Printed Letters: May 1, 2014

Restrictions on state lands exceed those of the feds
There has been much talk lately of the states taking over management of our vast currently federally managed lands. Whether in support of the trespassing Cliven Bundy in Nevada or to plump up state coffers from resource sale and lease, a lot of folks are in knee-jerk support of such an idea. Perhaps people should stop and think before plunging in.

The lands the state currently manages are operated under far more restrictions than most federally managed lands. State Land Board lands are generally accessible only to the leasee and managed as his own (Bundy would like this) with very limited public access on a few parcels during hunting seasons.

State parks require payment of an entry fee with onerous regulations restricting public use. State Wildlife Areas also require the payment of a fee (Habitat Stamp) and are posted with a detailed list of regulations and prohibited activities, including camping. While these areas have their place in the public land management scheme, few public land users would want the vast tracts of currently federally managed land operated this way.

Our federal land management agencies do a good job of managing these expansive and endlessly varied tracts. They consider multiple uses from resource extraction to recreation in a balanced manner that considers impacts of any resource use on all resources. Yes, the federal government can get heavy-handed, and we all will find disagreement with their decisions from time to time, but generally they make decisions based on resource management objectives.

We all receive financial, aesthetic and recreational benefit from the current management and should use caution when calling for change — we may get what we ask for.

Grand Junction

National Park Service should continue to oversee monument
The reason why we have a National Park Service is to manage our national parks in the national interest. But Rep. Scott Tipton wants to see a Colorado national park that is managed from the “bottom up” with an advisory board packed with local cronies and economic interest groups.

This was never the intent of the Organic Act of 1916, which created the National Park Service, and it will tie the hands of any reasonable park superintendent. If we think we have a world-class attraction that will attract outsiders to the Grand Valley, then we should be providing world-class management.

We don’t need representatives from the oil and gas industry or the chambers of commerce telling NPS personnel how to do their jobs.

If Tipton is such a proponent of local “bottoms up” management, perhaps he should consider making Colorado National Monument into a city or county park. Then all local residents with their own personal agendas can have their fingers in the pie.

Grand Junction

Pot fests on Easter Sunday prompt health-care questions
Recent 4/20 celebrations of pot on Easter Sunday made me think of the perspective of things here in the old hometown.

Colorado used to be quite conservative, but as of late the communist takeover of the state houses and the governor’s office have directed us in a whole new direction — one I’m not comfortable with. President Obama has chosen to ram Obamacare down our throats, and the state houses and liberals have seen fit to legalize recreational pot?

So, with all the hazards of smoking we have been hearing about for over 30 years, the cost that adds to health care, even under Obamacare, and the long-term health concerns, how are we going to deal with the whole new set of circumstances that legalized pot has brought us? Out-of-state party hounds flying in on Easter to get high, food products with pot in them, drug testing for jobs and DUI offenses, personal safety on job sites — the list goes on and on.

The elected officials who profess to be “looking out for our welfare”  because apparently we are too stupid to do it for ourselves seem to be more guided by political motivation than actual known outcomes of use of the drug. I think they were just looking for something else to tax, and if we smoke enough of it, we probably just won’t care. Never fear; Choom is on the job.

Grand Junction


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

Apparently, Richard Bright has been consuming too many marijuana-laced brownies at Starbucks.

Paranoia is a common side-effect of THC, so anyone who claims that “communists” have taken over Colorado’ “statehouses and the governor’s office” cannot be taken seriously.

Contrary to his on-line rants, Bright’s letter expresses appropriate respect for President Obama.  However, to baldly assert that “ObamaCare” was “rammed down our throats” conveniently ignores the decades of preceding policy debates, the Heritage Foundation’s 1989 plan (“Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans”) for a “conservative” market-driven approach (with an “individual mandate”, competitive insurance exchanges, and premium subsidies), the successful implementation of “RomneyCare” in 2006 in Massachusetts, its endorsement by Club 20 and Colorado’s Blue Ribbon Commission in 2008, President Obama’s embrace (announced in Grand Junction on August 15, 2009) of that approach (rather than the “public option” preferred by “communists”), the legislative process that enacted it, and the Supreme Court decision that ruled it constitutional.

Bright’s disdain for that “conservative”, non-communist approach is obviously not shared by millions of Americans – who fear financially devastating medical expenses more than a communist takeover.  Thus, as of April 30, 2014, at least 7.5 million have obtained qualifying coverage on state and federal exchanges, at least 5 million through expansion of Medicaid/CHIP eligibility, some 1.5 million “under26ers” remain covered on parents’ policies, and 8+ million have obtained qualifying coverage directly from insurers or through brokers.  As a result, the number of uninsureds has already fallen by 10 million.

Bright laments that “conservativism” is on the decline in Colorado—because “birds of a feather flock together”.  Coloradans are not “too stupid” to discern that Bright and his ilk align with the likes of Cliven Bundy, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin, and clearly prefer the moral clarity of Pope Francis – pot or no pot.

Again, anyone with a contrary opinion is subjected to abuse and unfounded ridicule by the overly verbose Mr. Hugenberg. Mr. Bright has a right to say whatever he feels, it is not up to you Mr. Hugenberg to accuse him of the very thing is opposing, but then that is the “progressive” way isn’t it. You may spin it any way you would like, but obamacare was shoved down our throats,our objections unheard, our desires ignored. Just because your party won a national election, gives it no right to ignore the Nations wants and needs. All you have to do is look at the mess we are in today with obamacare to understand it was and is a failure.


Thanks for your input.

As you might know, it takes more verbosity to prove a falsehood than to tell the truth—particularly when so much misinformation taints the discussion.

I don’t question the Bright’s right to express their opinions—but I do question their right to incessantly insult President Obama without expecting blow-back in kind.

The Bright’s have a curious tandem approach to policy debates—Virginia casts fact-free aspersions on President Obama, then—when she is challenged—her husband rushes to her defense with equally fact-free retorts and threats of “punitive action”.

You can spin it anyway you like, but the Affordable Care Act was a “conservative” idea that President Obama embraced in a fruitless effort to gain bipartisan support for fixing a “broken health care system”.

Contrary to your woefully misguided version of democratic elections, Democrats won the election and therefore had both a mandate and a moral obligation to address “the Nations wants and needs”—which it attempted to do.

All you have to do is look at the causes of “the mess we are in today” with regard to “ReaganCare” and the economy to understand that Republican obstructionism, “TeaPublican” extremism, and partisan political opportunism account for that mess.

Republicans tried to sabotage “ReaganCare”, but failed.  The more successful that program becomes, the more desperate is their rhetoric and the more obnoxious is their refusal to embrace and improve it.

The fact that you still believe that “it was and is a failure” marks you as just another bubble-head who refuses to face facts (and therefore fails to cite any).

Of course, you too are entitled to your uninformed opinion—so keep sharing it.

WOW!!! Quite a spin Mr. Hugenberg, I give you credit for taking a top and putting a twist like your tales do. My head is now trying to catch up with my hat! My stomach is as upset now as it was when we all were forced to participate in a program dictated to us by a lousy President.  NICE SPIN BILL! Nice spin.

Thanks for the compliment, Tim.

I’m sure President Obama can live with “lousy”.

However, your stomach upset is a symptom of cognitive dissonance, so you may want to enroll in “ReaganCare” just in case.

I am stunned, two sentences for Mr. Hugenberg? What brings about such brevity? What happened to the 1,000 word retorts? I’m positive he can live with “lousy”, we must do so.

BY the way, have you been keeping up with the Benghazi emails the prez is now trying to spin, hurry Bill, he needs YOUR help!

In Mr. Hugenburg’s case Brevity is the soul of a half wit full of vitriol hate for anybody disagreeing with him. Nice of you to attack only me instead of my wife this time.  I have some of your friends listed as well, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barrack Hussein Obama, Carl Marx, Joseph Stalin, all oppose debate that disagrees with their narrow depiction of what’s right.
“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” Ecclesiastes 10:2
Mr. Bright, see ya Starbucks there buddy;-)


Benghazi is old news.  Latest revelations prove nothing—other than bureaucratic CYAing.  I sure Darrel Issa will manage to make another mountain of that mole hill.

Meanwhile, recent FOIA requests revealed that the IRS targeted more “progressive” groups than “conservative” ones.  What do you think about political action groups masquerading as
social welfare organizations to obtain tax exempt status and conceal the identity of their donors?


“Debate” implies some reliance on facts—but neither you nor your wife bother with any of that.

Rather, she spouts b.s. and you respond with threats of “punitive action” and irrelevant Bible quotes.  What a “good Christian” combination.  Have a double shot of expresso!

The following was received from the Daily Sentinel as “someone replied to your earlier comment”. As I went to look at who the writer was, I found it had either been deleted or the writer didn’t have permission from the Sentinel to post it. Either way, it deserves to be posted, I still don’t know who the writer is however.

The title of the entry is:
Printed Letters: May 1, 2014

You can see the comment at the following URL:

Although I don’t live in Grand Junction anymore, I still keep up with the
news through this newspaper. I got to tell you I don’t why Mr. Hugenberg
feels the need to opine on pretty much everything in the letters to the
editors. The Sentinel ought to give you your own column so you can write
your lengthy opinions and then we can choose to either read it or not. I’d
like to know if you are kin to Obama that you feel the need to always drink the Kool-Aid for him? I am sickened by your comment “Benghazi is old news.” Really? REALLY???? I bet you wouldn’t think that if one of those 4 Americans was your son or your son-in-law. What Obama and Hillary did in ignoring that fiasco is despicable and utterly an impeachable offense. It is not a conspiracy theory and Mr. Issa does not make mountains out of molehills. The families of these men and the American people deserve to know the truth about what happened in Benghazi and Obama’s failure to even be present much less participate in any decision making. Boy, that’s a true leader isn’t it?? It’s because of people like you who put him in office that our country is in the state it is, and I for one do not want to live in a country being run by a dictator and socialist. If you do, then perhaps you
should go to the likes of Russia or China. You might find those places right up your alley. Course if you lived there, you would in no way be able to write paragraph after paragraph of comments. We all have the right to speak our mind and do not need a big blow hard always giving your opinion as to how you think we’re wrong. Use a little restraint for a while and maybe you’ll learn something.

Dear Buffaloed Bill do you ever shut up? you rattle on like an empty beer can with a couple pebbles in it along a dirt road. Few people travel there and seldom pay attention to the trash along side the road. Being a communist such are you are disagreeing with you is moot, you have your views and no one else can have any other than yours. Thanks ole Buddy for the chuckles. This is Mr. Bright, the wife has the subscription, you may try to impugn her dignity and mine but you only show your ass and not your class.
Keep smiling down at Starbucks while popping those brownies
Mr. Bright

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy