VIEWPOINTS
Saturday, January 21, 2017
East Oregonian
Page 5A
Quick takes The case for condors in Eastern Oregon
By ANGELA C. SONDENAA
Writers on the Range
Women’s march in Pendleton
I guess I don’t understand what rights
they think will be taken away. Did I miss
that memo? As far as I’ve seen/heard, we
are still Americans. We still have the Bill of
Rights and the Constitution.
— Tracy Smith
The fact anyone would be threatened
by or angered by a peaceful walk speaks
volumes. Why be threatened by women’s
right to be heard?
— Rachelle Underwood
I’m ashamed to live in this time. Is there
a march I can join to let Trump know how
much I support him ... how he has given me
hope after a long eight years? Let’s start that
march.
— Jackuelyn Simpson
This is awesome! Glad to see women
uniting for women’s rights!
— Sandra Lee
Rough weather and roads
Our roads are trash. Amazing how I
can drive from Kennewick to just north of
Hermiston on 395 on bare, dry pavement
and just before the first light I have to put it
in 4wd and learn how to ice skate.
— Jeremy Clark
Oregon really needs to take a hard look
at how they deal with winter roads. When
you can’t get commerce and freight in and
out of the city, you have a problem.
— Chante Drew
Driving uphill in Heppner, just slipped
on slushy ice on street because the severe
wind blew me sideways!
— Alan Scott
One of the great lessons of the Twitter age is
that much can be summed up in just a few words.
Here are some of this week’s takes. Tweet yours
@Tim_Trainor or email editor@eastoregonian.
com, and keep them to 140 characters.
C
alifornia condors may not be recent
inhabitants of the Hells Canyon
area of Eastern Oregon, but there
is evidence that the giant vultures lived in
the area as recently as the 19th century.
I note this because some critics say that
the Nez Perce Tribe and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service should not collaborate to
assess Hells Canyon as a possible condor
reintroduction site.
While the written record is sparse, there
are credible accounts of condors living in
the region. In 1879, U.S. Army Gen. T.E.
Wilcox observed two condors feeding on a
sheep carcass near present-day Boise, Idaho.
Wilcox further reported that, according
to local cattlemen, condors were “not
uncommon” in the area before they started
dying out, largely from eating poisoned
carcasses intended to kill wolves.
In 1818, fur trapper Donald McKenzie
also reported seeing condors flying in the
river canyons of northeast Oregon. These
reports effectively bookend the northern
and southern extent of the Hells Canyon
segment of the Snake River.
The dearth of early written accounts
should not surprise anyone familiar with
the extremely remote, rugged terrain of the
Snake River. This entire region was actively
avoided by early European settlers, who
considered it impassible and inhospitable.
Few outsiders had an opportunity to observe
the wildlife that flourished there. Fewer still
recorded what they saw.
Yet the people who actually lived in
Hells Canyon have a known relationship
and history with condors. The Nez Perce
(NiMiiPuu) have inhabited the Snake River
canyon since time immemorial, and condor
references can be found in the NiMiiPuu
language (condor = qúnes), oral traditions,
place names and creation stories.
Viewed collectively, the cultural evidence
for condors is compelling. Perhaps most
significant is a reference to Joseph Canyon,
a Snake River tributary, as ananasocum,
which translates to “the place (canyon)
where condors used to be.” In his account,
tribal elder Otis Halfmoon also describes
condors nesting in local caves, which clearly
indicates a resident breeding population.
But you still might ask: Why do tribal
members want to bring
the birds back now?
Our answer is that
Hells Canyon appears
well suited for condors.
It contains a large
proportion of public
lands, has abundant
food resources, supports
apex predators like
wolves, provides
excellent geography
for soaring raptors,
contains relatively few
people, and has little
human development.
The entire Hells Canyon
ecosystem would also benefit from the
essential ecological services provided by
these scavengers.
Furthermore, existing condor populations
are still small and vulnerable to catastrophic
events, so creating additional and separate
populations could help reduce the risk
of possible genetic losses. Adding new
populations would also help restore the
diverse geographic structure of condor
populations throughout their historical
range, including the Pacific Northwest.
Retired condor biologist Sanford Wilbur
states that some local people might see these
recovery efforts as yet more overreach by
the federal government. What he fails to
consider is the people’s tremendous capacity
to marshal their shared conservation ethic on
behalf of these birds. Most local landowners,
ranchers, farmers and hunters embody and
carry out a land ethic of stewardship and
responsibility. They know that they must
care for the land and its associated fish,
wildlife and plant species if they want that
land to continue to support their livelihoods
and well-being. This is a truth the NiMiiPuu
have known for generations.
The biggest challenge to condor
recovery is lead poisoning from spent bullet
fragments. Some may view this as a good
reason not to pursue condor reintroduction,
but lead poisoning affects many other
wildlife species, too. This
is an issue that needs to
be addressed whether
condors are ultimately
reintroduced or not.
Fortunately, it is
not an insurmountable
problem since copper-
based bullets are highly
effective and increasingly
available to shooters.
Lead-free ammunition
also helps ensure
safer food for human
consumption, which is
itself a compelling reason
to switch. Making the
switch is the next step in continuing a proud
legacy of sportsmen contributing to wildlife
conservation.
Skeptics sometimes ask, “Why fiddle
with Mother Nature?” The truth is that
humans have always fiddled with Mother
Nature, and we will continue to do so,
simply because of our increasing population.
Human-induced factors have long played
an adversarial role in the decline of many
species, including condors. But common
sense, science-based conservation efforts
can help to rectify our past mistakes.
The success of any project, however,
must rely on public support. Condors need
our help to maintain healthy populations,
and it’s inspiring to think that Hells Canyon
could once again provide these magnificent
birds with a wild and healthy home.
■
Angela C. Sondenaa is a contributor to
Writers on the Range, the opinion service
of High Country News (hcn.org). She is the
precious lands project leader for the Nez
Perce Tribe, Lapwai, Idaho.
The entire Hells
Canyon ecosystem
would also benefit
from the essential
ecological
services provided
by these
scavengers.
How best to clean up
Portland’s poisoned harbor?
The Oregonian/OregonLive
T
he biggest, most expensive federal
action aimed at Portland in years
arrived recently but was quickly lost
on the local radar to snowstorms, icy streets
and weather-related deaths. After 16 years
of study, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency determined that more than 100
industries here or once doing business here,
along with the city and
the Port of Portland,
must pay more than
$1 billion to clean up a
10-mile segment of the
Willamette River known
as Portland Harbor.
No one disputes
the harbor, historically
the beating heart of
Portland’s industrial commerce, is a toxic
mess. PCBs and other nasty long-life
chemicals line river-bottom sediments,
in some places in concentrations so high
as to signal public health warnings. Folks
who regularly consume resident fish from
the harbor are told about cancer. Federally
protected runs of migratory fish passing
through the harbor are to lesser degree
exposed but potentially compromised, a
concern to tribes with treaty rights to salmon.
That the harbor would be designated a
federal Superfund site was long predicted,
and now the hard-fought tab for cleaning
it up has arrived. With such certainty, it
has been widely believed, Portland can
finally restore to health a sick segment of its
marquee river.
But the peace running through Portland
about the EPA’s decision is tentative. And
this bears close attention by participants in
the cleanup and all who care, because the
cleanup is critical for Portland and Oregon
now and going forward.
Last summer the EPA estimated the
cleanup would cost $746 million but has
now expanded it significantly by making
river quality metrics tougher, and more
expensive, to meet. The Port of Portland,
for example, an owner of several properties
in the port but never a major producer of its
historic pollution, fears its share of cleanup
costs could well exceed $100 million —
cash it does not have available and that
cannot be drawn from airport operations,
leaving the public exposed. Meanwhile,
port officials chase Monsanto in court for
having disseminated some of the PCBs that
sully the Willamette. (Separately, the city
has joined other West Coast cities in a class
action lawsuit against Monsanto to generate
cleanup money, as well.)
Still, plenty of folks are relieved, if not
gleeful, that the EPA finally acted. That
includes Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and
Commissioner Nick Fish, who will lead
the city’s efforts to hasten the cleanup;
the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality and its new director Richard
Whitman, who coordinated with tribes to
help EPA find a cleanup of sufficient scale to
avoid litigation; and several environmental
advocates, who drove a grassroots campaign
to toughen the EPA’s assessments and helped
bring what seemed a
never-ending federal
process to a close.
But is Portland
Superfund really real
yet? Not quite. Sediment
sampling from years
ago needs redoing in
places to gauge current
toxicity levels, and yet
more sampling will be
required to fully characterize a dynamic
river before specialists attempt to map out
the first steps of a projected 13-year cleanup.
Significantly, companies on the hook to
pay for the cleanup — the harbor’s present
industries as well as several long departed
— must now meet with state and federal
officials to show a willingness to get the job
done and to pay their fair shares, still being
tallied. Complicating everything, however, is
something nobody predicted: a potential sea
change in the views of the EPA, and possibly
Congress, toward environmental regulation.
The inauguration Friday of Donald
Trump, along with his nominee to head
the EPA, Scott Pruitt, signal this potential
change. The president-elect is a businessman
who has disputed environmental policies.
Pruitt has in his capacity as Oklahoma’s
attorney general sued EPA multiple times,
if unsuccessfully, to block environmental
regulations.
It could seriously fray, if not unravel,
Portland’s Superfund plan if unhappy
responsible parties were to exploit
ideological shifts in the new administration
by seeking relief from Portland Superfund
cleanup responsibilities. Any such attempts,
if successful, would not create a lasting
win for business but long-term losses for
Portland and Oregon and all businesses
seeking to prosper in a healthy river
environment.
The Portland Harbor cleanup, taking
shape at last, needs to happen. The city and
the state, along with Northwest tribes and
concerned citizens, have worked too hard for
too long to help EPA reach this milestone.
A restored Willamette River will mean
better health not only for wildlife and for
Oregonians but also a promising economy,
revved up by a harbor known for its natural
and commercial resilience and productivity.
The bill to clean
10 miles of the
Willamette River
is $1 billion.
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES
President
Jeff Merkley
Donald Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
U.S. Representative
U.S. Senators
Ron Wyden
221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510 202-224-5244
La Grande office: 541-962-7691
Washington office:
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3753
Pendleton office: 541-278-1129
Greg Walden
Washington office:
185 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 202-225-6730
La Grande office:
541-624-2400
Be heard!
Comment online at eastoregonian.com