Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Politics is a rough-and-tumble sport

It’s always tempting to think that things were better in the good ol’ days. Many of us decry the toxic partisanship that dominates our national political scene and worry that it’s trickled down to the local level, where debates turn into disputes and it gets ugly and angry.

Thing is, that warm remembered glow of collegial behavior and calm consensus is largely an illusion.

Politics has always been a rough-and-tumble sport — sometimes a blood sport. Going all the way back to the Adams vs. Jefferson presidential election, things were nasty, personal and mean. President Obama is no more despised than was FDR; Bush was no more excoriated for his war than were Nixon or LBJ for theirs.

Local politics has never been exempt. Heck, in some parts of the country, political and economic rivalries led to feuds and gunplay.

Sisters has had a couple years of rough stuff. Issue after issue that comes before the city council turns into a fight. But that’s not so unusual either. When the community was debating a sewer project in the mid-‘90s, that business got contentious and often mean-spirited. Tempers flared, feelings got hurt, a city councilor was recalled.

There have been any number of land-use battles, fights over water and homeowners association beefs over the years.

I’m not saying any of this is a good thing. Bitter fights usually end up being destructive to everyone involved.

But it’s important to understand that it’s only human to get your back up in a fight, to lose your temper sometimes, to be harsher than the situation really warrants. As long as there are human passions, they’re liable to get out of hand. As long as there’s a political arena, those passions will be played out there.

The trick is to learn to take a step back, take a deep breath, try to keep things in perspective and proportion. And remember that the other guy has his reasons and his own stuff to carry.


Jim Cornelius, Editor

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Is it time to loose the hounds again?

Three young cougars died for their sins last week in the Sisters Country. Their transgression was coming into residential neighborhoods and attacking domestic animals — dogs and probably some chickens.


When that happens, wildlife authorities don’t have much choice: They can’t look the other way — next thing you know someone’s dog is dead, or something even worse goes down. They can’t just chase them off; cougar are territorial and they’ll just come back — same problem for “relocation.”


So we kill them for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


That’s a shame. They’re beautiful creatures. Many of us love the idea that they are out there playing out their natural predator-prey drama in the forests of the Sisters Country. For those of us who like our wilderness wild, there’s nothing like the frisson of seeing a cougar print in the woods and being reminded that we’re not always at the top of the food chain. And are we not the invasive species? We moved into their territory, not the other way around.


So what’s the solution? We’re not going to move out and leave the Sisters Country to the cougars, and they can’t become vegetarians or read “No Cougars Allowed” signs put up by your Homeowners Association.


Maybe it’s time to let loose the hounds again. I know, I know — the idea of treeing a cougar with a pack of hounds and then shooting it out of said tree is downright repulsive to some folks. I get that. I also get that the baying of hounds, the thrill of the chase, is an addictive potion that stirs something deep in the soul of some other folks.


Set all that aside for a moment. Would it be better for the cougars if they were regularly hounded? As the law stands now (since the passage of Measure 18 in the mid-1990s) it is illegal to hunt or pursue cougar for sport. Only agents of landowners and law enforcement and wildlife authorities can use hounds to chase cougar.


You can still hunt ’em, but the odds are mighty low without the hounds.


If cougars associated barking dogs with being chased and treed, might they stay away from neighborhoods with barking dogs? If the presence of man means trouble, would they not evade our abodes and pursue their natural prey — mule deer — in less trafficked areas?

Maybe hunting a few could save others from dying en masse like the three killed on McKinney Butte. Or, perhaps you could still ban the kill but allow the pursuit; for many houndsmen, the chase is everything anyway.


Wildlife biologist Steven George says a debate along these lines has been going on ever since bans on hounds pursuing cougar have been in place in places like California and Oregon. Evidence of the effects of pursuit — or the absence thereof — is almost entirely anecdotal, he says.


As far as hunting goes, it’s clear that using hounds “is a very efficient methodology to harvest animals,” George says. It also allows more selectivity in which animals are “taken.”


But does it reduce human/cougar conflicts?


“There is some indication that those animals are a little more wary in those areas where hounds are used to hunt them,” George says.


Indication. Seems like it, but we can't say for sure.


What about the mere pursuit — catch-and-release, if you will? Would that have an impact?

“Potentially,” George says. “There’s no science to back that up.”


George notes that there are efforts virtually every year to overturn Measure 18 and restore some level of cougar hunting with hounds. He also acknowledges that there is strong social resistance to the practice that many see as a cruel form of harassment.


In my view, it shouldn’t be a political debate but a scientific one. If we can demonstrate that pursuit with hounds reduces or prevents human/cougar conflicts, it should be reinstated — for the sake of the cougars more than for the peace of mind of humans living in the wildland interface.


Unfortunately, given budgetary constraints, it seems unlikely that any serious scientific studies will be forthcoming, so the question is likely to be argued out in a political arena with anecdotal evidence. It’s still a discussion worth having.


In the meantime, we can do our part to reduce conflicts. George emphasizes that homeowners should remember what brings cougars into neighborhoods to begin with: They are seeking prey.

Don’t feed the wildlife. It’s not good for the critters and it only brings grief down on the mighty cats that are only doing what comes naturally.


Jim Cornelius, Editor

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

What is it about sports?

What is it about sports?

Sisters is a sports-mad town in a sports-mad nation. While it didn’t generate as much ink as some issues have, there was a lot of chatter sparked by the school district letting two winning coaches go.

As one woman noted to me, you sure wouldn’t see that kind of passion about a math teacher.

Sports on all levels, from Little League to professional teams, rev a lot of engines. It’s big business, sure, but it’s more than that.

It can’t really be about the games themselves. Taken at their most basic, most sports are kinda silly. Throwing a ball through a hoop? Really? Banging a ball back and forth across a net? Who cares? Skating around chasing a rubber disk with a curved stick? Weird…

But such games transcend their raw contents and become all-consuming passions. Sports hit some deep chord within many people. Some of it’s tribal — my tribe against your tribe in ritual combat. Some of it’s personal.

Mr. SHS contestant Connor Morgan made a presentation at pageant about his passion for lacrosse and all the life lessons it had taught him. Primary among these was persistence. He apparently wasn’t naturally good at the sport when he took it up, but he stuck with it and it brings him great joy and satisfaction.

How can you gainsay the value of a passion like that?

My own experience of sports has been sort of ambiguous. While I’m a very physical person, I tend to get more out of the arts than I ever did out of sports. In fact, I guess I really experience the two in much the same way. I enjoy watching football and hockey, but high-level performance is more exciting to me than who wins or loses. The last time I actually cared about a team was when the Kings were vying for a Stanley Cup almost 20 years ago.

And yet…

I love to go out and battle on a tennis court and watching the Nadal/Djokovic Australian Open final filled me with awe and moved me in a way that is usually reserved for music I love.

Powerful stuff, sports.

You can argue that sports get too much emphasis, both in Sisters and in the broader culture. Maybe it’s true; I think so, sometimes. But something that means so much to so many… there’s something important there, something deeply meaningful. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it — and you see it a lot in Sisters.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Monday, January 9, 2012

What do you do about Wild Mountain?

Ky Karnecki’s request to be allowed to continue operating his Wild Mountain food stand through the winter creates a quandary for a city that is trying to project a business-friendly image while requiring everybody to play by the same set of rules.


Just based on the facts, the situation’s pretty clear-cut. Karnecki applied for and was granted a temporary operating permit for a seasonal business. That permit is expired. He can apply for a new one. End of story, right?


If the city grants back-to-back-to-back temporary permits, the business is, in effect, permanent — and Karnecki can’t make the property improvements required for permanence. Letting that slide wouldn’t be fair to the rest of the businesses in Sisters that have to play by the rules.


But maybe, some say, food stands like Karnecki’s should be treated as a different class of business and allowed to operate year-round. That would require a development code change, which isn’t going to happen in a day or two. Should Karnecki be able to stay open until the planning commission says yea or nay on making that change?


Karnecki says he’s up against it; can’t keep going at all if he can’t keep going through winter. Sisters hardly wants to see another business fail. But if you start making exceptions to clear-cut regulations, where do you stop? Is it the city’s problem that Karnecki didn’t make enough during his operating season to sustain himself? What about other businesses that are struggling? What should the city do to help them?


The city council should certainly make time for Karnecki to make his case — and it looks like that’s going to happen at their Thursday, January 12, meeting. It might be helpful for the citizenry to weigh in.


Jim Cornelius, Editor