Area doesn’t need changes
Ridiculous! Ridiculous! Ridiculous! Rearrange Rose Park? It is a given that politics and bureaucracy mess up everything they touch, but good grief, whatever possessed them to dream up this scheme?Rose Park is a parcel of land donated to the city of Missoula. The Rose Society has groomed it year in and year out, and made it a lovely place to visit.
When I visit Rose Park, often it is because I need some down time and I find solace in sitting at the foot of the soldier/angel and saying thanks. The last thing I want to hear while I am there is someone yelling to their dog. We have enough parks in this town for people to walk and play with their pets. I like hearing the little kids, who have a safe and secure play area not to far from the statues. It reminds me that the sacrifices these soldiers made were for just that reason - to keep our “little ones” out of harm’s way.
Linda Kaveshan, Missoula
Beetles not regulated by weather
The March 29 Missoulian contained a cover story purporting the bark-beetle epidemic in the lodgepole pine forests of Colorado as proof of the devastating effects of human-caused global warming.The author and the Natural Resources Defense Council put forth this “evidence” of global warming, that unless we change our ways, this tragedy shall unfold over all western, and therefore all, forests.
Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) populations, however, are not regulated by periodic weather conditions, but rather available habitat. These beetles grow to epidemic proportions when pine forests become too dense, increasing competition for available resources and reducing individual tree vigor. The rule of thumb has been that stand densities greater than 80 square feet of basal area per acre place forests in jeopardy of successful beetle attacks and epidemic growth. The stand of red and dead lodgepole pictured in the article was at a density of about 150 square feet per acre.
Are the pine forests of Colorado in danger of sweeping mortality due to mountain pine beetle? Probably, but it is not due to global warming. Timber management has not been practiced in the state of Colorado for decades. Even now, if one wanted to log these forests, there are no sawmills remaining in the state. Logs would need to be shipped to New Mexico for processing.
Yes, this outbreak is human-caused, but not due to carbon emissions. Rather, it is due to the anti-management policies of groups of that ilk.
Jim Beyer, Missoula
Leave Tongue River Valley untouched
How is it that a London bank can dictate to the state of Montana what to do with its natural resources? (Missoulian, “Company wants state to lease coal: Schweitzer adviser says private owner of second tract should be involved,” March 30.)As part of the New World Mine buyout, the Otter Creek tracts bordering the Custer National Forest were granted to the state of Montana in a shady backroom deal by Tongue River Railroad promoter Mike Gustafson and then-Gov. Marc Racicot. The coal cowboy residing in the governor’s mansion is proving to be cut from the same cloth as his predecessors, Racicot and Martz, in his determination to destroy the Tongue River Valley.
Unlike the Bitterroot and Paradise valleys, the Tongue River remains unblemished by billboards, strip developments, subdivisions and trophy houses, and has remained virtually unchanged for the past century. Development of Otter Creek would turn this remote valley of ponderosa-studded badlands, productive family ranches, and precious wildlife habitat into an industrial wasteland of strip mines with an endless coal railroad running from Wyoming to the Yellowstone River.
What Schweitzer and the London bankers don’t seem to realize is that coal burning is the largest single contributor to climate change and will soon be an outdated energy source subject to high carbon taxes. Even if the carbon was somehow magically sequestered, coal development still requires destructive strip-mining. Is it worth destroying one of Montana’s last remaining rural landscapes and produce more carbon dioxide to make a few investors even more wealthy?
Greg Gordon, Missoula
Seniors’ cats need good homes
The same sad biography, with photograph, tells the story: A senior dog or cat has been a devoted companion for their elderly owner, who either dies or moves to a rest home, failing to make provisions for their pet.This shouldn’t happen, but all too often it does, according to the Humane Society.
Last autumn, I became a foster mom for several senior cats. I found wonderful homes for all the kitties but one, who is with me. Each new owner who gave each cat a second chance could not be more pleased with their choice.
Rally to Rescue magazine recently had an article about the attributes of senior dogs and cats. These senior pets deserve a really good end-of-life family because of their years of devotion. According to a study at the University of Minneapolis, cat owners live longer, with less heart disease, than non-cat-owners. Senior pets are more predictable, they can be a soother, a teacher and a snuggler. They tend to perk up and thrive in a new home. They have so much to offer. Our society should place a value on these endearing senior cats. You will be well rewarded.
I recently learned of two such cats. One is an 11-year-old female Persian who is mellow, shy, smoky with blue eyes. She loves to snuggle on soft quilts. Her owner has to move to a rest home. The other is a 10-year-old male Flame Point Himalayan, mostly white. He is mellow, and was rescued after wandering off. Each of these mature kitties would love a new home. Please adopt one today.
Gail Miller, Missoula
Factory farming is unethical
In response to the nation’s largest and most recent beef recall, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin stated that, “We need better inspections; we need companies to understand their obligation to the consumer.” He believes that if there was just one agency, it could be more easily monitored and conditions would improve.Quality inspections are necessary for producing and maintaining good food, and having unified laws for the entire industry would help to unify production. Why do we need better inspections and to tell the industry that they serve us? Given Durbin’s statement, it seems he is admitting the industry needs to be reminded of basic ethics. Not only is this unnecessary, but it seems wrong.
Biologist Rachel Carson agrees and finds it “inconceivable” that an animal reproduced under fake and harmful conditions could be truly be healthy enough for us to eat. An animal deprived of sun and air is not an animal but a manufactured product. If we still need to remind industries of basic ethics, what does that say about us?
Factory farming is morally wrong and we need to take steps to reverse it.
Natalia Utter, Missoula
Free enterprise is good for U.S.
It’s campaign season - aagh!I’ve been hearing a message from some candidates that America is bad, and the main reason is big-business greed. While I agree that it does exist, I would also suggest that just because a business is successful does not mean that it’s greedy. Also, you don’t have to look at just big business to find greed - just read your local newspaper.
So, to cure this problem, these candidates want to raise taxes on business, and also want to be able to go after its profits. Wow. That’s an unprecedented increase of power to the federal government. Maybe these candidates should be talking about big government greed.
So, I’m wondering: What makes a corporation or big business successful? Obviously, one of the main factors would be its employees, which in some cases could number in the tens of thousands. How would this new government empowerment affect these workers?
I work for a big corporation, Montana Resources, one of the Washington Companies. This company allows its employees to participate in profit-sharing. So if any of these candidates are elected, it would enable the government to get even deeper into my pockets than they already are.
Take big business and free enterprise out of America and we’ll be another Third World country. If America is bad, show me a country that’s better.
Rick Barkell, Philipsburg
Too often, patients forced to wait
Unfortunately, it has become the social norm for physicians to be significantly late for appointments, and for consumers of health care to accept long waiting times without question. I believe the inequitable expectation that patients be on time, but not the provider of services, conveys disrespect to us all.Appointment times are deliberately over-booked, without sufficient time for physicians to see patients in a timely manner. While physicians and other professionals have many demands on their time, their first priority should be to their clients. Completing other tasks related to their practice can be delayed or incorporated into their daily schedule so patient appointment times are respected. I realize that emergencies occur, in which case patients can be informed, provided a choice to reschedule or wait, and be given an appropriate apology. If patients opt to leave because of prolonged delays, they should be given the courtesy of being worked into the schedule in the near future.
As a provider of services myself, I see my clients no later than five minutes past their scheduled time. As a consumer of medical services, I now decline to wait more than 20 minutes for an appointment, unless there is a true emergency to provide needed care to another patient.
Until consumers remember that we, in fact, are employers of the physician, and we stop tolerating the disregard of our time, we are responsible for allowing this unacceptable practice to continue. And, we will experience unnecessarily the frustration of waiting for hours to see a physician at our own expense.
Frances Marks Buck, Ph.D., Missoula
Americans don’t grasp economics
After reading recent letters, I can’t help but laugh. It is sad to say, but too many Americans no longer have any knowledge of economics or history. We all know that history has a way of repeating itself, and I don’t need to mention the importance of economics.All too often I read someone’s opinion about how “free market economics” have gotten us in the mess we are in. They could not be any further from the truth. Free market economics are just that, free markets. There is no government involvement, taxpayer bailouts or subsidies or politicians telling us how they would make things better. The market corrects itself. It has to, or it will fail.
When someone points to the recent Fed bailout of Bear Stearns and calls it a consequence of free market economics, they are wrong. In a free market, Bear Stearns would have gone to the highest bidder. The Fed structured a deal with J.P. Morgan, who happens to be Federal Reserve shareholder and one of the founders of the Federal Reserve. Research the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and you will find that J.P. Morgan and John Rockefeller (modern day J.P. Morgan & Chase Co.) drew up the act to expand their empires using Fed funds.
True free markets have not existed in America for some time. Every major industry in America is protected by government in some way through regulation or subsidy payments. Free markets can’t be the problem, as they don’t exist - government intervention is. Free markets take power away from major corporations and greedy politicians that benefit from them and place it back in the hands of the consumer.
Chad Krahn, Lewistown
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)