Flare up over bed n’ breakfast gives insight to repression that is usually more subtle-

Recently we did a story on a controversy over license for a tiny bed n’ breakfast in Wallowa County near Joseph, OR, “NE Oregon . . . get friendly with wolf watchers and lose your property rights.”

Since then matters have not cooled down. Two more cows might have been killed by the Imnaha wolf pack and the application to have a couple person bed n’ breakfast in the county run by people who are thought to have the “wrong beliefs” about wolves came before the county commission. The commission was probably intimidated by the hostile testimony toward the applicants applying for the tiny B and B. Instead of making a decision the county commissioners extended the comment time by 10 days. They will announce their decision on Dec. 19.

A CD of the testimony is available from the county. According the the applicants, “About 20 anti wolf ranchers, some wearing Zero Tolerance or some other anti wolf T shirts blamed [them] for everything from closing the logging mills to being responsible for over 50% of the local school kids getting free lunches! and, of course, for all the dead cows, and introduced a lot of ‘what ifs’ that happen when people ‘like us’ stay in a BnB in ‘cow country’ [boldface ours]. One of the applicants had testied in favor of wolves at a hearing at the state capitol in Salem.  Diane Hunter told me that her testimony was “read, re-read and dissected as the reasons our BnB will ruin . . . livelihoods because . . . well they weren’t quite sure of, because . . .”  Hunter vowed that they would not be run out of town like the last people “who went through this.” She said these folks got a swastika put on their lawn.

Today we heard of similar stories from other property and business owners in, or formerly in the area.

It has been our view that local governments dominated by those sympathetic to the Western cattle industry are run like semi-feudal fiefdoms and have pre-capitalistic economic and political systems serving to maintain traditional economic occupations from competition or political questions.  This hegemony is enforced by the manipulation of public opinion through subtle threat, or sometimes something more overt as the present case may be. The tendency toward feudalism extends beyond the county level in places such as Idaho and Wyoming to the state level where one party government helps enforce obedience to the perceived interests of the livestock industry.

– – – – –

Of interest, You know you’re in wolf country when… Ecotrope. OPB

Update 3:20 pm: The La Grande Observer has written a story about this today as well.  KC

Proposal to build B&B creates stir.
La Grande Observer

avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

42 Responses to Social conflict disguised as conflict over wolves heats up in NE Oregon

  1. avatar Nancy says:

    http://www.co.wallowa.or.us/administration/board_of_commissioners/index.html

    Wallowa County Board of Commissioners

    Welcome to the Wallowa County website. Wallowa County government invites you to come and visit us! Experience the slower pace of a rural community as well as our breath taking scenic views.

    Mission – It is the purpose of the government of Wallowa County to assist in maintaining community well-being by providing effective and efficient services.

    Goals – To be reasonably accessible and responsive to the citizenry.
    To Provide the best possible service for the available public funds.
    To increase public awareness of available resources and services.
    To develop a positive cooperative relationship among county
    employees

    Obvious that “the goal to be reasonably accessible and responsive to the citizenry” doesn’t apply to everyone……

    Doubtful you will get a response if you email anyone on the list of commissioners (I didn’t when I emailed a few weeks ago) but its well worth the effort to let them know that trampling on someone’s rights is not the way to win friends and influence tourism if they really want people to “come and visit!”

    • County commissioners rarely respond to the views on those who don’t live there, especially from another state, but that doesn’t mean they don’t notice them or don’t read them.

  2. avatar Jersey says:

    Ralph – I was actually AT that meeting and I didn’t get the take you did it seems. The Hunters are not proposing a ‘tiny’ B&B. They are requesting a CONDITIONAL USE. Do you understand what that means?? I am sure you do but you are sadly trying to re-direct the issue at hand. The Hunters will have to undergo the legal process – the same as ANY other Wallowa Co. resident, no matter how much Diane trys to bully or subtley threaten the commissioners with how much she has paid in tax. There were people at that meeting who were a HUGE part of building that county, paid far more than the Hunters throughout their living there and yet they saw no need to spout their dollars, sweat & tears to get their point across. The Hunters looked like buffoons who were caught lieing many times & didn’t know which way to turn so attacked with threats….

    • Jersey,

      I am well aware what conditional use permit is. From all I have heard that is not the issue here. The issue seems to be the views of the people who applied for it. Today’s story in the Observer http://is.gd/jQ6PC3 does indicate that most of opposition was based on the perceived views of the Hunters on matters like wolves, which should not be relevant to the conditional use permit. Wolves don’t need one, and not having one won’t help them. 😉

    • avatar Nancy says:

      Curious, how do you make a living in Wallowa Co. Jersey? The name might imply the raising of dairy cattle?

  3. avatar Ken Cole says:

    I just posted an update to the story. There is a story in the La Grande Observer that just came out.

    http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/News/Local-News/Proposal-to-build-B&B-creates-stir

  4. avatar Paul says:

    “blamed [them] for everything from closing the logging mills to being responsible for over 50% of the local school kids getting free lunches!”

    Oh my! Did anyone of the antis explain how wolves were actually responsible for this? Holy crap! I though my neck of the woods was ass backwards.

  5. avatar Cathy says:

    If I read this correctly the professor is from Idaho. The community in Oregon has a right to voice their concerns about the wolf and how it is affecting their way of life.

    Why is it that don’t live in Eastern Oregon feel the need to tell them how they should live and think? It’s easy to criticize when you are not the one having your private property destroyed by an animal that you never wanted in the first place. Why is it that the people that are critical of ranchers aren’t living daily with the threat and the cost of the wolf?

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      Cathy,

      I do live in Idaho. The constitutional rights to own and use one’s private property, speak your mind about civic matters, and associate with the people you want are the same in Idaho, Wallowa County, and everywhere else in the United States.

    • avatar JimT says:

      The act of expressing one’s opinion is very different from barely veiled threats of intimidation and violence as it appears happened at this permit meeting. I suppose if a wolf advocate got up and said that the ranchers had better watch out if they add more cows…you would be equally committed to supporting his or her right to speak, correct?

      I love it the way folks passionately defend their right to freely use their property for what they wish, but fervently deny that same right if the purpose isn’t one with which they agree.

      Never mind ecological, legal arguments with this poster. They will be lost on deaf ears and a closed mind.

    • avatar Mal Adapted says:

      Cathy, what is keeping you from fencing your private property to keep the wolves out? What is keeping you from buying and training guard dogs to discourage wolves from molesting your livestock, on your private property? What is keeping you from personally guarding your livestock on your private property, on horseback perhaps? All those alternatives may cost you money, but if you can’t afford the costs of raising livestock in prime wolf habitat, maybe you should get out of the business! Your property, your problem! Why should the Hunters be prevented from enjoying their property rights on your account? Why do you hate America?

      • avatar Elk275 says:

        “”Why should the Hunters be prevented from enjoying their property rights on your account?”” They should not be prevented from enjoying their property rights. From what I have read there is no reason that they should not be allow to construct their dwellings.

        “”What is keeping you from personally guarding your livestock on your private property, on horseback perhaps? All those alternatives may cost you money, but if you can’t afford the costs of raising livestock in prime wolf habitat, maybe you should get out of the business!”” Why should Cathy have to spend additional money to protect her livestock because of Wolves, which were reintroduced into Idaho and moved into Oregon. Why should she be prevented from enjoying her private property right on the account of wolves?

        If Cathy cannot afford additional protection, which she can’t, shouldn’t she allowed to used her private property the same as the Hunters want to use there property — a change in use to allow new highest and best use.

        Let’s subdivided the ranch into five acre parcels with no covenants or restrictions, manufactured housing allowed, old junk trailers welcome. We will sell each parcel for $35,000 with $5,000 down and $30,000 amortized over 10 years at 7% interest. What type of buyers and new residents are we going market to? It will be those without money, those who have greater use of social services, those who have greater trouble with the law, those who will cost the county more than they contribute. There is a half of dozen subdivisions like this in Gallatin County, Montana.

        The Hunters have all the rights to build their B & B, but Cathy should have the right to shoot a wolf on her property. Wolves can and do cause stress in cattle.

        A lady friend and I were riding the other day, she on my horse and I on my mule. My horse has spent the last 6 months in the mountains with two other horses in wolf country. Several times on the ride we came upon hikers with large dogs in the distance. Jennifer is a much better rider than I am but when the horse saw the dogs it started to nervous and did not want to get near the dogs. As the dogs came nearer she had difficulties in controlling the horse. Several days later I wondered if those three horses in the mountains for 6 months did not have some contact with wolves

        • avatar Immer Treue says:

          Horses don’t do well around Mt. Bikes either. Perhaps it “could” be a case of nervousness around something they rarely see, and don’t understand

        • avatar Nancy says:

          +There is a half of dozen subdivisions like this in Gallatin County, Montana+

          Well Elk 🙂 got to have some of that “low life” around to balance out these facts:

          http://www.kbzk.com/news/report-ranks-bozeman-most-expensive-place-to-live-in-montana/

        • avatar JB says:

          “The Hunters have all the rights to build their B & B, but Cathy should have the right to shoot a wolf on her property. Wolves can and do cause stress in cattle.”

          Let’s extend this logic beyond wolves. Deer and elk can and do cause stress on ornamental plants and crops, should every resident have the “right” to shoot a deer, elk and every other wild animal that may damage their property?

          • avatar WM says:

            ++Deer and elk can and do cause stress on ornamental plants and crops, should every resident have the “right” to shoot a deer, elk and every other wild animal that may damage their property?++

            Don’t know whether they have the right, but there are compensation programs in some states (in WA elk get into the fruit orchards because there is no winter range), and there is certainly alot of “self help” whether legal or not. The motivation for that kind of poaching is also enhanced by the fact that the deer or elk can be eaten. And, if a wildlife agency is involved in lethal control, as they often are, the elk/deer are many times given to the prison system or local shelters for use.

          • avatar JB says:

            “Don’t know whether they have the right, but there are compensation programs in some states (in WA elk get into the fruit orchards because there is no winter range), and there is certainly alot of “self help” whether legal or not. The motivation for that kind of poaching is also enhanced by the fact that the deer or elk can be eaten. And, if a wildlife agency is involved in lethal control, as they often are, the elk/deer are many times given to the prison system or local shelters for use.”

            WM: Now you’re being disingenuous. You know that individuals do not have a right to kill wildlife as they please, and I’m willing to bet that you could cite from memory the various state and federal laws preventing people from taking such actions. And yes, we both know that there are exceptions (that reminds me, I need to buy mouse traps).

            But you’ve missed my point entirely. Elk claimed that a person SHOULD have the “right” to take such matters into their own hands with regards to wolves (and presumably) other wildlife as well. Effectively, what he advocates is a system whereby private property owners determine whether wildlife live or die. Such notions are abhorrent to the current system in North America–which views wildlife as a public resource.

          • avatar JEFF E says:

            JB,
            I would not use terms like disingenuous in this instance. The chance of comprehension is nil.

          • avatar WM says:

            JB,

            ++Effectively, what he advocates is a system whereby private property owners determine whether wildlife live or die. Such notions are abhorrent to the current system in North America–which views wildlife as a public resource.++

            Maybe that is true. However, I think thoughout rural N America, to some extent, this system is practiced, whether sanctioned under law or not. A skunk or fox in the chickencoop, raccoon in the fountain raiding goldfish. A couple of weeks ago I was talking with a friend, who got a call from an elderly woman for whom he had done some work. She knew he was a bow hunter. She said she had a 4 point buck in her yard that had been eating plants in the garden, and would he come take care of the problem (deer season open but he had filled his tag). He told her no. She called back a couple days later, and said the deer is still there, and did he know of anyone who could take care of her “problem.” I expect this kind of thing plays out alot throughout the country, even by some good folks.

            When Elk (maybe he should speak for himself to expand his thought) raises the issue which you construe to be a system of illegal “self help” to perceived risk with an otherwise legally protected endangered species that raises a more complicated set of solutions for me. Wait for help to come? Wait until the wolf actually attacks your animals (stalking is not enough in WA, under its new plan), and kill the animal only after it has killed/severely injured yours?

            And as for the disengenuous part, you were the one extending and even inviting focused comment when you raised this question, which I attempted to answer, even pointing out the difference between taking a pesky food game animal like a deer, and a wolf (or maybe a cougar/bobcat/bear/fox):

            ++Deer and elk can and do cause stress on ornamental plants and crops, should every resident have the “right” to shoot a deer, elk and every other wild animal that may damage their property?++

            I think we hold private property (livestock/dogs etc.) in high regard, and our legal system does recognize limits of our ability to protect it. Candidly, there are some gray areas that law enforcement of various types, tends to give a little discretion on some occasions, and on others not so much. Cougar in your back yard where the kids play, might get a different response from a protected wolf stalking the cows.

          • avatar JB says:

            WM:

            Actually you are answering a different question then the one I (Elk, really) asked. You are quite accurately describing what often happens when wildlife are a nuisance (i.e., what IS); but Elk stated:

            “…Cathy should have the right to shoot a wolf on her property.”

            The question I raised in response was, “should every resident have the ‘right’ to shoot a …wild animal that may damage their property?”

            I agree, the law is quite flexible and their is a fair amount of gray area, especially were certain species are concern. But despite this flexibility, our legal system views wildlife as “res communes”–as the property of all people. Elk’s views are quite consistent with private property rights advocates, but taking these rights to the extreme his comment suggests would be fundamentally detrimental to our system of wildlife management. So set aside your lawyer hat for a moment and ask yourself: SHOULD a landowner have the RIGHT to unconditionally kill wildlife on their property?

          • avatar WM says:

            ++ SHOULD a landowner have the RIGHT to unconditionally kill wildlife on their property?++

            My opinion would be, NO.

            Lawyer hat on now, but still a personal opinion: On the other hand, there are CONDITIONS under which killing the animal, is more problematic (and may be recognized in law as even being legal in certain jurisdictions). What RIGHTS does one have if in contravention of the law, or what one believes the law should be and one is willing to accept the consequences of an illegal act (civil disobedience)? It would depend on the wildlife species, and if it is in the act of attacking the family dog, killing livestock or trampling the crops that (if I farmed) my family depended upon for making a living. Some examples, and the variations are many, with different outcomes.

            1) Elk in the garden – no
            2) Elk in the orchard after calling wildife agency five times – maybe
            3) Skunk/bear/bobcat/coyote in the chickencoop – yes
            4) Raccoon in the yard after killing the family cat or tearing up the dog – yes
            5) Coyote on the property stalking newborn calves – yes
            6)Wolf (protected) in the pasture looking over the herd – no
            7)Wolf (protected) trying to kill my dog on a leash – Yes!

            Will I take my chances with the system and report what I have done. Yep. And, by the way, in different states some of this might be legal and in others not.

            Back to wolf(ves) on the property – the difference between stalking and an attack can be as short as a snap of the fingers, then what? Who will pay for my property losses (or emotional losses if the dog was the intended prey and dies/injured – vet bills?)?

          • avatar JB says:

            “Who will pay for my property losses (or emotional losses if the dog was the intended prey and dies/injured – vet bills?)?”

            That’s a very different question. Personally, I am happy to let the citizens of each state decide if someone (other than the owner) should pay for losses associated with wildlife. I think compensation programs should be used very sparingly, lest we send the wrong message: i.e., you are entitled to be paid every time nature takes anything from you. Which reminds me, I have a dead tree in my backyard that is (eventually) going to fall over. Depending on which way it falls, it will take out my fence, my garage, or the power company’s pole. Next year I’ll have to by a few thousand to have it removed–no compensation programs for the money I’ll lose because of mother nature (a lightening strike killed the tree).

          • avatar Immer Treue says:

            What happens in a possible situation:
            1. Dog ventures over to elk or deer in yard, and gets its brains kicked in?
            2. Whether Rural myth or not, do dogs that chase deer, sometimes get shot?
            3. Possibly answered already, but trophy homes in particular, I’m sure we all know someone who has had deer/elk devastate ornamentals around the place.

            Most folks are not going to have the firearm ready if a wolf or coyote grab the pet dog/cat, but I have no problem with owner protecting what is his/hers.

          • avatar JB says:

            WM:

            Just as a follow-up… I live in the city and have seen skunks, racoons, opossum and coyotes in my neighborhood, but I don’t have the option to shoot them because local ordinances forbid discharging a fire arm. Do I feel disenfranchised because I can’t shoot every animal that dares invade my private property? No. But there are days I would like to teach our squirrels a lesson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjYLRLwphcs

          • avatar WM says:

            JB,

            My follow up, as well. I too live in the city, but grew up in the country and still spend alot of time where people, for the most part are not.

            I also see raccoons, opossom (saw one last night), the occasional juvenile cougar, and other forest dwellers near my home or in my yard. I hope my golden retriever and the raccoons don’t occupy the yard at the same time, and we try to control that situation. I don’t feel compelled to shoot any critters either, which would also be against the law here in Seattle. We have squirrels, rats, crows and seagulls that are the focus of my attentions (nothing lethal of course, except for the Norwegian brown rats, which seem to love this town because of mild climate and all the pea patch gardens and fruit trees).

        • avatar WM says:

          Elk,

          Your comment about the subdivision is lost on many readers of this forum.

          As for your nervous horse, there are instances of wolves running horses/cattle/sheep into fences, and I recall a couple of USFS horses being so scared they ran over cattle guards (normally avoided by all livestock) which resulted in broken legs and had to be put down. So, it might be expected your horse had survival instincts kicking in.

          I have often wondered on a PER CAPITA basis how much cost and property damages (dead commercial livestock, dogs, horses, llamas, turkeys, etc.) have been caused by individual wolves in the NRM expanding range(in addition to the adminstration and litigation costs involving the species generally, or the reintroduction and research studies of NRM non-essential experimental population).

          I would venture it is pretty high, possibly in the tens of thousands of dollars, per capita.

          • avatar WM says:

            Sorry, delete “turkeys” from the comment above as they are/were mostly a problem of Western Great Lakes wolves rather then NRM, when in one year Wildlife Services noted wolves were responsible for killing something like 1,400 turkeys in MN, alone.

          • avatar Mike says:

            You are so full of shit it’s amazing.

        • avatar Mike says:

          ++The Hunters have all the rights to build their B & B, but Cathy should have the right to shoot a wolf on her property. Wolves can and do cause stress in cattle. ++

          No one should have the right to kill something for no reason.

        • avatar Mike says:

          I hope everyone takes note of Elk275’s and WM’s exchange here. It’s an eloquent example of how the wacky anti-wolf stuff starts and spreads.

          Take for example Elk275’s wild speculation:

          ++A lady friend and I were riding the other day, she on my horse and I on my mule. My horse has spent the last 6 months in the mountains with two other horses in wolf country. Several times on the ride we came upon hikers with large dogs in the distance. Jennifer is a much better rider than I am but when the horse saw the dogs it started to nervous and did not want to get near the dogs. As the dogs came nearer she had difficulties in controlling the horse. Several days later I wondered if those three horses in the mountains for 6 months did not have some contact with wolves++

          No proof or science of any kind. Just an emotional hunch that this must be the truth. This is also known as “magical thinking” or “woods magic”.

          WM, obviously susceptible to this spooky, UFO type talk latches onto this like a kid around a campfire listening to a ghost story, and responds:

          ++As for your nervous horse, there are instances of wolves running horses/cattle/sheep into fences, and I recall a couple of USFS horses being so scared they ran over cattle guards (normally avoided by all livestock) which resulted in broken legs and had to be put down. So, it might be expected your horse had survival instincts kicking in.

          I have often wondered on a PER CAPITA basis how much cost and property damages (dead commercial livestock, dogs, horses, llamas, turkeys, etc.) have been caused by individual wolves in the NRM expanding range(in addition to the adminstration and litigation costs involving the species generally, or the reintroduction and research studies of NRM non-essential experimental population).

          I would venture it is pretty high, possibly in the tens of thousands of dollars, per capita.++

          Did you see that? We went from non-existent wolves possibly spooking horses that Elk275 was on possibly six months ago in the wilderness to wolves running horses to their death and causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage.

          This is the kind of ridiculous exchange that spreads across these rural areas, and stupid people eat it up and pass it on.

          • avatar WM says:

            What’s wrong, Mike, having trouble with an honest dialog on a complicated and controversial topic?

            I am just posting truthful documented facts (usually on point, and with authority) that some wolf advocates just don’t want to hear, and asking questions for which the answers might not always be consistent with having more wolves in more places, and in this case affecting more people.

            This particular thread is very germane for what is discussed. A land use proposal and values of a particular land owner with apparently some history of supporting wolf advocacy, butting heads with an elected body (Commissioners/appointed planning commission) that has the possibility of changing economic conditions (livestock raising potentially at higher cost) for people who make their living and have lived in the valley for years.

            Not long ago (March, 2010), the town of John Day, OR was visited by members of the Aryan Nation wanting to relocate from Hayden Lake, ID. The community showed up and voiced their views, and they went away. the topic appeared on this forum, and I didn’t see anyone here coming to their rescue.

            Only difference here is that the outsider has already purchased land, made capital investments based on elected/staff official representations, and wants to make economic use of it, apparently consistent with the land use regulations in place.

            Hearings are opportunities for community members to be heard. The decision makers are the ones with the hard job, trying to accomodate local views and rendering decisions which do not run afoul of the law (property rights in this instance).

            And, I expect you are incorrect lumping me and Elk375 in the anti bucket. I just don’t want as many wolves as some here do. I am thinking about 1,000 maintained at that level in the NRM with expanding range, and problem wolves removed, is about the right number. Elk can speak for himself.

      • avatar WM says:

        ++All those alternatives may cost you money, but if you can’t afford the costs of raising livestock in prime wolf habitat, maybe you should get out of the business!++

        I never cease to be amazed by the ability of wolf advocates to spend the money of others, even when it involves a new risk of doing business not seen for a hundred years.

        My sense is that many have never had to make a payroll from increased labor costs, make investments in capital expenditures, or do anything that involves business operations or risk. So, it is easy to tell some else who does that it is no big deal.

        I also expect a fair number always get a regular paycheck and generous benefits from public coffers or maybe a NGO/non-profit. Self-righteous and sanctimonious are two terms that come to mind.

        • avatar Mal Adapted says:

          I’m always amazed at the refusal of extinction advocates to acknowledge that loss of biodiversity is a cost that livestock producers have successfully imposed on the rest of us, while they enjoy the private benefit of protection from predators.

          My sense is that the concept of externality is unknown to them.

      • avatar Cathy says:

        What is keeping me from doing all that you suggest? Common Sense.

  6. avatar good2neighbor says:

    I live half time in Wallowa county and have stayed at the Hunter’s existing B&B mutliple times. When Jersey implies Diana was “bullying” about taxes, it’s a curious view. The opposition side has opening threatened people with guns and violence at other meetings surrounding this wolf issue, anyone who does not agree with their viewpoint. I think we may have to consider who is really bullying whom.
    And really, the conditional use permit is not about allowing wolves to stay at the B&B is it? We’re talking about not wanting people of other value systems staying there. The Hunters can build a house there and fill it with whomever they want without a conditional use permit. So, this is an attempt to thrwart paying guests rather than any other guests that they can bring in to stay with them in their home (legally).

  7. avatar Elk275 says:

    Elk is real busy right now, it will be later.

  8. avatar Ralph Maughan says:

    I would like to remind folks of this editorial that appeared in the local paper about a month ago: “Wolves hold no true relevance in land use debate”. Wallowa County Chieftain. http://is.gd/XEyKtc This is no “liberal” paper by any means. Earlier we posted the editorial as a separate article.

    At any rate, it gives some background to the land in question but the real point is that the issue of the Hunter’s and wolves is no more relevant to their application than is their religion.

  9. avatar mikarooni says:

    This reminds of the time I was looking at property on the Henry’s Fork in Idaho. I was going to put an offer on one piece of land back in the woods south of Big Spring when the realtor started asking me what I thought of Yellowstone National Park and all of that “conservation” activity coming out of Bozeman. I told her I thought the Park was great and that the activity in Bozeman was tame in comparison to other areas. She called me the next day and told me that the property had suddenly been taken off the market. Shortly after, I went through a different realtor and actually made an offer, a full formal offer, on another piece of land at Upper Coffeepot. A couple of hours later, she called me and asked about my religion. I answered (I’m not Mormon); asked her why she was interested; and she gave me no clear answer. But, guess what? She called me the next day and told me that the property had suddenly been taken off the market. Wasn’t that a coincidence?

Calendar

December 2011
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: