president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Who was here first? The wolf or the rancher? Who is a better steward of the environment, the wolf or the rancher?  The wolf deserves to be here and run free, the rancher should consider the cons of living in the wilderness. We need to change the idea that the wolf is evil, it does the environment better than any white man could. Since reinterduction into the Yellowstone area the wolf alone has helped the elk move around more, which in turn helped the watersheds, which got rid of the invasive tamerisk tree, helped the beaver population grow, the coyote population has decreased and there are more butterflies all because of the wolf. The wolf deserves to be in oregon, the rancher can go somewhere else to munipulate the environment to his liking.

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context