Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

Being from an Oregon coastal town myself, I feel that tax payer dollars would be appropriately spent on this cause. Tourism is a major source of business for the Oregon coast, and for the beaches to not be aesthetically pleasing and potentially dangerous, is a huge blow to business. With tourism down in fall/winter, the coastal economy is shaky as is, and with the development of this crisis occurring, this issue needs to be viewed as very serious. While cleaning the birds is important, an equal level of funding should be spent on determining the cause of the algae bloom. 

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Not being a taxpayer myself, I probably don't have as strong opinion on the issue as many adults. However, it's important to understand the distinction between cleanup and prevention, especially in this case. In a broader sense, I don't mind my pseudo-tax dollars being spent to help birds recuperate, and prefer it to the war, but that's not to say I don't value the issue of climate change or the economy over it. Let's just say that the "root" of the problem is more important - if I could spend tax dollars to directly sanction ExxonMobil, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

For years American taxpayers have seen millions of their dollars spent fighting wildfires, predominately in California. Fires are a natural process that nature needs to protect the health and ensure the endurance of its forests. Continually fighting these fires only leads to bigger and bigger fires every year, as we continue to prevent nature from running its course. Following in these footsteps by fighting algal growths will merit the same affect, algal growths will continue to boom unless we allow nature to run its course.   

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

We are an AP Environmental Science (APES) class. The following are our opinions/responses to this issue:

* They can do whatever they want as long as they don't use taxpayer's dollars. 

* Well, I would rather my taxpayer's dollars go to helping the seabirds than to something like the war. 

* The volunteer response to the bird crisis seems sufficient, and I feel tax dollars would be better used in an attempt to research the cause of the algae bloom, and whether it was a direct reflection of a chemical inbalance due to people caused pollution,  a response to global warming, or an entirely natural occurrence. 

* There are also economic factors to consider. Coastal towns rely on tourism to bring in money. If this is the case, should it be the responsibility of the people on the coast/locals to take care of this, or is this something that calls for the support of the federal/state/local government? What should be the deciding factor in who is responsible? 

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context