Printed Letters: June 8, 2014
Constitution protects us from religious zealots
In response to Boyd Arnold: Our laws are based on the Constitution, not the Bible.
It is against the law to discriminate. Would it be acceptable for a Muslim business owner to refuse service to a woman with head coverings? Would it be OK for 12-year-olds to get married? That is acceptable in the Bible. Biblically, it was also acceptable for a man to have several wives or to kill his child for disobedience.
That is why we have the Constitution: to protect us from religious zealots. This is why religion does not run the government.
Reader says newspaper on the verge of striking out
Zero balls, two strikes.
Strike 1: The Daily Sentinel coverage of the final game of the Women’s Softball World Series — a mere three inches in the “In Brief” section.
Strike 2: The name of the July 3 run sponsored by The Daily Sentinel. The name, “The Wrong Side of the Tracks,” is extremely offensive to those who live there and to those of us who live on the right side.
Sage grouse habitat a concern in transmission line routing
We wonder if those who are familiar with the final stretch of the Little Snake, just before it joins the Yampa, are aware that it is the most likely course of the Energy Gateway South Transmission Project. It’s shorter than following state Highway 13, and it involves mostly BLM land.
Following is the comment we sent to the BLM:
We are an old retired couple, a heavy equipment operator for Rio Blanco County Road & Bridge and a nurse. We’ve lived in Rangely for 38 years.
We understand that the Little Snake choice in routing Gateway South will be much easier to accomplish. What disturbs us is this: We will be losing little, hopefully little, chunks of sage grouse habitat. Maybe it won’t make much difference, but maybe it will. If the sage grouse population gets down to the level that would precipitate endangered species listing, the resultant problems would be enormous for almost everyone. Why not use the Highway 13 route and make listing a little less likely? It may be a little harder now, but it will be way easier in the future. And we love to drive along the Little Snake the way it is now. It’s beautiful. And a trip a year ago to watch the sage grouse dance was an experience we will never forget.
JOHN and MICKEY ALLEN
Black Canyon suggests little economic benefit of a park
The major benefit of converting the Colorado National Monument to a national park seems to be based on economic benefits.
Question: Will converting the Colorado National Monument to a national park attract more visitors to the area as claimed?
Let’s go down the road 60 or so miles and look at what the 1999 conversion of the Black Canyon National Monument did for the attendance totals there.
The highest attendance years at the Black Canyon National Monument/Park were: 1991: 316,335; 1992: 337,209; and 1993: 319,322. In 1999, the year it became a national park, the attendance was down to 200,142.
During the 14 years since it became a national park, attendance has exceeded 200,000 in only one year, 2007. The latest year for which attendance figures are available for the park, 2013, it attracted 175,852.
Where is the proof that changing the name of the Colorado National Monument will attract more visitors to the area?
ARTHUR L. LUND
Little being done to solve climate issues in Grand Valley
Well, it’s officially summer and with summer, comes heat waves. In my 20 years of living here, I have noticed a new pattern: summer brings drought with little or no precipitation for six months, spring and fall bring heavy rains and floods, and winter brings an inversion layer which traps emissions in the valley and brings the temperature down to below zero while everywhere else it’s 30-40 degrees.
What are we doing to solve and/or deal with these problems? The answer? Nothing. It seems as if people would rather ignore the problem than do anything about it. People also ignore solutions and do things that exacerbate the problem. For instance: why is catching and storing rain illegal? Why are people chopping down shade trees without thinking that they might need that shade before long? Why are people still talking about expanding urban sprawl when vehicle emissions are already a problem? Seriously people, just why?