The real predators

To the Editors:

A recent article in theTelegraph reported that associations within the New Mexico livestock and ranching industries are suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish to allow hunting and trapping of endangered gray wolves throughout the state.

This comes as no surprise, as the livestock industry depends on killing as many animals as it possibly can – even those species of wildlife that number fewer than 50 throughout Arizona and New Mexico combined.

Wildlife reintroductions, especially predator reintroductions, are nothing if not controversial. Such reintroductions are often orchestrated by hunting interests because they know it will benefit them in the long run. Mainstream environmentalists partner with the hunting groups because they wish to see wildlife reestablished in their native areas. Then when the population becomes stable, ranchers will join the hunters because they have never seen a predator they did not want to kill.

Since hunters and ranchers nearly extirpated wolves from their natural range back in the 1950s, neither special interest group should have a say in what happens with a species that is among the most beautiful of the American Southwest. Groups that thrive on violence and killing cannot be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to wildlife protection and preservation.

The public remains strongly against wolf hunting, and since taxpayers contribute a significant amount of revenue to state and federal wildlife organizations, they should have a voice in any decisions that involve wildlife policy.

interests of the ranching and hunting industries to exploit native wildlife for profit or recreation, visit www.AbolishSportHunting.com.

– Joe Miele, The Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting, Las Cruces, N.M.

Hell’s Belles in Aspen

Dear Editors,

Last Saturday, I found myself in Basalt having a few libations with an old high school friend who’s also on Facebook. I was preparing to catch a ride down to Aspen to see Hell’s Belles play a show at the Belly Up Lounge. This is an all-girl ACDC tribute band, endorsed by Angus Young, himself. Jamie Nova handles the vocal stylings of both Bon Scott (wearing the denim jacket vest) and Brian Johnson (wearing that cap). Adrian Conner plays Angus Young. Picture a dreadlock blonde schoolgirl, who, with the vibe of a possessed doll from El Dia De Los Muertos, shredded that guitar as if possessed by Angus, himself. Gotta tell ya, when her shirt came off, she looked more like Iggy Pop. Rock guitarists don’t have to be pretty, they just play with emotion. This girl kicked ASS and she has great stage presence. High energy from the crowd seemed to pump up the band even more. Sounds corny to type this, but they played “all your favorite ACDC songs.”

As we look though the lens of economic development, a bar bill was $95, the show ticket was $25 and a place to crash was $100. So some money was spent on a fun time.

Maybe “Hank,” “Abbey” or “Tami” could bring this show to Durango. Hell’s Belles have played Boulder, Vail, Aspen. The opening act, Fourth Room, has played The Summit here. Those boys are a good rock primer for the ACDC show.

“Wanna tell you a story. ‘Bout a woman I know...”

– Tom Schillaci, Durango

A wolf in congressional clothing

To the Editors:

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is reportedly entertaining legislative removal of the gray wolf from Endangered Species Act protections. Listing and delisting decisions should be based on science, and not on whether species protections are politically inconvenient. The purpose of the ESA in protecting imperiled species is clear, and biological information is the only way to ensure that purpose is met.

I recently ended a 23-year career with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and much of my work dealt with imperiled species. During that career, I served on the Stakeholder Group of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team, and I led the CDOW effort to craft an interim wolf management plan for Colorado. I’m intimately familiar with the ESA and its application in Colorado, having worked on a number of listed and petitioned species, including peregrine falcon, boreal toad, bald eagle, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, Colorado pikeminnow, Gunnison sage-grouse, southwestern willow flycatcher, Gunnison’s prairie dog, and others. Through that experience, it became clear that the ESA is not a perfect law, and implementation is sometimes onerous, inefficient and illogical. In spite of those shortcomings, listing and delisting decisions cannot be based on anything but biological information.

While some organizations are predicting the demise of wolves if they’re delisted, I believe that biological recovery has undoubtedly occurred for wolves in the northern Rockies. (The Mexican wolf recovery effort in New Mexico and Arizona is a different story, one that demonstrates why political decision making doesn’t work well in imperiled species recovery programs). In spite of the obvious success of wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, any listing decision must be made through the ESA process, with thorough evaluation of population viability and related science, and not via legislative fiat.

During the recent election, members of both parties supported the use of the “best available science” in decision making. The personal opinions of members of the House and Senate have great value; they are not, however, the best available science.

Congress was incredibly thoughtful and forward-looking in adopting the ESA; we owe diligent protection of our wildlife heritage to our descendants. Legislators shouldn’t make biological decisions, just as biologists shouldn’t make legislative decisions.

– Gary T. Skiba, Durango

Social security – less for more

To the Editors,

In 1935, amidst great fanfare, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law.

On the tax side, in 1937, the rate, paid in equal halves by employers and employees, started at 2 percent - which, by 1960, had risen to 6 percent. As of 1999, they are now at 15.3 percent.

On the benefits side, in 1937, the SSA disbursed $1.3 million to 53,236 people for an average benefit of $24.42. By 1960 payments had climbed to $11.3 billion for 14.8 million recipients, averaging $763.51 annually - and, by 2008, benefits totaled $658.4 billion for 58.4 million recipients, averaging $11,273.98.

Sounds impressive - until you adjust for inflation. For, by the government’s own calculator, $11,273.98 in 2008 was only worth $1,549.95 in 1960, when benefits averaged $763.51. The benefits increases in the time between, in other words, barely doubled - but, since the tax rates have more than doubled in that same period, the actual return has declined from what it was a half-century ago.

And, now, President Obama’s “Deficit Reduction” panel has recently proposed a scheme that would cut benefits while increasing taxes: “The proposals include eliminating popular tax breaks…and raising the retirement age for Social Security.” (“Majority of panel backs deficit plan,” The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 4.)

So: after 75 years of the government’s fine-tuning of Social Security, what do we end up with? Less for more.

The private sector, however, operates on a completely different principle: more for less. Consider: In 1968, when Hewlett-Packard released the first fully-electronic 9100 calculator, the size of a typewriter, it sold for $4,900 - something only a rich person would buy.

But by 1971, Sharp and Canon were releasing portable calculators for $295 to $345. By 1974, prices had plummeted to well under $100; and, by 1975, they could be had for under $20.

And by 2001, the turn of the century? Credit-card-sized calculators sold for 50 cents.

So, in the space of 33 years, calculators - while also becoming micro-miniaturized and far more capable than HP’s original desk-bound 9100 - crashed in price from $4,500 to 50 cents, a reduction of 9,000 percent. And that’s after inflation; when you factor in the fact that $4,500 in 1968 was worth $22,900.86 in 2001, the true price drop was over 45,800 percent.

Yet what is even more illuminating than those incredible price reductions is the nature of the course that those savings took. Consider: When HP’s 9100 hit the shelves, it was a plaything for the rich - “luxury” spending. As the high profitability of such manufacturing acted to attract huge amounts of research and capital, however, competitive forces kicked in and quickly brought those prices down to the point where, in less than a decade, the poorest person in the country could buy one.

Thus, it was the spending of the rich, along with their investment capital, that made the whole process possible and acted as the catalyst for everything that followed.

What are we to make, then, of the current congressional debates on extending the Bush tax cuts? Republicans want to extend those tax cuts for all citizens, whereas Democrats would eliminate them for anyone making over $250,000 annually.

Indeed, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, discussing Republican opposition to that elimination, said that what they (Republicans) are saying is, “‘Unless you give an additional tax break to the wealthiest people in our country, adding to the deficit and not creating jobs, we are not going to vote for middle-income tax cuts.’” (“US house passes Democrat tax cut bill,” Tax-news.com, Dec. 3rd.)

Really? Anyone care to figure out just how many jobs have been created in the calculator field since 1968? Or in its spin-off industries? Or of how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been added to our GDP as a result? Perhaps, instead of demonizing money as evil, Mrs. Pelosi should run out and kiss the first rich person she can find.

Or, better yet, she could advocate the application of the private sector’s approach to Social Security itself. For, on a salary of $50,000, with an investment of 15.3 percent over 40 years compounded annually at 8 percent, the yield would be: $2,140,324.75.

And the conclusion? Governments can promise; capitalism delivers.

– Bradley Harrington, via email