Denver mayor’s plan to plant 1 million trees
Re: “Mayor sketches out “Greenprint” vision,” July 13 news story.
I applaud Mayor John Hickenlooper’s plan to plant a million new trees in Denver in the coming years. However, many past civic tree planting programs have done more harm than good, and I hope Denver can learn from these mistakes.
Perhaps the biggest problem has been the planting of non-native trees. Species such as the tree-of-heaven (also called alianthus or Chinese sumac) have the advantage of growing quickly and providing lots of shade, but they are really no more than large weeds. Often seen growing out of cracks in alleys, tree-of heaven is invasive and crowds out native species.
Norway maples also grow fast and provide shade, but their roots cause damage to sidewalks and underground pipes. Cities have wisely decreased planting trees such as the black walnut, a tree whose fruit stains cars, shoes and sidewalks. However, for dioecious (i.e. male/female) species, some cities have opted for the male plant, to avoid the problematic, stain-causing fruits and nuts produced by the female trees. But the male plants produce enormous amounts of pollen, and this leads to increases in allergies among humans.
The best urban forestry policy is to plant native species. I hope the city plants native trees such as the Colorado blue spruce (our state tree) and the many native species of pine that can still be found in open spaces.
Jeffrey Beall, Denver
…
Just doing the math for the mayor, a million trees to be planted over a 20-year period will require him to plant 5.7 trees every hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 20 years. If he plans to do it in a “normal” workweek, it jumps to 24 trees per hour for every eight-hour day the city works. That sounds like at least 12 crews working their entire year doing nothing but planting trees. Better start planting!
R. Barry Crook, Aspen
Columnist’s explanation of CIA agent’s outing
Re: “Columnist discusses role in CIA leak case,” July 13 Robert D. Novak column.
“Disingenuous” is a marvelous 50-cent word describing a statement intended to cloud rather than illuminate, that points one way while traveling another. In speech, it rolls from the tongue with a kind of smooth poetry while actually describing a rather deceitful dodge from the truth.
Read Robert D. Novak’s column for a splendid example. Here we have Novak blithely explaining away exposing a CIA operative by saying the information was just part of a much larger conversation, as though quantity excuses a lapse in judgment. He dates his interviews with the FBI and grand jury in words that suggest a devoted patriot doing his duty rather than a political operative running for cover. But mostly he vows his abhorrence of exposing a source – and then proceeds to toss everyone under the bus.
One can picture him clutching his breast and crying, “Forgive me. It’s all the Democrats’ fault.” That, my friends, is “disingenuous,” and he is the master.
Harry Puncec, Lakewood
Lack of evidence for existence of evolution
Letter-writer Vivian Mower (July 6 Open Forum) writes that “thousands of articles supporting evolution have been published in scientific journals,” implying by a previous statement that they are “peer-reviewed.” This seems to be the mantra of the anti-intelligent design people. However, the fact that the evolution articles are peer-reviewed is virtually meaningless, since the peers who do the reviewing categorically deny any theory that questions evolution. Also, the scientific journals that these articles are published in have the exact same bias. Any evidence that is reviewed is automatically said to support evolution because these people adamantly refuse to accept any other explanation.
One might ask these scientists what proof there is that any species ever evolved into another. And please, don’t cite the peppered moth or the Galapagos finches. They are variations of the same species.
I guess the evidence to support evolution must be quite weak, else we wouldn’t need all those judges banning anything critical of it from the classrooms. If the evidence is so strong, it should withstand criticism, shouldn’t it?
Wes Nelson, Broomfield
Legislation to protect cleanup of old mines
Re: “Seek consensus on mine bills,” July 5 editorial.
I’d like to thank The Denver Post for its recent coverage about the need for Good Samaritan protection for abandoned-mine cleanups. This is one of the single most important, yet least addressed environmental challenges the West is facing. At least 40 percent of Western headwater streams are impacted by abandoned mines, creating health hazards for humans, fish and wildlife. As a conservation organization working to restore mine-impacted watersheds, Trout Unlimited has determined that the two greatest needs for increasing the scope and scale of mine cleanups is a dedicated funding source and the creation of a federal permitting process that encourages Good Samaritan restoration projects. With cooperation from all levels of government, conservation groups and concerned citizens, we can make a difference for Colorado’s water quality and aquatic life.
Elizabeth Russell, Watershed Restoration Coordinator, Trout Unlimited, Boulder
India train bombings
Re: “Series of blasts kills 190,” July 12 news story.
The railroad bombings in Mumbai, India, again remind us of the viciousness and remorselessness of the purveyors of terrorism. Half a thousand innocents killed or maimed. Not a military target in sight. These animals are from the same litter that bombed the World Trade Center, savaged the Pentagon and tried to pilot a plane into the White House, killing more than 3,000 along the way. These terrorist are those who Bush said he would go after in the post-Sept. 11 trauma, in what he described as the long war. Hence Afghanistan and Iraq.
Is it an accident that we have not been successfully attacked since then? I think not. Yet the hand-wringers want us to cut and run right now. I hope and pray this and subsequent administrations stay the course. I don’t know about you, but I, for one, have no stomach for seeing animals like this decapitating, mutilating and bombing Americans on American soil.
Paul Davidson, Centennial
Future of roadless areas
Re: “Roadless debate a great divide,” July 10 news story.
Your article brought up an excellent point about the gravity that outdoor recreation issues should have in the roadless area decision. It’s already common knowledge that hunters, anglers, campers, etc., are generally in favor of reinstating the roadless protections. However, it may not be entirely evident just what an important demographic these people are in the roadless area debate.
Outdoor recreation contributes roughly $4.6 billion annually to the Colorado economy, with $1.5 billion of that coming from hunters and fishers alone. If these people – about 47 percent of the state’s population as of 2001 – are no longer able or willing to participate in outdoor recreation in forests that lose protection, this could be detrimental to our economy.
Outfitter Jeff Mead has already illustrated the effect that road development can have on local hunters, and rightly points out that he’s lost outfitting clients because “Nobody wants to hunt where they’re building roads.” In addition to the aesthetic disruption, road construction can affect the local wildlife and cause a decline in fish and game populations.
Outdoor recreation is a fundamental aspect of life in Colorado, and the threat to our economy and enjoyment of the forests posed by the loss of our roadless areas is too great to gamble.
Kaitlin Blascoce, Wheat Ridge
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331; Fax: 303-820-1502; E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
Archives: Missed your favorite columnist or the latest Mike Keefe cartoon? Archives available at The Denver Post Online (www.denverpost.com)
