Printed Letters: Aug. 20, 2014
Wilderness can exist with recreational use
As a former federal land manager, I really appreciated the recent articles on the 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act.
In the late 90s, Mesa County began to see the results of the Clinton administration’s efforts at drawing attention to the remarkable natural and cultural resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
The creation of the National Landscape Conservation System by then Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt led to the establishment of McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area (formerly Colorado Canyons) which shows how true wilderness can be integrated into a multiple use management concept for public lands.
McInnis Canyons has 75,000 acres of wilderness where grazing, hunting, and camping are still viable activities, while at the same time the remaining 50,000 acres are readily available for mountain biking, ATV use, and other recreational activities.
This same management approach has been successfully applied to the Gunnison Gorge NCA and to the more-recent Dominguez-Escalante Canyon NCA. It proves that when community groups work together and are invested in their natural resources, wilderness can exist side-by-side with a full spectrum of recreational use. This far-sighted strategy has brought more tourist dollars into the area and has given all of us a broader range of choice in how we experience our great natural resources.
Paramount to all of this is the fact that core wilderness areas will remain virtually untrammeled and unchanged so that future generations will still be able to get a glimpse of a primal western Colorado and the values that drew many of us here in the first place.
Wagner made bad conclusions about Cash for Clunkers
Inspired by Fox’s (News) resurrection of its perceived failure of the “Cash for Clunkers” program (which distributed more than 700,000 vouchers to purchase new vehicles), Rick Wagner has based his conclusions without considering the facts.
When stating that $3,000 good used cars, like the ‘96 Civic, were destroyed and became scarce on used car lots due to this program, his story ceases to be credible.
That car did not qualify for the program because it got 23 miles per gallon. Only vehicles with 18 mpg or less which had a current national trade-in value of $4,500 or less were eligible trade-ins. The program covered far more light trucks (66 percent) than cars (16 percent).
I theorize that, considering the devastated economy at that time, people were holding onto their Hondas and Toyotas because they were fuel efficient, ran great, and they had no money to purchase a new car.
As we searched for a new light truck, dealers in Grand Junction informed us that a higher percentage of USA made parts were in Toyota and Nissan trucks than Ford and GM models.
Face facts. Find solutions.
JEFF AND JO LYNN PHILLIPS
City should ensure Charter meets its own standard
The city has a franchise agreement with the sole cable service in the valley. Why? We can’t watch television without seeing ads about how great Charter, “our” cable service is. Shouldn’t somebody in the city administration be responsible for seeing to it that Charter measures up to the image they are trying to develop in their TV ads? Charter is, after all, a public utility — is it not? — being given a monopoly franchise to “serve” the public.
Try to complain about all the outages, slowdowns, ignoring of holders of Bresnan e-mail addresses and general screwups inflicted on us on the help phone number they give.
Good luck waiting for your turn to navigate through all the recorded instructions on how to reach a solution to your problem, not to mention a complete lack of human contact.
Best of all, that help phone number is someplace on their website. When you have an outage, that number does you a lot of good if you can’t access it. If you happen to have written the number down somewhere and tried to call and finally reach a robotic destination for help, you are instructed to go to the website for online assistance. This doesn’t work when your problem is that the connection is dead.
What have we had in the last number of years — three or four companies in succession with a monopoly franchise to “serve” us? How did they qualify for their monopoly? Why is the city even involved if they seem to take the position that they are not responsible for the quality, or lack of same, of the service of this de facto public utility?
Why can’t the large Charter organization act like a normal progressive for-profit business? It’s monopoly in action. What is a city franchise for?