Letters: Perhaps cattle, farm operations should move

The article on the Feb. 29 about paying ranchers whose cattle are eaten by wolves was an eye-opener. That’s a lot of money to keep a private enterprise afloat, one that I think is not suitable for this location…because of the wolves!

Cattle should be raised where there are no wolves, not in the mountainous West. Same thing with growing alfalfa in the desert by consuming the Deschutes River. Alfalfa should be grown where there’s enough rain for it to grow right in pastures where cattle graze.

Our public dollars are hard-earned, and should be spent for health, safety, education, transportation, and public enjoyments instead of subsidizing businesses that can’t make it on their own.

— Jane Leeson, Bend

Marine Reserves Program deserves state funding

Earlier this month, Oregon beach-goers were greeted to a stunning and odorous surprise — Earth’s second largest animal washed on their shore.

The creature was a deceased fin whale whose cause of death is still being investigated. What’s clear, though, is that Oregon’s ocean contains incredible wonders and wildlife. It also begs the question, is there more we can do to protect our wildlife and coastal ecosystems?

During this year’s short legislative session, a proposed bill, HB4132, seeks to reinvest Oregon in our most successful ocean conservation initiative — the Marine Reserves Program.

Right now, our five reserves and associated areas encompasses roughly 9% of state waters and contain kelp forests, seals, whales, crabs and countless seabirds.

If passed, HB4132 would improve the program by increasing the level of community engagement and education Oregonians have with their ocean, something this washed up whale provides a glimpse of. Our state legislators should work to swiftly pass HB4132 so that animals, like fin whales, are able to live safely off our coasts.

— Ian Giancarlo, Portland

Expedited case reviews show bias of Supreme Court

At a time when the U.S. Supreme Court’s national approval rating lies at one percentage above its all-time low, it has decided to bring additional scrutiny on itself by accepting review of Donald Trump’s argument for absolute immunity from prosecution.

Adding to the Court’s inexplicable decision to hear the case is its supposed “expedited” argument schedule, which allows Trump’s attorneys eight weeks before it must reiterate its absurd theory that he should never be held liable for his actions.

This unexplained delay is unusual. In the 2000 decision of Bush v. Gore, the Court took about 60 days from the date Bush requested review to issue its decision (one day after hearing argument). And in the more recent case of Trump v. Anderson (Colorado’s decision to remove Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment), the Court heard arguments in less than five weeks.

By contrast, by the time the Court hears arguments in the present immunity case, it will have been 145 days since Special Prosecutor Jack Smith first requested that the Court take expedited review. This nearly five-month delay will make it virtually impossible for the criminal cases pending against Trump to be tried to completion, if they are tried at all.

Under these circumstances, it is difficult not to wonder whether the Court’s majority has the country’s interests at heart, or only those of Trump himself. The defense’s arguments in the immunity case have been thoroughly and definitively dealt with and rejected by both a federal district judge and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

The reasons for that are clear. This Court’s willingness to appease Trump’s delay tactics and to potentially thwart all attempts at holding him accountable add yet more fuel to the Court’s sagging credibility.

— Rob Brazeau, Bend

Council commended for letter regarding Gaza violence

I am writing to respond to the Guest Column published on Feb. 22, discussing the Bend City Council call for the end of violence in Gaza. Like the writer of this column, David Coutin, I am a Jewish resident of Bend who attended the same council meeting. Unlike Mr. Coutin, I fully support this letter and commend the council for taking this small but brave action.

I want to make this unequivocally clear: there is nothing antisemitic about criticizing the actions of the Israeli government, which do not reflect Jewish values. When any government slaughters civilians in their thousands, taking a stand is the only morally upstanding thing to do.

I have dear friends and family in Israel. I do not want them to live under a constant threat, and I too was horrified by the Oct. 7 attacks. But I do not think my people’s safety should come at the expense of Palestinians’ access to basic human rights.

Israel’s attack on Gaza since Oct. 7 has killed 30,035; injured 70,456; and displaced 75% of Palestinians. These numbers come from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which requires all data to be verified by at least two independent and reliable sources.

This devastation must end. And the council’s letter gives us an opportunity to unite in a shared hope for peace.

— Pola Cohen, Bend

Do you have a point you’d like to make or an issue you feel strongly about? Submit a letter to the editor.