We've got mail!
Osprey shooting

explained

To the editor:

On April 24, an osprey was killed on our property. The incident was apparently witnessed while the bird was being filmed.

As a result, my son-in-law was heavily fined and has lost hunting privileges for three years. These facts, however, are not as damaging as the implications of what occurred.

Much was made of the tenacious investigative efforts required by the participating officers. In truth, none was necessary. No attempt was ever made to mask or deny the deed, even before the evidence was furnished by the WCO in charge. A dead carcass, a willing witness, an immediate confession -- not exactly the stuff of a Sherlock Holmes novel.

Then there was the suggestion that there exists some benign solution to the osprey problem we face as a natural result of the fact that we raise fish. It was clearly implied that we had legal alternative solutions.

Having attended several trade conferences over the years, I have been well aware that no proven, effective affordable method exists for protecting more than nine acres of open fishing waters from the ravages of osprey predation. If one exists, someone needs to come forth from the Game Commission to alert me of this breakthrough.

The assertion that we had no permit is true. I had heard for years that permits were hard to come by; truly effective permits, impossible. Nonetheless, following the incident, I applied.

Last year we had nine osprey at one time taking fish at least three times per day while probably injuring an equal number in the process of feeding. That amount to a financial "hit" of approximately $200 per day.

In addition, we are visited annually by about 20-30 great blue herons, six green herons, 50 kingfishers, in addition to owls, mink, mergansers and an assortment of "opportunists."

Our estimated losses to predation probably total $10,000.

Now, getting back to the permit, here are our allotments: two great blue herons, two kingfishers, one green heron . . . and zero osprey! So much for earnest intent.

The most practical solution was offered by a USFWS official who suggested the possible use of "live traps" mounted atop several poles. Given the large number of trees on the property, however, alternative perching sites abound.

Willing to try anything as a solution, we discussed further details. When the word "hire" arose, I realized that in addition to the $3,000 fine, we would now be expected to pay the USFWS or some other agency to save their osprey as they reduce profits. Apparently ospreys aren't so valuable that the government is willing to fund their protection in cases such as ours.

I hope someone has a rational answer to this dilemma beyond formulating one more law. Fighting both nature and our legal system, while attempting to make a living at something that gives such great wholesome pleasure to so many, can be an impossible challenge within the present environment.

Bob Curry Rainbow Paradise

Trout Farm

Coudersport

Global warming threat to wildlife

To the editor:

Sportsmen know all too well that global warming is harming wildlife throughout America. Hunters and anglers are the first to sense and feel stress on the very web of life.

In Minnesota, heat-stressed moose are declining. In the West, critical snowpack that supplies cold water for trout streams and salmon runs is declining. Unprecedented wildfires are ravaging forests: the number of fires is up fourfold; acres burned are up sixfold.

Warmer water from global warming is destroying coral reefs. As global warming pollution imperils wildlife from the tropics to the Arctic, the 40 million Americans who hunt or fish are rightly concerned that their traditional values hang in the balance.

A national survey found that seven out of 10 American sportsmen are concerned that the fish and wildlife populations they rely upon will decrease significantly or disappear within the next decade. One cause fueling those worries, the poll found, is global warming.

The upside to all of this is that Americans know that when we follow our values we can accomplish anything. Among those already taking action are many not content to wait for politicians. They come from all walks of life.

More than 85 Christian evangelical leaders have signed a statement urging national mandatory limits on global warming pollution.

California is moving forward with an initiative to cut global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020. Nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states signed onto the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 10 percent by 2019.

These are examples of steps in the right direction, but we can't stop there. Americans want a new energy future that breaks our oil addiction, develops clean, renewable energy sources and creates more American jobs.

The American way is not to run away from a problem. We have proven time and again that we are problem solvers. And if the people can lead, the leaders can follow.

We have a moral responsibility to solve this problem to protect our children's future.

Larry Schweiger, Pres.

National Wildlife

Federation

Wealth is on

the march

To the editor:

Rising per capita income sounds dandy on its face, but the bulk of that growing wealth sticks to only a few favored hands. This distorts the economy as real estate prices zoom and upscale stores replace the ones in which we used to shop. Wal-Mart serves the rest of us, paying subsurvival wages.

Sure, some local businesses and workers are adept at harvesting profit from this spreading wealth, but most locals suffer.

Young people often find it hard to get started in such a setting, and a distressing number move to cheaper sections of the country. So do businesses that are not anchored to any one spot.

Industrial and farm states simply watch their young people drain away. Technology and foreign competition drive their jobs elsewhere, leading Eastern and Coastal young folk to drift to the South and West. The jobs there may not be great, but living is a lot cheaper.

One trouble is that those places harbor fewer unions, so migration means that the middle class has found its mobility shifting from upward to downward.

Life often becomes a matter of just hanging on, one gall bladder operation away from real poverty. The common twoincome family soon morphs into the three and four income family, with none of those incomes being anywhere near enough to live on.

IRS data show that average income actually fell last year for everyone below the top ten percent of U.S. families.

Unfortunately, important middle class values and influence have been lost. Wealth now carries the day politically, leading the federal government to adopt policies damaging to the rest of the nation.

Meanwhile, clever corporate ads tells us that government would only mess up health care, knowing that, aside from Medicare, we generally don't trust government. The winds of wealth now drive the ship of state.

William A. Collins MinuteMan Media

Rowayton, Ct.