Scott Richardson wrote
I'm not able to provide population data for these subspecies, but they are
in trouble (and in one case, probably already gone gone gone). Pocket
gophers have (or had) their place in the Puget Sound lowlands for a long
while and deserve to be protected. Too bad the tunnels constructed on one
piece of property didn't work, but I believe it was worth the try.
Consider the case of a certain Threatened owl, one that probably played
a pivotal role in the necessity of Referendum 48. Should a landowner
maintain habitat for this subspecies, if it lives on his or her property?


I think theres a lot of difference between the Spotted Owl and the Pocket
Gopher. But thats a whole other subject. You say that the tunnels didnt
work. I cant believe that the tunnels had any chance of working. I would
certainly like to hear from anybody who would know if there is any precedent
for Pocket Gophers using tunnels! The farmer spends 6000.00 of his own
money, the damn republicans get great publicity and I would bet it would be
hard to find too many people who would say that the gophers would use
tunnels. I saw the tunnels and they look pretty absurd. I dont think we can
afford lose-lose situations. You say it was worth a try. But it cost the
farmer $6000. I dont consider that worth a try. Its hard enough being a
farmer without building stuff at his expense that isnt going to work.
I just don't see building tunnels as qualifying as "maintaining habitat".


Jim Rosso
Issaquah
206-392-8440