Congress Moves Environmental Protection Back Toward the Stone Age (or at least back to the early 1900's)

A palpable hatred for both predators and other “varmints” is revealed in articles printed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1920, where classics like “Hunting Down Stock Killers” and “Death To The Rodents” can be found.
See:

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007
Wolves, Prison Labor, NPR
and
MONDAY, MAY 11, 2009
Wolves Again. . . .
This is a in part a re-post of a blog from December 6, 2007 about wolves and the persecution of predators.
__

Wording of the anti-wolf stealth rider placed into budget bill by Montana's Sen. Tester and Idaho's Sen. Simpson:

SEC. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise have any effect on the order and judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09–CV–118J and 09–CV–138J on November 18, 2010

In other words, congressional passage of the rider reinstates the Interior Department's/US Fish & Wildlife Service, April 2, 2009 anti-wolf final de-listing rule that had been subsequently ruled illegal by the courts. Additionally, the Congress, in passing the budget bill with the rider attached, attempts to remove any review of the action by the Judicial branch of government, even to test its constitutionality. Where are these people taking us when they tell us they can pick and choose what legislation can, or cannot, be reviewed by the courts?

A friend sent out this brief discussion from Legal Planet; the Environmental Law and Policy Blog, and we can expect to be hearing more on the legal issues in the future.

The bigger loser here is the integrity of our environmental laws. This rider, a joint effort of Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), is an exercise in arrogance, cowardice and congressional overreach. Oh, and let’s not forget hypocrisy: both sides of the political aisle have complained incessantly about the evils of policy riders attached to must-pass appropriations bills, yet both sides continue to attach riders left and right. (If you need examples of congressional hypocrisy, just watch any random episode of The Daily Show.) Expect to hear a lot more about harmful environmental riders in the coming budget showdowns.
. . . .
Attaching this rider to the appropriations bill, instead of debating a separate policy bill, is cowardly. Assuming that Congress knows more about the wolves than all of the participants in the litigation is arrogant. For example, this rider is worse than the rejected settlement, in that it lacks any requirement for independent scientific review. But worst of all, whoever wrote the rider seems to believe that Congress stands above judicial review.

Please see:
Of Wolves and Men. APRIL 12, 2011, by Rhead Enion for entire article.
__

Federal budget vote splits Oregon delegation

WASHINGTON – A controversial budget to keep the federal government operating for the rest of the fiscal year fractured Oregon's delegation Thursday, with Democrats Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader voting for the measure along with Republican Greg Walden while Reps. Earl Blumenauer and David Wu opposed it.

The jagged fault lines extended to the Senate, where Democrats Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley (Merkley voted for the bill) split their votes. Wyden voted against the bill because it included language that would eliminate a provision in the health care law that allows 300,000 workers to shop for their health insurance on the open market.

__

One reaction from N. E. Oregon wolf advocate Wally Sykes

"The Tester/Simpson Rider delisting wolves is a body-blow to the Endangered Species Act, a cynical ploy by the Obama Administration to try and save the seat of Montana Senator John Tester. It's the first legislative delisting in the 38-year history of the ESA, and sets a terrible precedent of using politics instead of science to delist a species. It denies citizens any say in this delisting because it excludes it from judicial review. 1200 scientists have written a letter to Obama protesting this act. Harry Reid promised a budget without riders, and the President himself promised to safeguard environmental policies, and this is how they keep their word?

"The delisting includes the wolves of eastern Oregon, which will now be subject to the Oregon Wolf Plan and protected as a state endangered species, but the biological reserve for our wolves is Idaho, where the population could be cut to 300 from about 800. This is not enough to maintain genetic diversity. Furthermore, the ESA is vital in protecting vast swathes of forest, wetlands, rivers, watersheds and desert. All this is now put at risk by this ill-considered political maneuver."

__

From The Center For Biological Diversity

For Immediate Release, April 14, 2011

Contact: Kierán Suckling, (520) 275-5960

Congress Approves Wolf-killing Rider in Budget Act to Aid Montana Democrat’s Re-election

Votes Mark the First Time that Endangered Species Act Protections Have Been Removed by Politicians

WASHINGTON— In part to aid the re-election campaign of Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Congress today approved a budget bill that includes a rider removing wolves in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Utah from the federal endangered species list and sets the stage for near-term delisting in Wyoming. The votes mark the first time that Congress has bypassed the science-based process of the Endangered Species Act and stripped federal protections from an endangered species.

The rider was submitted by Tester and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and approved by Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate. The rider not only eliminates federal protection for wolves but sets a dangerous precedent for other politicians looking to halt recovery of endangered species in their home states.

“This is a dark day for wolves and for all species relying on federal protections for their survival,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Senator Tester included the rider as a ploy to score political points in his 2012 reelection campaign, and now wolves and other species will have to pay the price.”

Delisting removes federal protections from an endangered species and hands management over to state control. The states with the most wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains, Idaho and Montana, intend to kill many of the 1,270 animals last counted in their two states, which include approximately 80 breeding pairs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is likely to ramp up aerial gunning of wolves and campaigns that destroy pups in their dens.

The rider approved today by the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives bans citizens from challenging the wolf delisting decision, even if wolf numbers plummet toward zero, while preserving anti-wolf litigation brought by the state of Wyoming and other parties.

Since the Endangered Species Act became law in 1973, Congress has never intervened to override the law and remove a plant or animal from federal protection.

“Congressional delisting without the opportunity to restore protections threatens to bring us back to the days when wolves and other wildlife were systematically poisoned on public lands,” said Suckling. “We ask President Obama to veto the federal budget to ensure that an endangered species is not massacred; that the Endangered Species Act is not gutted; and that the science, not politics, determines which species benefit from federal protections.”

__

High Country News
The Range Blog
Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf?
By Heather Hansen, Red Lodge Clearing House

. . . .
Conventional arguments become spurious statements when scrutinized in the light of day:

1) Wolves are killing huge numbers of livestock

In Montana, from 1995 to 2007, wolves killed an average 67 livestock animals (cattle, sheep, llamas, goats and horses) per year. Last year, 97 cows/calves were killed, out of 2.5 million head of cattle in the state.

In Idaho, in 2009, wolves killed 90 cows/calves and 344 sheep. The number of sheep seems high, until you consider that sheep producers reported losing 56,000 animals that year for reasons other than predators, such as disease and weather. They also reported losing another 18,800 animals to all predators, mostly coyotes. Eagles were blamed for another 600 sheep deaths. If economics was a real argument, why not target the more destructive hunters--grizzlies, eagles, foxes and coyotes?

Now, I’ve seen a wolf tear out the guts of an animal and it’s not pleasant, but I’ve also seen hamburgers. The loss of a negligent amount of livestock to wolves seems like the price of doing this kind of business. . . . .

Please read entire article for other good info.
__

Some interesting statistics about Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves From OPB/Ecotrope:

Number of confirmed Montana sheep killed by wolves: 67

Number sheep producers reported lost from other causes (i.e. disease, weather): 49,000

Number they reported lost to all predators: 17,800

Amount of money the feds spent on Northern Rockies wolf management last year: $4,566,000

Amount the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife spent the last two years: $480,000

Amount paid to Montana ranchers for 369 livestock losses to wolves in 2009: $143,000

Amount cattlemen say they’ll need to start a compensation program in Oregon: $750,000

For the whole list and other good information, see Gray wolves: By the numbers.
__

Wallowa Chieftan Article on Wally Sykes (NE Oregon Ecosystems) Wolf Testimony in Salem.

Sykes: Some of my testimony is covered above. The balance is below:
We have 35 million acres of public land, half our state, in vast contiguous tracts. These lands protect our biodiversity, our watersheds, our ancient American connection to wilderness and wildness. The wolf restores much that has been degraded there, an effect clearly shown in Yellowstone and elsewhere. The wolf is good for our land and for our souls.

Successful livestock operations are the norm in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Minnesota, British Columbia, and Alberta – all in wolf country. Management techniques and non-lethal tools minimize conflicts. Compensation plans defray losses. Government, organizational and private contributors provide the hardware, the expertise and the labor to employ non-lethal measures.

In Wallowa County, fladry (flagging hung from an electrified fencing wire), RAG boxes (devices that create noise and visual distraction when triggered by a radio-collared wolf), carcass removal, hazers and range riders have ALL been provided by a combination of these agents.

Last year few of these measures were taken. But this year, 10 miles of fladry are out, and RAG boxes are up where they’ll do the most good. Hazers are on the Zumwalt, radio receivers have been given to ranchers so they’ll know when wolves are near. Wolves have been collared with both GPS and telemetry collars, and stock-growers are constantly updated with wolf locations and movements.

Wolves benefit the northeast Oregon economy. Wildlife watching is a booming industry. Wolf-watchers bring $35 million a year to the area around Yellowstone. Wallowa County saw an influx of tourists last year attracted by our wolves and more will comes this year. New jobs are available – Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife specialist and technicians, hazers, range riders, fladry fencers, even local photographers have seen new work from wolves.

__

I want to take a moment and thank the Senators from the 6th smallest state in the "Union," with fewer people than the city of Dallas, Texas, for showing Montana, the state where my father was born, to be the thoughtless, insensitive, mean, greedy, and barbaric state that it apparently has become, not unlike much of the rest of the rural west, for placing the anti-wolf stealth rider in the Budget bill.
_____

Other Ranching News

Sage Grouse Prevail

Advocates for the West
Date: 04/14/2011

Sage Grouse Prevail - A federal judge has ordered BLM to close to livestock grazing 17 allotments in the Jarbidge Field Office in southwestern Idaho, and has given Simplot Livestock and other permittees about two weeks to remove all livestock from the closed areas. Animating the court's decision was the continuing collapse of sage-grouse populations and habitat. The Court has ordered an evidentiary hearing on Simplot's motion to lift the injunction, and thus this 7 year-old case is just getting started. Stay tuned.

__

Louise du Toit - Ode to the Wolves - Wolf Paintings by Vincent A Kennard

Watch on YouTube

Wolves and Other Predators

In This Issue:
[Heavily Edited; ranch photos added 4/6/10]

- HCPC Reflects on Wolves

- "Collateral Murder" A video of Soldiers Killing Reporters & Civilians, While Wounding Two Children, in Iraq
__

I'm not really up to blog post tonight, but Greg Dyson, Executive Director, and legal lead at Hells Canyon Preservation Council had such a thoughtful and personal contribution about wolves on the "from the Canyons" blog last week, that I just had to post it, along with another piece about an additional predator we know all too well--ourselves.




Fish & Wildlife Service Photo (above)

Low perimeter fencing at Jacobs Sheep Ranch in Baker County

In the last week or so, the film, “Lords of Nature” was shown in the North East Oregon towns of Baker City and Enterprise. It was also shown last year in La Grande, with several folks from Baker City attending. Greg Dyson's post, which follows, refers to this year's showings. Both in Enterprise and Baker City, a defense of the predators role in ecosystem function was presented by some panelists, including Bob Beschta, who helped pioneer work about the predator's role in maintaining a balance in wild ecosystems. Ranchers, who have developed a living in the past by grazing the lands inhabited previously by wolves and other predators, ultimately eradicating the wolves to maximize profits, were also in attendance. Here is Greg Dyson's honest and heartfelt response to their concerns:

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2010
Ranchers and Wolves!

Two local volunteers set up two local showings of the fantastic film “Lords of Nature” last week – one showing in Baker City and the other in Enterprise. There was great turnout at both showings, and the audience included many local ranchers. Then, the night after the Enterprise showing, Oregon’s only confirmed breeding wolf pack paid a visit to a ranch near Enterprise, digging up a buried cow carcass and coming closer to a ranch house than at any other time.

The Wallowa County Chieftain’s sensationalist headline screamed “Wolves at the Door: Wallowa County Ranchers Face Their Worst Fears.” This wolf activity and the preceding comments by some of the ranchers at the events gave me plenty to think about this week.

There were clearly a few over-the-top statements by some ranchers at the films. One claimed to be able to control all the threats to his livestock except for wolves. Yet he never did explain how he controlled the weather. This same rancher artificially inflated the number of livestock he had lost to wolves in order to make the threat sound much worse than it was, but in doing so he made a huge error: he admitted that he didn’t ear-tag all his calves and didn’t know for sure how many he sent out to pasture. His single-minded message was that he “needs the tools to control wolves,” which, in case it isn’t obvious, is just a euphemism for wanting to shoot wolves.

Another rancher said that he had no room to work with anyone on this issue, and that the only solution for him is that there are no wolves, period. His livestock allotment is on federal public land, in the heart of the Imnaha pack’s territory.

My initial thought after hearing the ranchers speak at the Lords of Nature showings was that I’ve never heard such a bunch of whiners. I thought ranchers prided themselves on their stoic, steady ability to deal with everything that gets thrown their way. I also thought they believed in fully functioning landscapes. The comments I heard came across more like a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum. I thought they sounded like the classic “bury the head in the sand” approach, refusing to admit change is happening even when it clearly is. I know these few vocal ranchers don’t necessarily speak for other ranchers who are indifferent about wolves or may even like wolves as long as wolves don’t kill livestock. But that reaction of mine to their comments isn’t very helpful either, and so I made myself move on to more constructive thoughts, namely, where do we go from here?

Step one, I think, is to admit as a community that change is happening. Wolves are here and they’re not going away. This is, after all, historic wolf country, and I’ve heard lots of people point out that the ranchers are the interlopers, not the wolves. There is also the growing recognition that our wildlands are not fully functioning without top predators like wolves.

But the fact remains that ranchers are operating in wolf country, so what do we do about that? Well, we have learned that the visit to the ranch by the Imnaha pack was not entirely random or unexpected. They were known to be in the area for at least a few days prior to the visit, and they dug up a recently buried cow carcass near the ranch. [A situation similar to that which preceded the attack at the Jacobs ranch in Baker County, given that they were aware that wolves were in the area.- Chris]

We have better tools to deal with situations like this than we are currently applying. If wolves are in the area, we can set up fladry and other means of scaring wolves off … in advance of any wolf activity. We can practice better carcass disposal, or work together to devise a better system of dealing with carcasses. Ranchers operating in wolf country will have to avoid sloppy practices, and must know how many of their livestock are where. And not only ranchers, but wolf advocates can step up to deal with these situations (as some already do).

In my mind there is also a huge distinction between ranching operations on private land and those on public land. The Oregon Wolf Plan recognizes those distinctions, and ranchers must come to terms with that. After all, on national forests there is a legal mandate for maintaining viable wildlife populations. There is no legal mandate to allow ranching.

The primary point is that we need to be able to have conversations about these issues, away from the over-the-top rhetoric. I’m not confident, however, that we’ll get there. Anti-wolf rhetoric seems to be on the upswing. I suspect we’ll battle this out in the Oregon legislature, as we have for the last several sessions. The outspoken wolf opponents – and some of our politicians – want to make this into rural/urban issue, but it isn’t. There are wolf advocates throughout this state.

HCPC is a rural-based group, and we advocate for the return of wolves—and will continue to do so. Yet we also believe that there are solutions that can only come about with a joint commitment to solving these wolf-related issues. We challenge the ranching community to make the same commitment.

Greg Dyson
Executive Director

Posted by Hells Canyon Preservation Council

[All bold emphasis in Greg Dyson's piece above was added by me - Chris]

To reiterate and expand slightly on Greg Dyson's points (my statements, not HCPCs):

- The wolves and other predators have a moral and legal right to inhabit the public lands.

- We all need to take responsibility for engaging in productive and reality based conversations about how co-existence between predators and ranchers can become a reality, without resorting to hyperbolic, irresponsible or illegal, speech or behavior.

- The practice by ranchers, either through negligence or intent, of luring predators to kill livestock with inadequately protected livestock areas or other improper practices such as uncovered, or insufficiently covered carcasses, especially when they know, or should know, that wolves and other predators are in the area, will have to end. The pattern seems to be to set the wolves up for an attack by ignoring the threat, not taking effective actions, or maintaining sloppy practices, and then to create hysteria and sympathy by manipulating the press when the inevitable occurs. See also Coexisting with Carnivores at the Defenders' web site.

- All scientifically defensible practices necessary to keep wolves away from livestock should be used by ranchers in wolf territory. These would include reasonably adequate fencing of private ranching activities in wolf territory, the use of fladry and other effective defensive devices, and active herding with enough herders and large dogs, like great pyrenees, to avert attacks, especially on public lands grazing allotments.

Chris

Sheep at the Jacobs Ranch are Essentially Defenseless Due to Inadequate Fencing.

See also: MONDAY, MAY 11, 2009, Wolves Again. . . .
_________________

Collateral Murder

After watching, and being revolted at the video below, I was reminded of an experience I had on April 1, 2005, in the Sheephole Mountains just east of the marine base north of 29 Palms, California. I was there on a trip to experience wildflowers and desert critters in an especially rainy and productive year for the southern deserts. While I was camping and hiking in an area of BLM land there, with the wildflowers and threatened desert tortoises, a contingent of marines on weekend furlough came in to camp nearby. Soon thereafter, the guns began to blaze, cutting down the desert flora and fauna near my camp. This was an area inhabited by the threatened desert tortoises and breeding birds, like loggerhead shrikes and desert sparrows, not to mention many other life forms, like butterflies, as well as the wildflowers and desert shrubs.
Desert View From Sheephole Mountains, April 1, 2005

As I happened to be watching them come in and set up while I was photographing wildflowers and scenery near the crest of a nearby hill, I went over to inquire if there were any Native American petroglyphs in the cave-like areas next to where they were camped and shooting. I also, of course, wanted them to know I was nearby so they would be careful not to send the bullets my way.
Mating Checkerspot (?) in Sheephole Mountains

Desert Aster in Sheephole Mountains

That beautiful sunny afternoon, as I photographed a large and very old desert tortoise, the bullets only intensified in number, including sporadic fully automatic rifle fire. Later, as the night closed in, a few of them came near my camp to fire a few close rounds, as if to enhance their importance and power, as well as my fear.

Desert Tortoise in the Sheephole Mtns.

I was duly impressed and left the next day, but not before I thought about my own experience in "Basic Training," at which time the military tries with much success to extinguish all decency, and all respect for life from the average human--Traits it hates to see in its young recruits, who, except for the most severely damaged, must be taught to think "Kill, Kill, Kill."


Collateral Murder

Overview
5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

[The military decided the pieces of camera equipment carried by a couple of Reuters photographers were weapons and shot down the whole group in cold blood, as if it were some sort of video game party, and while they celebrated the entire incident. No one had been threatened by the group, but they and their rescuers were killed or wounded, including two wounded children in the rescuer's van. Entire video can be seen here: Collateral Murder- Chris]

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

_______________

Eagle Cam

The eagle was again completely covered with 1-2 inches of snow last night near midnight, with the snow still coming down. Not even the head was showing--only the outline of the truly devoted parent.
____________________

Predators and Cows--Which Threatens You?

IN THIS ISSUE:

- Who's afraid of the Big, Bad, Cow?

- Baker City Population Growth
__________________________________

Whose afraid of the Big, Bad, Cow?

Back in January of 2006, I wrote a letter to the Editor to the Baker City Herald that was posted to RangeBiome.org (http://www.rangebiome.org/editorials/oregonwolves.html). It concerned the hysteria over the threat by cougars and other predators. In that letter, I noted that:

"Additionally, in an apparent effort to boost hunting license revenues and income to the predator control bureaucracy, ODFW and other interests are creating near hysteria over the threats posed by allegedly ever increasing cougar populations. Keep in mind that one is about 33 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be attacked by a cougar in the U.S. According to Brooks Fahy of Predator Defense, “not one fatal attack [by cougars] has been reported in Oregon.” The facts are that people are more likely to be killed by a collision with a deer, by a bee sting, or even by the neighbor’s dog, than they are by a cougar.

I encourage readers to engage the facts so as to avoid falling prey to anti-predator hysteria."

Left out were deaths caused by human interactions with cows.

After revisiting those facts today, and given the current turmoil over wolf reintroduction, I wondered: "What is the comparison between human deaths caused by predators in general, including wolves, and human deaths caused by cattle?'

I can recall at least a few human deaths caused by collisions with cows roaming on public roads and highways here in Baker County in the last few years, so I pulled up some searches on Google. Turns out that only one wolf caused death has been recorded in North America. Cows are estimated to be involved in about twenty deaths to Americans alone every year. (Perspective: In 2006, there were about 18,600 homicides and 42,600 deaths from motor vehicle accidents in the United States.)

Here are just a few results. They do not include deaths to wild critters from habitat destruction, like neo-tropical migrant birds or fish (think steelhead and salmon and missing nesting sites), from cows.
--

Wolf attacks on humans:

One Person Has Been Killed By Wolves in North America
http://www.wildsentry.org/Killer_Wolf.htm

"Should we fear wolves? No, not if we maintain a sense of perspective. Wolves have not been nor are they about to become the marauding savage killers of folklore, fairy tale, legend, and story. “Mr. Carnegie’s death is a terrible tragedy,” said wolf biologist Dave Mech, “but one fatal wolf attack in the recorded history of North America does not warrant widespread alarm.”

Extensive research turned up 26 incidents of nonfatal wolf attacks on this continent. Two common elements pertain to these attacks: a majority resulted in minor injuries and 80% (21 of the attacks) involved food-habituated wolves. Also interesting to note: all but five attacks occurred after 1970. During the past three decades, the wolf population has grown, human numbers have increased dramatically, and the wildland-urban interface spreads ever outward as people continue to transform wildlands into backyards, homes, and gardens. “These were habituated garbage eating wolves,” said Ed Bangs who coordinates the gray wolf recovery effort in the northern Rockies for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. “Wild wolves do their damnedest to stay away from people.”
--

Other Reports of Attacks in North America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans

[In North America since historic settlement] "In modern times, as humans begin to encroach on wolf habitats more contacts are being recorded. Often the contact is because the person is walking their pet dog, and the wolf pack considers the dog a prey item, inciting an attack. Retired wolf biologist Mark McNay compiled 80 events in Alaska and Canada where wolves closely approached or attacked people, finding 39 cases of aggression by apparently healthy wolves, and 29 cases of fearless behavior by non-aggressive wolves."
--

"Cougars, Coyotes and Reporters, Oh My!
A Fact Based Look At Wildlife-Related Causes of Human Mortality in Oregon
by Bob Sallinger, Urban Conservation Director"
http://www.audubonportland.org/backyardwildlife/brochures/coyote/reporters

In part:
"Horses were the most common cause of animal related mortality accounting for a total of 41. Bees, wasps and spiders accounted for 13. Cows and bulls accounted for 9 and domestic dogs accounted for 5. One person died as a result of being kicked by a sheep and another died after being kicked by a mule. One man was gored to death by his pet buffalo, another was consumed by his pet lion, and an infant was killed by a pet ferret. The only deaths that can be described as “wildlife related” during this time period were caused by a car collision with a black-tailed deer and a fatal bite from a rattlesnake. Significantly, there has never been a single death over the entire history of Oregon attributed to either of the two species that get the most press coverage, cougar and coyotes.[1]

It is often suggested that increased hunting could reduce the risk from cougar and coyote. However it is also worth noting that in Oregon alone between the years 1990 and 1994, 67 people were injured and 14 people were killed in hunting related accidents.[2]

Nationally the numbers are not much different. Over the entire history of the United States there has only been one documented death attributed to a coyote. This occurred in Glendale, California in 1981. A family punctually put out food for a wild coyote each day between 4:00 and 4:30. Unfortunately one day their toddler-aged daughter wandered out “to greet the coyote” before her parents had a chance to put the food outside. The coyote consumed her instead.[3] Cougar account for a slightly higher death toll. Between 1970 and 2000 cougar accounted for 73 attacks and 13 deaths across the North American Continent. [4]

The most common wildlife related cause of human mortality in the United States is not associated with a predator species, but rather with white-tailed deer. A report recently published on the CNN Website cited US Department of Transportation Statistics that car collisions with white-tailed deer account for an average of 130 human deaths per year. [5] Domestic animals take an even higher toll. According to the US Department of Health an average of 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year in the United States. 800,000 of these bites require medical attention, 10,000 require hospitalization and an average of 18 people die each year from their dog-related injuries."
--

Deaths From Interaction between Cows & Humans:

Vale man dies after car hits cow on I-84
Lisa Lednicer, The Oregonian
September 26, 2009, 1:47PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/car_hits_cow_one_dead.html

A 62-year-old man from Vale was killed Friday night after the car in which he was riding struck a cow on Interstate 84 approximately 30 miles east of Baker City.
--

Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 12, 168 174 (2001)
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Occupational fatalities due to animal-related events
RICKY LEE LANGLEY, MD, MPH; JAMES LEE HUNTER, DVM, MPH
http://www.usark.org/uploads/Animal%20Related%20Fatalities.pdf
From the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Section of Human Ecology and Epidemiology, Raleigh, NC.

Objective.—To better understand the extent of animal-related fatalities in the workplace.

Methods.—This study utilized Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries files from the US Department of Labor for the years 1992–1997 to describe the events surrounding human workplace fatalities associated with animals.

Results.—During the 6-year time period, 350 workplace deaths could be associated with an animal related event. Cattle and horses were the animals primarily involved, and workers in the agricultural industry experienced the majority of events. Many deaths involved transportation events, either direct collision with the animal or highway crashes trying to avoid collision with an animal. Exotic animals, primarily elephants and tigers, were responsible for a few deaths. A small number of workers died of a zoonotic infection.

Conclusions.—We found that approximately 1% of workplace fatalities are associated with ananimal-related event. Methods to decrease the frequency of an animal injury are suggested.

--
Sep 26,2007
Motorcyclist killed in collision with cow
by Bend Weekly News Sources
http://www.bendweekly.com/Statewide-News/9509.html

"A Milwaukie, Oregon-area man was killed and his wife injured Monday night after their motorcycle collided with a Black Angus cow on Highway 7 about 35 miles southwest of Baker City. The cow was also killed in the crash, Oregon State Police (OSP) reported."
--

87-Year-Old Farmer Trampled To Death By His Cows
http://weeklytoll.blogspot.com/2007/04/weekly-toll-death-in-american-workplace.html

VERNAL, Utah - "A farmer from Vernal who was trampled by his own cows last week has lost his fight to survive. 87-year-old Cecil Holmes of Vernal died after a week in the hospital."
--

AUGUST 03, 2009
Death by cow
http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/08/death-by-cow.html
A TierneyLab blog post explains that “about 20 people a year are killed by cows in the United States.”

One of the many reasons why it’s better to be an officer worker than a farmer.

August 03, 2009
COMMENTS

Conclusion: cows are dangerous! To put the 20-death figure in perspective, dog attacks result in less than twice the number of human deaths (33 in 2007) despite the fact that human contact with dogs is vastly greater than with cows.

In addition, as far as I can tell from the article the 20 deaths do not include vehicle collisions with cows. Those would probably account for some additional deaths, especially in western "open range" areas where cattle on the road can be quite a hazard.

Posted by: Peter | August 03, 2009 at 11:57 AM

VERNAL, Utah - A farmer from Vernal who was trampled by his own cows last week has lost his fight to survive. 87-year-old Cecil Holmes of Vernal died after a week in the hospital. The family believes it’s because two of the cows have calves and they become very protective and must have thought they were in danger. But this is a man who spent his entire life on a farm and was very familiar with how to deal with cows. Out in the open range 170 miles east of Salt Lake City sits a farm that has belonged to the same family for nearly 100 years.

The only human death from wolves I could find was from Canada, and even that one was susect:
Four Wolves Suspected in Man’s Death in Remote Area of Canada

By Jess Edberg, Information Specialist -- International Wolf Center, 12/12/2005
http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/live_news_detail.asp?id=1340

OK, hit me with your savage stories of days gone past, but I'm thinking cows kill more people than wolves.
--

"Open range" doctrine does not prevent lawsuit against owners of bull that wandered onto highway and caused accident
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_200105/ai_n8945299/

Larson-Murphy v. Steiner, - P.3d -, No. 98-441, 2000 WL 1835580 (Mont. Dec. 14, 2000).

The Montana Supreme Court held that, despite the state's traditional "open range" doctrine that permits livestock to wander freely, a motorist who struck a bull on a public road could proceed with her personal injury claim against its owners.

Larson-Murphy was injured when she struck a bull while driving on a public highway. She filed a negligence suit against the owners of the bull and the owner of the roadside land where it had been pastured. The trial court ruled for defendants.

Reversing in part, the state high court said that the traditional "no-duty" rule under Montana's "open range" doctrine-which precludes suits against owners of livestock for allowing their animals to roam freely-does not apply to the legal relationship between livestock owners and motorists on highways. The assumption that an individual's livestock may wander upon public areas does not translate into blanket immunity for that individual from subsequent negligence suits. The owner must still exercise ordinary care, the court determined.

Anyway, I think you get the idea. . . Cows, horses and deer are more important than wolves, other predators, or people.
_____________________________

Baker City Population Growth

The growth button

http://www.bakercityherald.com/Editorials/The-growth-button

The Herald has explained their view on population growth in Baker City, and it is worth reading:

"We’re concerned, though, that residents, after reading “Inventing the Future," will believe that if Baker City’s population continues its post-World War II stagnation, then the fault will lie with city leaders who refused to push the growth button.

There is, fortunately, one paragraph in the report that exposes the fallacy; we only wish the paragraph were given more prominence.

The issue is whether the population growth in the preferred No. 3 scenario — rising from 10,000 to 20,000-25,000 over 20-25 years — is “even a possibility.”

The report goes on: “That is, even with a coordinated effort and consensus vision supported by the community [?], what were the odds that even modest growth and economic development could be achieved? In truth, this is a far more relevant consideration than a concern that the community could be overrun by growth. The real issue for Baker City, put into economic terms, is that deflation is far more a risk to the community than inflation.”

In other words, there is no growth button.

To reiterate, we credit the city for trying to involve citizens in thinking about the future of their town.

But we hope our fellow residents aren’t misled into believing that “economic development” — that favorite prescription for whatever ails small towns — is an omnipotent force that’s exempt from economic reality"

The first sentence indicates that they are worried that "if Baker City’s population continues its post-World War II stagnation, then the fault will lie with city leaders who refused to push the growth button."

The truth is that some city leader are pushing the "growth button." That's why we are spending so much money on “economic development.” Fortunately, pushing the "growth button" hasn't worked . . . so far.

The last sentence of the editorial is worthy of consideration. All I can add is that we need to highly value what we have, and to seriously consider the costs to our quality of life that we face from too much poulation growth.

See Also: Calculating Growth, Doubling Times, and etc.:
http://bakercountyblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/calculating-growth-doubling-times-and.html
__________________________
Edited for clarity and information added on 11/24/09.

Wolves, Prison Labor, NPR

Once again, I am experiencing difficulties posting. I can get the images up, but can't control formatting, like placement of captions. I hope you can center the captions in your mind and imagine the topic titles in bold print, etc. Formatting is definitely not as I had planned and I'll work on it. Sorry, out of my immediate control. -- Chris

Wolves


Gray Wolf (Canis lupis) [USF&WS Photo]

I enjoyed the Herald Tuesday’s article by Jayson Jacoby on the dispersal of wolves into North East Oregon. It was gratifying to see it as it helps confirm my sighting of a pair of wolves near Lick Creek (Wallowa County) in August of this year. I reported the sighting to the Fish & Wildlife Service that month, but apparently they were unable to independently confirm it. Good that the snow held the tracks found by a local rancher, hopefully not one of the “shoot, shovel, and shut-up” up crowd, so that wolves could be confirmed this year. We should be relieved that the wolf has finally come home. I look forward to hearing their howls in the coming years but predator persecution has a long history in America, and in Eastern Oregon in particular (2 of 4 recent wolf migrants have been shot). Hopefully the State and Federal government will take their responsibilities seriously and protect the wolves from those who have vowed to stop their reintroduction here.

In America, the practice of predator persecution by the agricultural “producer” community has its roots in the insecurity of an expanding agrarian pioneer population dating back to the arrival of Europeans on this continent during the 1600’s. It has since spread to the hunting industrial complex, which has concerns that it will reduce numbers of “game” species, like elk and deer, which in turn could reduce the number of tags allowed and licenses sold. This could lower income to the State hunting bureaucracy, to gun shops and ammunition dealers, and ultimately to local communities who depend on the flush of hunter dollars in the fall. (On the other hand, it might bring the curious into the area hoping to view or hear wolves.)

Bounties on wolves were offered as early as 1630 in the Massachusetts Colony, at which time, some 250,00 or more wolves roamed America’s wild lands. By about 1700, wolves had been eliminated from the Eastern United States. According to the Wild Rockies Alliance, “Professional ‘wolfers’ working for the livestock industry laid out strychnine-poisoned meat lines up to 150 miles long. Wolves were shot, poisoned, trapped, clubbed, set on fire and inoculated with mange, a painful and often fatal skin disease caused by mites.” The persecution reached its apex in the late 1800’s and into the early years of the last century, by which time it is estimated that some 55,000 wolves a year were being executed. Between 1918 and 1920, over 128,500 wolves were slaughtered in the Western U. S.

A palpable hatred for both predators and other “varmints” is revealed in articles printed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1920, where classics like “Hunting Down Stock Killers” and “Death To The Rodents” can be found.



Some quotes:

“Uncle Sam, tired of a drain on his resources of from $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 every year through the slaughter [slaughter is to be reserved for humans alone] of domestic stock by predatory animals, now keeps constantly in the field a force of hunters who are instructed to wipe out these nonproducers. In their place, and safe from their depredations, it is the aim to populate the range country [I.e., primarily public lands] with flocks and herds….”
. . . .
“Losses of live stock from ravages of predatory animals are among the most spectacular and exasperating of those suffered by the stockman. Disease may decimate his flocks and herds, or drought or wintry storms may result in the starvation or death of numbers of valuable animals. None of these disasters, however, arouses such resentment and determination to settle the score as arises in the heart of the ranchman when wolves or other stock destroyers enter corrals or operate on the open range [public lands], maiming and killing his cattle or other domestic stock.”
. . . .
“Men with keen insight into animal psychology and the ways and motives of wild creatures had sought out improved methods of luring them to destruction when their presence was detrimental to the live-stock business.”
. . . .
“Careful field studies of the abundance, habits, and relationship of predatory animals to the live-stock industry had been made by the Biological Survey of the United States Department of Agriculture for many years.”

. . . .
“. . . the death of the Custer wolf was hailed with delight by stockmen throughout the region where the depredations had occurred, and has added to the impetus to a movement for cooperation with the Department in order to meet more adequately the needs of the live-stock industry.”


“Evidence that Uncle Sam’s Hunters Get results”

In another part of the article titled “’Getting’ the Chief Offenders,” a caption, under a photo of trapped coyotes and wolves, and of a “hunter” spreading poisoned baits, states: “Trapped coyote—more than 250,000 of his ilk have been accounted for [killed] in five years by Federal and cooperating hunters.” [Emphasis added]

It is clear from these attitudes that the American people are expected to sacrifice their public ecosystems, and all the species there-in, (not to mention their tax dollars flowing to the U.S.D.A predator control efforts, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management) to the economic interests of ranchers. In practice, that is exactly what has occurred. Like every thing else in our corrupt American “democracy,” the theft of our public lands and ecosystems has been financed by the economic power of special interest groups like the various Cattlemen’s Associations. This is accomplished through their financial contributions to members of Congress, especially in districts where extractive industries and ranchers have large landholdings with the significant economic and social power that those holdings bring.



And it is not just native predators who suffer. Prairie dogs and other important rodents have suffered as well. As the picture above illustrates, prairie dogs, and those who depend on them, like the black-footed ferret, have been the targets of the stockman’s jihad. Hawks and many other species depend upon the availability of a prey base, which consists largely of rodents, for their survival.


Black-Footed Ferret [USF&WS Photo]


Black-Tailed Prairie Dog [USF&WS Photo]


Swainson’s Hawk [Photo © Christopher Christie]

My question, and that of many in the environmental community, is why should ranchers or hunters have control over which of our native predators should be allowed to have access to their historic habitat on our public lands? The wolf has an important role in maintaining the health of our public ecosystems. If public lands ranchers insist on putting their livestock in a situation where they will naturally become prey, then that is their problem. Our lands should not be managed for the benefit of ranchers and hunters, our lands should be managed for the benefit of native ecosystems and the services they provide for all of the American people.
[For old letter on predator control see:
http://www.rangebiome.org/editorials/oregonwolves.html ]


Prison Labor and U.S. Timber Company

The Record Courier and Brian Addison first broke the story of U.S. Timber’s attempt to get prisoner workers from the Powder River Correctional facility on November 22. The Herald followed up with another article yesterday, December 5th. The later story stated that the Baker County Economic Development Council has endorsed a plan for U.S. Timber to hire the workers at very near the minimum wage for a 6 month period, after which the relationship would be re-evaluated.

According to Jennifer Watkins at City Hall, the development council consists of chairman Craig Ward (a local farmer from the where’s my subsidy crowd), vice-chair Mike Rudi (from the its all about business people Chamber of Commerce crowd), Steve Brocato (with dual membership in both the where’s my subsidy crowd and the I’m in charge of my overall plan crowd) Fred Warner (from the County Commission and the go along to get along crowd), and Terry Schumacher (with dual membership in the its all about business people Chamber of Commerce crowd and the do as I say, not as I do crowd).

So our Economic Development Council has endorsed a plan for U.S. Timber to hire workers at near the minimum wage.

You may remember a time, a decade or so ago, when the use of prison labor in private industry was frowned upon in America—when we bitterly complained about China’s practice of using prison labor to make products exported to the US. It none-the-less has a long American history, going back at least to the early 1800’s when private industry would get their greedy hands on prisoners and literally work them to death. Even though it may look bad to the semi-civilized, it does kind of fit in with the sort of parochial, pre-modern, company-town, muddling towards medieval feel of North East Oregon, and the practice should be a sound addition as the eighth cornerstone of the development council’s economic development plan for Baker County. And what better way to market Baker City than to be known as the town that provides prison labor to private industry? Even if there aren’t enough prisoners to go around, the practice should help keep prevailing wages and benefits at rock bottom, which may have the effect of attracting some really sharp (as in cut-throat), no-nonsense, and otherwise intriguing business people to our little part of paradise.

And what better firm to start the practice than U.S. Timber? What with illegals getting harder and harder to find, and more dangerous to keep, a captive pool of local laborers coerced into pulling the green chain is just what the doctor ordered. With the US leading the world in an ever-expanding number of the incarcerated, prisoners might just outnumber the undocumented in a decade or so. Plus, there are some real economic advantages to using captive labor, including no vacation or sick pay, and even more attractive, no health or unemployment insurance to worry about. It is a brilliant and strategic business decision that should position U.S. Timber to be in the forefront of the prison labor boom-times ahead.

The aspect slow-growth advocates might like is that it should retard economic growth because these workers already have housing at the correctional facility, they don’t drive cars to go shopping, and traffic won’t be an issue. Growth might also be slowed significantly when the word gets out that we are becoming a prison labor center—it just might keep the namby-pamby, progressive riff-raff out, who knows.

Now I know there are those of you who object to the whole sordid prison labor thing, but look at the alternative. As hinted at by Commissioner Warner, if U.S Timber wants to attract a steady, loyal work force, they’d have to offer a living wage and benefits package that would motivate workers to pull the green chain, and what kind of American employer would want to do that?


NPR Democratic Candidates' Debate (12/04/07)

You’d think a question as important as the following might cause NPR, the darlings of the so-called “progressives” in our country, to give all candidates a chance to answer it. But no, they don’t, because NPR is not about progressive politics, it is about giving its listeners the feel-good impression of thoughtless, and most importantly, no cost, progressive politics. They are simply another elitist propaganda machine in the service of the upper and middle classes, which ultimately serves the social status quo. Same for PBS.

From the transcript:

<< SIEGEL: Well, this question comes from a listener. It's political science professor Chris Pence) of Marion, Indiana.
PROF. CHRIS PENCE (MARION, INDIANA): (From tape.) American diplomatic history books recount the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, and will likely discuss the Bush Doctrine. When future historians write of your administration's foreign policy pursuits, what will be noted as your doctrine and the vision you cast for U.S. diplomatic relations?
SIEGEL: Time for a couple of you at least. Senator Clinton, what do you think the Clinton Doctrine will be?
SEN. CLINTON: Blah, blah, blah….
SIEGEL: Thank you, Senator Clinton.
The Edwards Doctrine.
MR. EDWARDS: Blah, blah, blah….
SIEGEL: And Senator Biden, the Biden Doctrine.
SEN. BIDEN: Blah, blah, blah….
SIEGEL: Senator Obama, the short version of the Obama Doctrine.
SEN. OBAMA: Blah, blah, blah….
SIEGEL: And we will continue our debate from Des Moines in just a minute. This is special coverage from NPR News.
(Announcements)
MICHELE NORRIS: From NPR News and Iowa Public Radio, we're back with our debate among the Democratic presidential candidates.
I'm Michele Norris.
SIEGEL: I'm Robert Siegel.
INSKEEP: And I'm Steve Inskeep.
We're broadcasting from Des Moines, Iowa, and in this part of the debate, we're going to focus on a changing China and its effects here at home. >>

Good to hear, once again, who the all important moderators are. But tell me, what was the Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd & etc. doctrine?

We’ll never know if NPR has anything to do with it. But I’ll tell you. . .
In Kucinich’s case it is the Peace Doctrine.

My tally of the debate’s substantive exchanges, offered to my sampling of 3 candidates by the NPR moderators shows the following:
Clinton 15 or 16 exchanges
Kucinich 10 exchanges
Gravel 6 exchanges

God knows what Gravel really thinks, but NPR might not want you to know.

The debate was just one example of NPR’s penchant for shutting down real progressives and independents. More importantly is NPR’s bias with regard to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. There was no question explicitly addressing the most important problem affecting our foreign policy, which is the unqualified support by American leadership of the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands by the colonial and religious state of Israel--the problem that stirs up these "rag-head terrorists."

Former Senator Mike Gravel attempted to address the issue when responding to questions about the threat of Iran and the wisdom of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a “terrorist” organization:

<< MR. GRAVEL: There is no evidence. There is no evidence, and they've produced none. Our military has no evidence and they've not produced any.
But let's — I want to touch something that they're all [the other candidates] giving license to, that there's something wrong with Iran supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. These are two elected organizations, and — and why can't they give support to those organizations? Israel doesn't want it, so why do they buy hook, line and sinker that they can't give aid to Hamas and Hezbollah? We give unlimited aid to Israel. These people are fighting for their rights.
SIEGEL: You believe —
MR. GRAVEL: Is there something wrong with that?
SIEGEL: We'll come back to your points in a moment. >>

But Siegel never came back to give Gravel a chance to elaborate, because that’s his job—to make sure that NPR listeners don’t get the ideas and information they need to accurately understand our destructive Middle East foreign policy and the apartheid Jewish state of Israel. Siegel and NPR feel a need to protect Israel, even if it means victimizing millions of Palestinians, other Arabs and Persians, with spin that characterizes them not as the freedom fighters they are, but as blood-thirsty, crazed demons and “terrorists.” The Muslim resistance to illegal occupations and war crimes by Israel and the US must not be understood to be the legitimate defensive activity that it is, it must be seen as unreasonable criminal activity warranting imperial wars of destruction and/or occupation. The same of course for Iran’s peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy. That’s why little attention is given to the fact that Iran has a legal right under the Article IV of Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, while the rogue nation of Israel didn’t even sign the treaty and is widely acknowledged to have more than 200 nukes. Our hypocrisy deepens when you examine our treatment of India. India also has nuclear weapons and is not a signatory to the treaty. Yet, in violation of Article III of the treaty, Congress approved the sale of civilian nuclear technology to India. See also: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18837.htm

For more on NPR’s outrageous bias on Palestine see:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3963.shtml

For more on NPR’s not so progressive bias, see:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=13

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting notes that:

<< little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition , 6/26/03).

Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR ’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.

Senators Edward Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller and Max Baucus were the most frequently heard Democrats, each appearing four times. No nongovernmental source appeared more than three times. With the exception of Secretary of State Powell, all of the top 10 most frequently appearing sources were white male government officials. >>

NPR is still offering up “experts” like Richard Perle, Kenneth Pollack, et. al., and other discredited spokesmen who were cheerleaders for the war in Iraq. They also regularly produce pro-Israel reporters like Linda Gradstein and partisan Zionists like Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross in their ongoing efforts to confuse listeners about Palestine. Even FAIR itself, rarely offers a balanced perspective on the situation in Palestine.

For more on NPR’s coverage of the Palestinian situation, see:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3963.shtml

Little has changed since the article was produced—if anything, reporting about Palestine and Iran on NPR has only become worse.

A study on PBS news content came to similar conclusions.
See
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2973 or simply search the archives for several articles.

For more on the corruption of US Middle East foreign policy see:
Mearsheimer and Walt’s original article on the Israel Lobby at the London Review of Books:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

or, buy their new book--
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
By Mearsheimer and Walt, $17.16 at Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196886304&sr=1-1
__
Billy Bragg and Wilco-- "The Unwelcome Guest"
By Woodie Guthrie