Sage grouse's worst enemy? The state

To the editor:

Your Thursday editorial, "Look at the grouse," was absolutely correct, but some additional information about the supposed need to protect the sage grouse should be noted.

From July 1989 to June 1991, the Nevada Department of Wildlife conducted a survey of sage grouse production and mortality. In one area of the study, 1,400 eggs were placed in 200 simulated sage grouse nests -- seven eggs per nest. This was during the 15-day period when sage hens lay their eggs.

The results of this survey were unbelievable. At the completion of the 15-day period, all 1,400 eggs were destroyed in that study area. Ravens were believed to be the chief nest predator.

During the 1991 legislative session, a bill was introduced to do some raven control with aircraft. The Division of Wildlife did not show up to testify regarding its own survey. Somewhere along the line, the Division of Wildlife and the Wildlife Commission decided this survey was invalid. The reason? They marked the nests with flags. The ravens saw the flags and realized these were nests and ate all the eggs.

There are two reasons why the Division of Wildlife and the Wildlife Commission did not acknowledge that the sage grouse has a predator problem. First, if there is a problem, there must be a cure, like "do something." Second, it is not politically correct to kill one species to enhance another.

For these reasons, the sportsmen, the sage grouse and other land users will be the losers in Nevada for many years to come, possibly forever. The only hope we have is the new appointees to the Wildlife Commission, who understand the problem.




Seasoned politician

To the editor:

Your Friday editorial, "VP debate unlikely to change minds," stated that Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., was the "smoother and more polished performer." You then went on to point out three separate instances in which Sen. Biden made false statements. Therefore, the only assumption that can be made from this editorial is that Sen. Biden is more accomplished at getting around the truth.

Bernice Poliandro


Appointing judges

To the editor:

Your Friday editorial, "VP debate unlikely to change minds," chastised Sen. Joe Biden for admitting that he tries "to block the appointment of any candidates whose ideology displeases him." The editorial claims that "the Constitution calls for the president -- not Sen. Biden -- to appoint our federal judges, that the voters choose a president in part because they want him to have that authority."

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides, however, that the president "nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" lifetime federal judges.

President Bush ignited unnecessary confirmation firefights and artificially created judicial vacancies. He refused even to discuss nominations with senators and insisted on nominees with political agendas that unfairly favor big corporations over laws that protect people and the environment.

William Myers' record as Interior Department solicitor was so slanted that he was the only judicial nominee ever opposed by the National Wildlife Federation and the National Congress of American Indians. Another nominee denounced the Supreme Court's refusal to invalidate the New Deal as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution."

Glenn Sugameli



Bribery, not leadership

To the editor:

In response to your Friday editorial, "Credit to Reid":

Harry Reid showed leadership in getting the bailout bill passed? You have got to be kidding.

Leadership would have been for Sen. Reid, D-Nev., to stand before the Senate and tell the members that this bill was too important to deal with anything but the effort to help resolve the financial crisis. Instead, he bought votes by including billions in pork.

It is an embarrassment that the only way our legislative branch can solve a truly important problem is if there is a "little" pork included for everyone. This is not the kind of leadership this country deserves.

Don Bittle


Trickle down

To the editor:

Sen. Barack Obama claims to be committed to ending trickle-down economics, but he stands solidly behind a bailout bill that is classic trickle down. There's no requirement in this package for banks to reinvest the $700 billion in the United States. There's no requirement that they help out homeowners or small businesses.

In the past two years, the Federal Reserve and Treasury have pumped more than $1 trillion into the U.S. financial system with no effect. The money has gone into commodities speculation (remember $147-per-barrel oil?), foreign bonds and currency swaps (remember the $1.60 euro?). The same thing will happen with this money.

In this moment of crisis, we're seeing Sen. Obama's true values. He values the millions in donations from Wall Street more than the trust and support of the voters.

Roger LeBlanc