© 2002
The Nugget Newspaper
Sisters, Oregon
All rights reserved

Send us an email

Display Advertising
This is a PDF file. View with Adobe Acrobat Reader. 

The contents of the on-line edition of The Nugget represent a selection among the stories that appear in the weekly print edition.

Letters, letters, letters
The Nugget welcomes contributions from its readers, which must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters to the Editor is an open forum for the community and contains unsolicited opinions not necessarily shared by the Editor. The Nugget reserves the right to edit, omit, respond or ask for a response to letters submitted to the Editor. Letters should be no longer than 300 words. Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned. The deadline for all letters is noon Monday.

To the Editor:

I attended the hearing regards the Camp Sherman thinning and fire prevention project planned by the U.S. Forest Service. To say it was a learning experience is to put it mildly.

I would like to know where the League of Wilderness Defenders Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project get the authority to demand a contract from the U.S. Forest Service to do what they want or else. Since when do they own the forests? They stated their science said it was to be their way. I would like to see where they get their science from. Oregon has one of the top-rated forestry departments in the U.S. and I'm sure the U.S. Forest Service uses their expertise.

It became very evident that their main purpose was to exclude any logging. Fire suppression was not their real goal. It was pointed out to them if they left the size trees they wanted cut it would reduce the fire hazard by only 3 percent but they still wanted to keep the same size of trees cut.

Their whole attitude was they were the experts. This is only one forest of several they are fighting the Forest Service on.

I hope the Forest Service does not give in to them and does what is necessary to prevent another B&B-type fire. Three fires in a little over one year should be reason enough to get something done.

Dan Brown

* * *

To the Editor:

There has been so much environmentalist-bashing in the media lately, I feel that it is time for me to address the subject. It runs the gamut from the newly-tarnished Rush Limbaugh copiously applying the term "environmentalist wacko" to anyone that doesn't share his views on natural resource management to locals like Doris Roepke and others who have taken the broad-brush, one-size-fits-all approach in the media to assessing blame for the B&B Complex Fire.

In my opinion, a great majority of environmentalists, myself included, prefer a common-sense approach, one of compromise rather than confrontation, as there are human and economic needs to consider. I agree with Ranger Bill Anthony that a size limit of 12 inches for trees would still leave the forest too fire-prone (The Nugget, October 8).

Now a treat for you environmentalist-bashers: one environmentalist criticizing another. Although I agree with Bruce Berryhill's stated views, I cringed upon reading his statement: "They would rather see the forest burn than anyone make a penny off it."

Who is "they?" Did Ms. Coulter say that? I doubt it. Is that her group's philosophy? I certainly hope not. If Mr. Berryhill had the courage or foresight to be more specific, Nugget readers wouldn't be left guessing. Most likely, her group is open to criticism for being over-zealous in the protection of forests and thus delaying the thinning project.

Which gets me back to my criticism of the broad-brush approach to environmentalists. Mr. Berryhill's statement is probably accurate when applied to the ecoterrorists that express their views by fire-bombing SUV dealerships.

However, his inflammatory comment serves no constructive purpose and only serves to polarize opposing groups who are finally approaching a greater spirit of compromise.

Don McCartney