Her story embarrassed them into having to restrict a lot of the worst pesticides and the organic phosphates. There have even been wildlife die-offs, with bald eagles having been found dead, and still nobody did anything. What the policy now is that the agency has [to have] contaminants experts who review what is and isn’t compatible for wildlife, but as a concession to the agricultural interests, they are making most of those decisions within the basin. I’ve said, “Look, that’s how you got yourself in this problem in the first place.” It still works while we’re here to challenge them and say “Why this chemical when the experts say this is bad?” And so on and so on … By having the review within the basin, it allows the agricultural community to pound on the heads of the local decision makers. We’re saying this needs to be broadened so that the decisions aren’t made just locally. Those people [refuge managers] are under tremendous political pressure. When they go out to dinner, they walk in and see somebody staring at them and mad because they [the manager] made the right decision. While I appreciate that’s the role of various watchdog groups, I still believe the way the system is supposed to work is that watchdog groups shouldn’t have to make bureaucrats, who are drawing a salary, do [their job]. I also acknowledge the squeaking wheel gets the grease, so it’s my job to keep squeaking.
So bureaucracies respond to outside forces?
They do, and there’s a perception, especially when I talk to people in the media, that somehow I’m [part of] this incredibly well-funded environmental campaign.
That reminds me of the article you wrote in Wild Oregon about how [in responding to a rumor] Wendell Wood makes $100,000 a year (both laugh) .
Okay. I forgot … exactly (laughs again).
It gave the piece a lot of levity.
We’ve had fun from time to time. Sometimes it’s amazing what people come up and say they’ve heard. You just kind of say “Wow” Somebody tells it to somebody else and somebody else believes it.
[short break]
