LETTERS: Habitat least of sage grouse’s problems

To the editor:

The article on the sage grouse seems to push everyone to believe that habitat is the main reason for declining sage grouse numbers (“Grouse hunt is a mixed bag,” Monday Review-Journal). Habitat is not the only nor the main reason for this decline, and there are many studies to prove this.

From July 1989 to June 1991, the Nevada Department of Wildlife conducted a survey of sage grouse production and mortality, placing 1,400 eggs 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 both study areas. Ravens were believed to be the chief nest predator.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture did a study on sage grouse mortality in Wyoming. The results showed predators were the main reason for declining sage grouse numbers. Removing ravens is quick, easy and less expensive than habitat restoration. This will not happen because NDOW and the Nevada Wildlife Commission believe it is not politically correct to kill one species to enhance another.

Whenever an NDOW employee uses habitat as the justification for the decline of any wildlife, would the reporter please ask the following questions: Who is going to pay for the habitat restoration? How much will it cost? Who is going to perform the restoration? And when can we expect to see increasing sage grouse numbers? It is my belief that habitat is the main excuse NDOW employees will use until their pensions kick in. Time will prove this to be true.



ISIS intelligence

To the editor:

Once again, President Barack Obama is blaming someone else for a problem instead of taking responsibility for it himself. This time, he blames his intelligence people for his supposed lack of knowledge about ISIS. Apparently, he now admits what most of us seemed to have known all along: that ISIS is dangerous and is out to kill not only Americans, but anyone who doesn’t follow its convoluted religious practices.

I don’t what to infer that our president is stupid. He isn’t. And I don’t want to infer that he is incompetent, but he might be. What he truly is, however, is a disingenuous liberal who has ignored the facts of a threat by ISIS in favor of courting his political base. He has stuck his head in the sand over the IRS, the National Security Agency, Fast &Furious, the insecure border and a host of other issues. Now that his own base is turning on him, he is learning that it takes more than a smile and a golf game to be president.

The ball is in your court Mr. President, and I don’t mean a basketball or a golf ball. We the people are waiting. Take a shot.



Madam secretaries

To the editor:

George Rudnisky badly misses the point in his letter to the editor (“CBS’s free ad for Hillary,” Sept. 27 Review-Journal).

Admittedly, “Madam Secretary” is only a fictional program. But within the context of the program, Tea Leoni’s character took the bit in her mouth, went around her higher-ups and got two American citizens released from a Syrian prison. Conversely, in real life, our own president, his secretary of state and the entire force of the U.S. government is incapable of getting even a single honorable Marine released from Mexico.

It is the primary function of the federal government to protect all American citizens. Yet by all news accounts, government officials aren’t even trying to free U.S. Marine Andrew Tahmooressi. That is an absolutely despicable dereliction of duty. Mr. Rudnisky does admit that Ms. Leoni’s character is likable and credible, which Mrs. Clinton is not. I can only hope that the series fails Mr. Rudnisky’s prediction of softening the public’s view of Mrs. Clinton.

Do not watch this show and make comparisons. Rather, watch the show and note the contradictions.



News Headlines
Add Event
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like