Ravens Lead Rescuers To Missing Woman

In Critical Condition After Being Lost For Nearly Two Weeks In Oregon Mountains

(AP)  Circling ravens and two men who decided not to rest on their day off have led to the discovery of a 76-year-old woman who had been missing for almost two weeks in the Wallowa Mountains in northeast Oregon.

Baker County sheriff's Deputy Travis Ash told The Oregonian newspaper that he and Oregon State Police Trooper Chris Hawkins went looking for Doris Anderson on their day off. They left a Forest Service road and went down a steep, brushy canyon because Ash felt it had not been searched well enough before.

"What alerted us was birds; we heard ravens," Ash told the newspaper.

Ash said they also heard the Anderson talking to herself.

"It sounded real faint, like a child," he said.

That was at 2:08 p.m. Thursday.

According to Ash, Anderson said: "Oh, my God, I'm glad to see you."

Ash rushed to the road to radio for help while Hawkins stayed with Anderson, who has an injured hip and was dehydrated.

A Forest Service paramedic team arrived and rappelled down into the canyon to treat Anderson. The woman from Sandy was then flown to a Baker City hospital, where she is in critical, but stable condition.

Police say Anderson disappeared on Aug. 24th while on a bow hunting trip in the Eagle Creek area with her 74-year-old husband, Harold.

Hope had been fading for Anderson's survival chances, as she was lightly dressed in an area where temperatures dipped into the 30s over the past two weeks. About 70 volunteers a day combed the Wallowa Mountain of Eastern Oregon until the search was scaled back in late August.

The Andersons had driven into the rugged mountains and canyons in a Chevy Tahoe pulling a utility trailer. The vehicle got stuck, and Harold Anderson broke his wrist while unloading an all-terrain vehicle from the trailer.

The couple tried to walk to a U.S. Forest Service road for help but became exhausted. Harold Anderson said his wife headed back for the vehicle. A hunting party later found a disoriented Harold Anderson, but there was no sign of his wife.

A Baker County deputy and an Oregon State Police trooper found his wife around 2 p.m. Thursday in an area that had already been searched.

Iris Anderson, 71, who is married to Harold's brother, Melvin, credits Ora Doris Anderson's survival to prayer and Anderson's healthy lifestyle.

"How she managed to live for two weeks at the bottom of canyon, I don't know," Anderson said.

[kaiyo4u]

By the way, where my property is located, I could truly live off the land....

[kaiyo4u]

Newster1;

I probably wouldn''t use the logs they did for structure, maybe for ambiance. I studied architecture years ago and am an electrician. Back in school again, changing careers. So it will be awhile before I get to that point. It will be interesting and looking at the energy alternatives, I think I can sell power back to the grid (if power gets to my property). I have a parcel of high desert with water at it''s base.
The only thing I will need will be the electrical for the usual stuff. I''ve been looking at different designs for years and this one does appeal to me. Too many of the earth friendly designs didn''t blend well with their environment (asthetically).

[nothappyatall]

kaiyo4u,

That''s an interesting house, though it''s in Wales (assuming you are in the USA) there are likely to be various code and building permit issues as well as INSURANCE to contend with in building such a structure for habitation.

You may not get a permit for certain designs, the insurance company may refuse to give you a policy and so on, but otherwise if you can do it then go for it.

[kaiyo4u]

Some of the last reports I have read indicated we have a negative population growth counting only births in this country. Then we have the immigration issue in this country. Which is among the friendliest of immigrations laws in the world. The immigration was stepped up to keep the current population expanding.
Most people I know, only had two kids. There were a few that had three or more, but they were the minority.
Some reports have said that having lots of kids is now the new status symbol. Are some of our immigrants trying to keep the status symbol?
I understand you fear of Soylent Green and Logan''s Run, I do not wish to live in a society such as those.
How do we implement population controls in a country that is "free".
I''m actually living in an apartment now, but when it comes time to build, it will be an earth friendly house. I even have the site in my favorites for reference...

http://www.simondale.net/house/index.htm

Even though it is hobbitish, it still has charm...

[nothappyatall]

Good kaiyo4u, correct, and as you can see from those numbers, the population impact is the problem, and you can clearly see how rapidly it''s grown and WHY we have the problems we do.
My house is 1100 sq ft.

"Until then, we are going to keep destroying our resources at an alarming rate. "

It absolutely can''t continue as it has, the system will break down at some point, that is 100% certain. The freewheeling days of having 8-10 kids per couple are OVER, even China is limiting couples to ONE now but it''s too little too late.
Soylent Green and Logan''s Run are coming, and this won''t be science fiction like the movie versions were.

[kaiyo4u]

Posted by newster1 at 01:34 PM : Sep 08, 2007

Clearly... I completely understand. I used to have a "big" house. Two stories and about 2000 sq. ft. I am much more comfortable in something smaller. The environmental footprint is smaller and it takes less resources to manage.
When the population gets tired of keeping up with the Joneses and realizes it''s ok to live within your means, then we''ll have progress...
Until then, we are going to keep destroying our resources at an alarming rate.

[nothappyatall]

1790 Census 3,894,000

As you can see, the USA had under 4 million people NATION-WIDE in 1790 (excluding natives)
4 million people is nothing on a land this size, 4 million people can waste, burn, overuse, destroy and their impact on a country this size is like a dot on an entire sheet of newspaper- the USA has 3.7 million square MILES of land- one square mile per person back in 1790. Now with over 300 million people it''s almost a hundred people in that same square mile. Instead of ONE house in that square mile it''s 100, instead of one horse and buggy it''s 100 cars.
Instead of one cord of firewood cut to heat the one little cabin it''s the equiv of 100 cords plus a lot more because homes today are far larger- 2500 sq feet on average. (around 1900 it was less than 900)
Getting the picture?

[kaiyo4u]

It is unfortunate that greed is what drives our system. Modern civilization has lost it''s roots and it is people like you and me who will be the ones to remind them of what they have lost and hopefully help to bring about that which is needed. I am all for balance and do not like to see the pendulum swing very far in either direction.

[nothappyatall]

no census at that time it would be unlikely that your figures would be accurate.
Posted by kaiyo4u

There have been census counts of US citizens since 1790, not natives but this can give SOME idea of the overall population of the nation and its growth

US Population Timeline

Jamestown 1600-1619 est. 210
Pilgrims land at Plymouth Rock in 1620
1620-1629 est. 2499
1640-1649 est. 27,947
1650-1659 est. 51,700
1660-1669 est. 84,800
1670-1679 est. 114,500
1680-1689 est. 155,600
1690-1699 est. 213,500
1700-1709 est. 275,000
1710-1719 est. 357,500
1720-1729 est. 474,388
1730-1739 est. 654,950
1740-1749 est. 889,000
1750-1759 est. 1,207,000
1760-1769 est. 1,610,000
1770-1779 est. 2,205,000
1780-1789 est. 2,781,000
1790 Census 3,894,000
1800 Census 5,309,000
1810 Census 7,239,000
1820 Census 9,638,453
1830 Census 12,866,000
1840 Census 17,069,453
1850 Census 23,191,867
1860 Census 31,443,321
1880 Census 50,156,000
1890 Census 62,948,000
1900 Census 75,995,000
1980 Census 226 Million
1990 Census: 248 Million
members.aol.com/ntgen/hrtg/census.html

Tribal Indians werent included in any early federal censuses. When plans for the first census were made in 1787, they specifically excluded "Indians not taxed" There was no reference to Indians in any census until l860 those few who were counted before that were probably numbered among "free colored" and it wasnt until 1890, that an attempt was made to include all Indians in it.

[kaiyo4u]

Newster1, I agree with you on a lot of our "debate". The old growth forests of today are second growths. That I know for sure from research. About the hardwoods, I''m not sure as I haven''t researched it. I lived east of Portland for many years and the Northern Cascades were my stomping grounds. I would think the hardwoods grew better in the valley than they did in the mountains just because of the elevations. Most oaks that I had seen there were on windswept ridges, gnarly and stunted by the extreme environment they were living in. While the oaks in the valley grew nicely.

[nothappyatall]

I''ll take your word for it about natives burning, but again they were FEW IN NUMBERS and widely spread out across the then VAST wilderness, 20,000 people are insignificant in a land this big no matter what they do to it- it''s a dot on a newspaper page by comparison. 300 MILLION is a whole other story!
I remember the sky choked with acrid smoke every summer from grass field burning- supposedly to burn the straw debris and ''sanitise'' the fields of insects we were told, then the straw became a viable commercial product and well suddenly the fields didn''t need ''sanitizing'' of insects anymore, AMAZING!
It was the grass-seed growers cheap way to get rid of their garbage while claiming it was to eliminate insect pests that would harm the grass seed production.

[nothappyatall]

"Select cutting is the only way to go. We now know that the root systems of Douglas Firs and Hemlocks
Posted by kaiyo4u"

That''s another problem, we clear cut and then plant DOUGLAS FIR, we are changing the entire makeup of the forest by replanting COMMERCIAL species, we replace oak, cherry, walnut, birch, beech, pines, hemlock etc with Douglas Fir which is used for PLYWOOD as well as lumber. The hardwoods are not replanted because these are not commercially valuable on a large scale and hardwood take forever to grow to size.

I used to live in Oregon, right near the mill in Roseburg, I''d see truck after truck of logs 4 feet in diameter passing by, that size tree is quickly wiped out. I''d also see trees that couldn''t have been more than 6" in diameter- you couldn''t get two 2x4''s out of that, so all they will do is grind it up for pulp.

" bowed to the environmentalists about staying out of the forest. Before that, forest fires were kept to a minimum because they were actively doing controlled burns,"

By then it was TOO LATE, 2 feet of debris is far too much to "control burn" it''s like trying to control burn a tanker full of spilled gasoline on the freeway.
You also have the air pollution from burning all that at once v/s naturally over 100 years.

[kaiyo4u]

I can guarantee their numbers were insignificant in the vast area of the USA, there were vast areas that hadn''''t even been explored yet that were just wild dense old growth forests. All of the indians nation-wide could probably have easily fit into an area the size of Manhattan island- tens of thousands of people

Posted by newster1 at 12:28 PM : Sep 08, 2007

Do you have any resources you would like to cite? Since there was no census at that time it would be unlikely that your figures would be accurate.
Could you please explain how they then knew how to traverse and hunt those areas?

[kaiyo4u]

What IS unnatural is near extincting wolves and other preditors to ''''protect'''' deer and cattle, so they can expand exponentially and BECOME overpopulated in the first place!
Posted by newster1 at 12:52 PM : Sep 08, 2007

I agree, I am all for bringing this land back to it''s natural balance. But man has screwed it up and man will have to help in promoting it''s balance.
I would love to see the day where the wolf, elk, and grizzly roam in their regained populations and ranges.
I have only seen one wolf in the forest in my many years of "exploring" the forest.
Too many ranchers are crying and they are only abusing the Federal Lands.

[nothappyatall]

" am not a hunter but have seen animals starving due to over population. IMO that is much worse than a quick shot to a vital organ.
Posted by cistesmom "

First, the over population again is MAN''S *** up the system, we destroyed wolves because of cattle ranchers who were too dam lazy and wanted to go cheap- feeding their stock on PUBLIC landsfree of fences and any protection, the result was the Feds mass slaughter system indescriminently using poisons and traps killing hundreds of non-target species in the process.

Death and starvation in the wild are NATURAL, few animals just die of old age in the wild, accident, disease or preditors got most of them- survival of the FITTEST, the FITTEST lived longer and these are the ones the TROPHY hunters go after, not the weaker sick ones.

What IS unnatural is near extincting wolves and other preditors to ''protect'' deer and cattle, so they can expand exponentially and BECOME overpopulated in the first place!

[kaiyo4u]

Logging companies do not clean their messes well enough after logging. Clear-cutting is the most insidious form of logging. But until we start using wood for building only, we will have that practice.
Ever slip on a log buried under the vegetation in a clear cut? It%u2019s not pretty, especially if you%u2019re on a slope.
Select cutting is the only way to go. We now know that the root systems of Douglas Firs and Hemlocks intertwine and provide support for the whole stand.

[kaiyo4u]

Posted by newster1 at 12:21 PM : Sep 08, 2007

I do understand, I have walked through the forest and dug down through the duff, in some places it was two feet thick before hitting mineral earth.
I agree with you in part. We thought it would be a good practice to extinguish as many fires as soon as possible. Today we know better.
But I happen to have known the man in charge of the region we are speaking of. He admitted that the Forest Service bowed to the environmentalists about staying out of the forest. Before that, forest fires were kept to a minimum because they were actively doing controlled burns, clearing deadfall, and promoting the health of the forest. After years of the environmentalist policy (by that I mean no human interference) being enforced, we had the million acre burn.
You are also leaving out something I had said earlier, this land was managed thousands of years before the Euro%u2019s arrived here. Well documented in diaries of the early settlers showed that Native Americans were indeed burning.
Another region is Lost Lake in Northern Oregon. The Native Americans were doing controlled burns around that lake and it was scenic (I have seen the photos) before the Forest Service got involved. Now it has to be constantly mowed and man has to spend many hours keeping it scenic throughout the summer.
Cont..

[nothappyatall]

"you stand every chance of getting a brain wasting disease as any hunter."

I DONT EAT MEAT, people do not need to eat meat it''s a luxury/delicacy, cattle production is also one of the THE most wastefull foods there is- it takes 9 times as much grain and feed to make one pound of meat, so 8 pounds of food grade grain, corn etc are WASTED feeding cattle to provide ONE pound of beef.
There are chemicals everywhere, in the air, acid rain, they spray forests for various beetles and pests, fire retardents when there are fires etc, there is NO place on this planet free of it, they even find garbage- plastics etc down at the South pole that had floated and blown there over years.

"That was then this is now, Ill bet youll be first in line when a major catastrophe occurs (you know, volcanic activity, earthquakes, storms and the supply line shuts down) and the only source of meat is in the forest."

oh right, localized disasters do not affect that supply for long and in such a disaster to prevent looting they can declare martial law or prohibition on carrying guns and a curfew. In such a disaster it''s not likely you will be able to venture into your local woods and start shooting deer- they will have dispursed to other areas AWAY from the damaged area.
Besides, dry food store for years- grain, rice, dehydrated foods, nuts, canned food etc all store well
With meat you need refrigeration and cooking to high temps to kill the PARASITES and deadly bacteria

[nothappyatall]

NOW we have a situation where we have a foot and several feet thick layers of dead flammable debris from decades of FAILED forest ''management'', if we do a controlled burn now or let it go, its an UN natural amount of debris and gets out of hand into a wall of flame 50-75 feet high and more burning everything in it''s path in a firestorm.

We also have homes built in areas they shouldnt- on hillsides in dense forests.
NOW what needs to be done is all of that dead material needs to be REMOVED, burning it where it is probably is too dangerous.

Old growth forests survived long before we came along and ''managed'' it.
Native Americans? ok, let''s assume they DID burn brush, HOW MANY OF THE TRIBES WERE THERE back before the pilgrims settled here? 50? 100?
I can guarantee their numbers were insignificant in the vast area of the USA, there were vast areas that hadn''t even been explored yet that were just wild dense old growth forests. All of the indians nation-wide could probably have easily fit into an area the size of Manhattan island- tens of thousands of people.
NOW we have over 300 MILLION people with no end in sight and have totally wrecked the eco-system with clear cutting, lumber, slash burning, carving up hillsides for homes, malls, condos etc.

[nothappyatall]

"The million acre burn (caused by lightning) in Southern Oregon was a result of bowing to the enviro-whackos. The native Americans did controlled burns every year and it is documented by the early settlers in the west."

You dont get it so Ill explain how it works; before man put out these forest fires the forest floor was relatively CLEAN, why? because periodically lightning started fires that burned the dead trees and small amount of debris. BIG old trees stood becuase the small fires at the base did little damage to them.
Along comes man, putting out every fire right away but ALSO not removing the debris- dead leaves, needles, trees etc, so it became FEET THICK on the forest floor in places just piling up because it wasn''t being removed by natural forest fires.

Along comes a big storm with a lot of lightning strikes and winds, along with drought and low humidity, now all that debris goes up in roaring flames like a sheet of newspaper placed flat in the fireplace- and it burns EVERYTHING to a cinder, including the big trees whose crowns were safely high enough to survive the NATURAL small floor fires.