Printed letters, September 24, 2013
Jim Spehar has truly outdone himself by writing, “Tragedy, it seems, creates some pretty imaginative conservatives. At least temporarily.” If that statement isn’t the height of arrogance, I’ll eat my hat.
Conservatives, it’s true, honor the flag, support the Second Amendment and always urge the government to adhere to the Constitution.
In regard to the recent terrible destruction in the many counties on the Front Range, the government will be here with financial and other help that all states and the conservatives support and expect. The “leave me alone” philosophies toward the left have to do with the invasion of our privacies and the taking-away of our basic rights.
Sure, the government will be here with help, but the Salvation Army, the Red Cross and the compassionate people of Colorado are already there with hands-on help — providing necessary food, clothing, money, comfort and help with the cleanup. Spehar seems to think that the government is the only help Colorado is getting and fails to acknowledge our self-help.
Perhaps Spehar has not purchased a property needing a mortgage or refinanced an existing mortgage recently. Every lender requires a flood-insurance premium if one is within 50 miles of a river or an area subject to flash flooding. We pay these premiums, and I am sure this disaster qualifies for flood-insurance payments.
The people of Colorado and neighboring states will be there for as long as needed, offering assistance and comfort to our friends who have been devastated by this disaster. At the forefront will be the conservatives Spehar so maligns.
Preferred alternative is best for Dominguez-Escalante NCA
I would like to speak to two points regarding the BLM’s travel management plan alternatives for the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area.
I’ve been a resident of the Western Slope for more than 10 years and have had the pleasure of visiting Dominguez-Escalante on at least three occasions. As a hiker, biker, trail-bike rider and more, I fully support a multiple-use travel management plan for this area. I believe all segments of our population need and deserve the opportunity to experience the valuable resources an NCA offers on a personal level, whatever they may be.
My point in writing, however, is that I’m more convinced than ever that a national conservation area needs to have quiet trails and locations that affirm the value and integrity of the concepts, “quiet” and “conservation.”
Anything motorized is inherently not quiet, and if we wish to pay more than just lip service to that value, then there ought to be a network of non-motorized trails to honor this important use. In my experience, motorized trail riders don’t mind the hiking public as much as the other way around.
I am pleased that the BLM’s preferred alternative largely accommodates and affirms this important value and use in the NCA.
My second point is that, while there seems to be general agreement on allowing both non-motorized and motorized use, there is a large amount of subjectivity as to how much or little of each of these should be accommodated in an area focused on “conservation,” when there are also other values to protect such as native animal and plant communities.
It makes sense that NCA planners would want to ensure the long-term health and viability of the area’s fauna and flora for us humans to enjoy. The appropriate and science-based use of seasonal closures would go a long way toward protecting these natural assets.
I believe the preferred alternative provides the most reasonable balance in protecting these resources.
REIN VAN WEST
Article on spotted bats spotlighted their value
Thank you for the spotted-bat article. It was so good and very educational. Maybe it will teach people that bats are good and eat a lot of insects and that they should be protected.
GOP wants to assist needy, and fund the military
I would like to respond to the editorial on Sept 22. Full disclosure, I am a hard-core Republican.
I do not understand the content. Don’t we as conservatives have the right to object to the liberal views that everyone deserves to be covered by the Obamacare plan that is going to bankrupt the country, with only a few of us to pay for the coverage?
There is not one Republican who does not want to support our military and pay for whatever services they require. In fact, it is a travesty how they have to fight for the services they deserve.
I think the Republicans are tired of being blamed for not caring for the needy. We are more than willing to give a helping hand. We are not interested in helping those to don’t want to help themselves.
So what was the point in the editorial on Sunday?