ESA still needs to be fixed

Over the past 18 years I have been on a crusade to amend or repeal the Endangered Species Act.

I recently ran across some old letters dated in 1995, from Sen. Mark Hatfield and Congressman Wes Cooley, among others, informing me of their views on the subject.

Cooley stated that the ESA had wreaked havoc on the Western economy, and through reckless abandon, had lost focus and attention to the real needs of society. He was appalled at the wanton abuse of private property rights and the destruction of people's lives and jobs.

Cooley further advised that in the interest of making people our highest priority, he had been selected to join a House task force to re-examine the ESA and present legislation to effect its improvement.

Senator Hatfield advised that he was an original author of the ESA. He never contemplated that the act would be applied on such a broad scale, and went into great detail about the devastation the spotted owl listing had caused the timber industry. He was concerned that public outcry would lead to efforts to drastically amend the act, but understood that the human side of the equation must be kept in balance.

What makes these 1995 letters important is the fact that nothing has changed for the better, and species listings have greatly expanded.

Hatfield is a classic example of a career politician who thought he knew best, and who was more concerned about his legacy than the basic needs of people.

We the citizens of Oregon should erect a monument. I suggest a public urinal (a big one) on "A" Canal and Alameda bypass here in Klamath Falls, entitled "ESA, Hatfield's Folly."

Our only hope to change the ESA is to unseat all the old career legislators in Washington, find a sponsor (maybe Rep. Greg Walden) and take a serious run on this thing. Our economic future depends on it.

Warren Haught

Klamath Falls, Ore.

Royalty system deeply flawed

How ironic. In an agricultural world fraught with unpredictable risks, faculty researchers at tax-supported land-grant universities, many enjoying the lifetime employment guarantee of tenure, receive cash royalties for inventions licensed or sold to the private sector.

Unlike researchers in the private sector, whose companies live and die on the strength of invention, they are subject to zero personal risk, have their research subsidized with tax dollars and experience extraordinary upside potential to their personal benefit.

What's wrong with this picture?

Dennis Hopwood

Walla Walla, Wash.