Greetings western traditionalists,
By MIKE SATREN Staff writer Coeur d’Alene Press
I read Laura’s guest editorial and she makes excellent points.
From 1973 to 1980 I ranched sheep and cattle in the remote (1-1/2-hours to town) southwestern corner of Trinity County in Northern California. We were — even then — fighting a similar battle with coyotes, bobcats and mountain lions.
One after one my neighboring ranchers gave up sheep (the more lucrative livestock option) and went solely to cattle. I held out until selling out in 1980 when only 30 percent of my lamb crop survived. I bred for twins and normally had close to a 150 percent initial survival rate and well over 100 percent at market time. That was in the first few years. Then things got worse, much worse.
I have written four articles about wolves since becoming the Coeur d’Alene Press Outdoors editor.
John Runft was good enough to comment on the first one and Tony Mayer commented favorably on my next article.
My last article “Wolf Warp” published last Thursday (July 31) had a generally miserable response from readers who might agree with points made (read them yourself below following my article).
It does no good to receive half-baked or neanderthal-like comments, however supportive, without well-reasoned, well-written comments to lend some credibility to issues raised in the article.
I am not looking for accolades, just intelligent input.
My managing editor does read these comments (and letters to the editor) and if the comments are lopsided against it or claim bias (however true the points of view may be in the article), future writing could be curtailed.
Here are my four wolf stories to date:
Wolf ‘reintroduction’ still rankles:
Environmental groups prepare to fight wolf delisting:
Sphere: Related Content
August 12th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Dear Mr. Satren: You write that you were disappointed in the level of responses to your last wolf article. I was disappointed also, and that pertains to both sides of the issue. However, I believe that some of the blame is yours. My reaction to the article was that it was extremely one-sided. It was opinionated, quoting the anti-wolf people at great length, with no attempt at balance. Much of what the commissioners said was exaggerated and some of it was incorrect. Yet, you made no attempt to get the other side of the issue. If the article had been an Op-Ed, at least readers would have been alerted that you were not unbiased. I had expected at least an effort at objectivity by a staff writer or reporter. Please make an attempt in your next wolf article to explore both sides of a controversial issue.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:45 am
The fact is news media outlets today routinely report on subjects with bias, and most of the reporting that I have seen in the major media-newspapers, network television news, and radio, has shown an extreme bias toward the wolf advocates on this matter. Sites like this and small rural news outlets are some of the few places where the other side is heard, and I am glad to see an article like wolf warp reach some of the general public.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
.Dear Ken,
It is a reporters job to tell the truth. The last 13 years lie after lie after lie has been exposed from the pro wolf side what should he report? Here is a list of lies from the pro wolf side.
Lie-1. Livestock owners are being paid for all livestock kills. The truth one of 7 livestock killed is being paid. Injured animals no pay. If the ranchers speak out against the wolf no pay. The facts are several ranchers have been forced out of business.
Lie 2. Wolves are balancing nature. ROTFLMAO Sure all the studies proving wolves need to be controlled to keep them in balance with nature have been ignored. Canada BC right now is worry about woodland caribou going extinct due to what too many wolves wiping the herd out.
LIE-3. Wolves mate for life. Really then please explain to me why the alpha male mates every single female in the pack that comes into heat. Even his daughter? Only one way that can work the alpha female is mating with other males.
I could go on and on about all the lies the only truth out of the pro wolf side is the wolf is the best cash cow they every came up with. The pro wolf side has collected multi millions of dollars over this issue.
So what lie should a reporter print from the pro wolf side to show balance? One truth from the pro wolf side
Oh I know some people think the wolves are cute.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Casey is right on. It is impossible to get the other side and still have truth and real scientific information. This is like negotiating with Islam! There is no moral backbone in the other side, because they constantly twist half truths, use pseudo science, make outright false accusations for sensational articles that stir emotions of the ill-informed, and they constantly change the rules of the game. Dr. Fischman, how would you like to come to a bargaining table with a given set of rules and put your name to an agreement, only to find that they deliberately misrepresented themselves and a within months have changed the rules? They then expect you to conform to an agreement that no longer exists because they changed it. Worse, they now make public statements to effect that you are the problem and they cannot work with you because you are not cooperating.
Dr., I do understand your desire to see the other side represented and see a balanced picture. The other side will only offer false accusations and pseudo science to further their agenda on your request, and use your platform to do further damage. Do you really wish to dance to someone else’s music?
If you hold a Doctorate degree, you should be able by now to understand that balance is not a matter of personal feelings about issues, but actual facts. The other side never wants to bring to the table the welfare of future generations of all the other wildlife in the woods. It is wolf and nothing else! If you take the rural citizens, ranchers and non-ranchers alike, out of the picture you still have a one sided issue. Too many wolves will eventually destroy entire populations of ungulates and many other critters. That alone is a reason not to support an unchecked and ill managed wolf program.
I welcome your reponse not to the rural community and wolves, but to my comments about losing other valuable animals in the wild.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Dr. Fischman, what sort of “balance” was presented at the 20th Annual North American Wolf Conference sponsored by the Defenders of Wildlife? Isn’t it true that every speaker was pro-wolf and anti-human, anti-rancher, and anti-rural resident. You spoke there; what’s your opinion on it?
The fact is that one side of the wolf issue avoids the truth at all costs, uses ad hominum attacks, points the finger, pretends to be holier than thou, while the other side begs for a chance to be heard. One side is lousy with political bias, and the other side is disaffected by politics of any stripe. One side uses the worst sort of junk science to support their bogus claims, and the other side uses real science, when they can find an honest scientist who has not been threatened with termination by the pro-wolf set.
Your accusations of blame and advice regarding “objectivity” ring hollow. Try some objectivity yourself. And some honesty. For instance, why don’t you reveal who funds your “scientific” research.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Dr. Fischman would you please tell us which lie the reporter should use from the pro wolf side?
None of the Native Americans hunted wolves? Exposed as a lie.
The Grey wolf is an endangered species. According to ESA the animal has to be close to extinction with 50,000 wolves in Canada alone how can that be true. Exposed as a lie.
Wolves never attack people- exposed as a lie.
Wolves balance nature- exposed as a lie.
Wolves are magical creature that will set the world right. Sure what fairy tale land called science made up that lie?
Please good Dr. explain how you PHD lied to the world with your elitist attitude about how great wolves are. Or you to busy counting your money to worry about the truth, the children terrorize, the ranchers going out of business, the dogs killed in front of little girls, the bloodthirsty way your wolves disable an animal eat 20 pounds then leave, the animal can suffer for days on end. Oh sorry I forgot you are blinded by dollar signs which is far more important then people.
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Here’s another lie called the ESA and the 17th Amendment…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45288
Be sure and scroll down and read Larry Becraft’s letter explaining how the Congress skirted around the Constitution and shoved this ESA lie down our throats. Jurisdiction Questioned and the ESA is 100% illegal….
You can’t make Dr. Strangeloves Environmental mania tell the truth, they never will, its called born to lie. But hell I like this idea:
H Help
O Our
N Nation
E End
S Socialist Environmentalist
T Terrorism
Wolveshater…