How does cap and trade stop pollution?

Let me get this straight. (Companies like) Sierra Pacific Industries own thousands of acres of non-polluting trees. So the "politicos" have decided that they can sell carbon credits to the polluters so that the polluters don't have to stop their pollution of the environment.

So I want to know, who is going to reap the benefit of this nonsensical legislation? Certainly not us, the taxpayers.

This kind of nonsense can only come from our elected "politicos," who are mostly attorneys.

Where's our justice in this? Has to be payback to the polluters so they can continue to pollute, i.e., the big industries such as the coal burners and automakers and steel mills. Oops! Most all steel now comes from overseas.

Marvin Reed

Reno, Nev.

Water right payments raise question

I would like to comment on one of the downsides to others when holders of water rights are being paid to leave their water "in stream."

We live on East Birch Creek south of Pilot Rock, Ore., which flows along with West Birch Creek into Birch Creek. Birch Creek flows into the Umatilla River and then into the Columbia.

We have two water rights, one is 1975 and one is 1892. Neither is large, but we use the water to raise some hay crops and to water pasture for a few head of cattle. We irrigate about 30 acres.

When someone downstream with an older water right puts a "call" on the water, we are shut off and we understand they have priority. But when someone downstream who does not use their water puts a "call"on the water because their property has an older water right, it just does not seem fair to be able to shut us off while they get paid.

Many people have put in wells and do not irrigate out of the creek; and if they get paid for letting the water go by, fine. Just don't penalize those of us who need the water.

I would like very much to have a response from someone who knows more about this problem that has been created.

Katie Weinke

Pilot Rock, Ore.

Wolves present threat to livestock

A recent article in an area newspaper titled "don't skimp on wolves" is very misleading, indicating that we need a lot of wolves to attract tourism. Washington state is not a park like Yellowstone, where wild animals are protected and lose their fear of humans. Wolves are part of the park ecosystem to control the huge abundance of ungulates that are destroying their habitat. ...

Some statistics reveal that 76 percent of our state population would like to see the introduction of wolves. If this is what the majority of the citizens want, that means they should be prepared to pay generously for the loss of livestock and pets.

I find it very selfish and unfair for the citizens of this state to enjoy the return of such a vicious predator at the expense of farmers, ranchers and rural landowners, not to mention the loss of revenue derived from hunting. ...

Wolves have been federally delisted in Eastern Washington, but are still listed as an endangered species by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. For a wolf plan to be acceptable, a compensation plan for depredation must be part of the plan or give the owner the right to shoot on sight to protect his property.

However, because of the state's economic situation, the bureaucrats will probably do as they please.

One rancher in Stevens County has already lost over $10,000 worth of cattle to wolves. After several meetings on all of the above, a coalition of farmers, ranchers and property owners is in the process of being formed to restrict all out-of-county hunters on private property in order to keep enough game to feed the wolves that would otherwise prey on our pets and livestock.

Tony Delgado

Former Stevens County Commissioner

Loon Lake, Wash.

Recommended for you