Craig,
I may not know the back story as it relates to the "agenda" you allude to, but
in my experience when government agencies are involved trade-offs are made. As
much as we'd like the interests of the bird to rule the day, I think all of us
are wise and astute enough to understand that there is political capital spent
and earned in every transaction. The framing of messages and narratives
underpin all of these transactions so as to suggest that no party is losing and
that honest efforts are being made to protect the birds. As you suggest, John
and Jane Q. Public will rarely dig into the details so long as the narrative
they are presented with seems honest and credible. Those who live under the
political spotlight only survive if they learn how to manage and control the
message. It's an unfortunate reality, but a reality nonetheless.
As individual citizens our job is to pay close attention, sniff out false
narratives and let those who are conveying them know that we are indeed paying
attention and not readily buying what they are selling. As I said several times
during the Malheur standoff, politicians only act under one of two conditions.
They either know everyone is paying attention and see that there is a clear
consensus as to what should be done, or they know that no one is paying
attention. Good legislation and policy gets passed and implemented when
everyone is watching. Bad legislation and bad policy gets passed and
implemented when no one is watching. In the case of the Malheur occupation, the
FBI and DOJ were willing to wait it out until public opinion was strongly in
favor of bringing it to an end and putting the Bundys et al. behind bars.
If you believe that an agenda detrimental to Greater Sage-Grouse is behind the
ODFW actions that you question perhaps the pot needs to be stirred.
Dave Irons
Portland, OR
