The fallacy of fire prevention in the West
Re: “Feds should focus on fire prevention,” July 24 editorial.
Fire prevention in Western conifer forests is both impossible and undesirable. Western forests have burned since their origins and will continue to. Westerners simply cannot fireproof our forests, but we can fireproof our communities.
With climate change upon us, more acreage of Western forest will burn annually than ever before in recent memory. Research published in Science magazine this month indicates that despite well- intentioned efforts to thin our way out of this fiery situation, forest fires are going to become larger and more frequent as temperatures rise and drought prevails.
Because 85 percent of the land around Western communities with the highest fire risk is privately or state owned, it is not entirely the responsibility of the federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service to protect communities. Rather, private land-owners must shoulder the burden; taxpayers cannot afford to bail out people who choose to build in the “fire plain.” It is time for a healthy dose of personal responsibility as well as realism about fire’s natural role in forest ecology.
Bryan Bird, Forest Program Director, Forest Guardians, DenverI read the column by Bob Ewegen on Saturday, and on the same day received yet another negative mailing from the Ed Perlmutter campaign. Perlmutter’s mailing, like those I’ve received previously, was totally a negative blast at Peggy Lamm. I am not a Lamm supporter, but Perlmutter’s negative mailings and ads make me wish fervently that there was a Democratic candidate in the 7th District I could support who might actually beat Rick O’Donnell.
Unlike Ewegen, I don’t think it is fun to watch such gutter brawls. I am concerned that if Perlmutter is so frightened of Lamm that he needs to go this negative in a primary, what in the world will he do when faced with O’Donnell and the enormous war chest raised by Friday’s Bush visit with its $1,000-a-plate luncheon?
Lorna Fox, Lakewood
…
Re: “7th Dist. Dem rivals trade barbs of lobbyist ties,” July 19 news story.
The Post’s article failed to capture what happened in the radio debate between the candidates. Herb Rubenstein did not say one word about his opponents’ lobbyist ties. He talked about the real issues that working families in the 7th District really care about: ending the war in Iraq, health care reform that has every American insured by Jan. 1, 2010; an energy plan that favors consumers rather than big oil companies; and his written plan to deal with our massive illegal immigration challenges. Herb even asked his Democratic opponents to stop their negative ads, which he said were just helping Rick O’Donnell.
Rubenstein has emerged as the only voice of reason in this race. He sticks to the issues. He puts his positions in writing, while his opponents just bicker about things that happened 10 years ago. This race is now very close because people are not only sick and tired of politics as usual, they are sick and tired of negative campaigning.
Kathleen Flynn, Arvada
…
The recent visit of President George W. Bush to Colorado’s 7th Congressional District was extraordinary. The main purpose of the visit was to raise funds for Rick O’Donnell’s campaign for Congress. In contrast to his official duties, the president is actually good at fundraising – the $1,000-per-plate luncheon raised at least $400,000. If O’Donnell is elected, we’ll have the best money can buy.
On the O’Donnell campaign’s website, it says, “It is time to reduce the power of influence peddlers,” “to reform the way Washington works,” and he promises to be free of “the old way of doing things.” Call me crazy, but a $1,000-a-plate luncheon doesn’t seem like a reform platform.
We are in for another big-money-sponsored TV media blitz in the run-up to the election, showing a smiling O’Donnell telling us how bad the politicians in Washington are and how money needs to be taken out of politics. Come fall, this independent-minded patriot will be turning off the TV and voting for change. May God bless America.
John R. Dorgan, Golden
Focus on the Family’s adherence to the Bible
Caleb Price, social research analyst for Focus on the Family (July 24 Open Forum), claims that the organization is following biblical truth, and that its anti-gay campaigns to codify discrimination into our constitution offer “hope and freedom” to homosexuals. Price also notes that anti-gay crusaders view homosexuality as “no different than any other sin.”
However, the Bible condemns many things – eating shrimp, a bacon cheeseburger, or wearing blended fabric, for instance. And while eating shellfish or a cheeseburger may hardly seem a sin, other practices condoned by the Bible would certainly be considered such today, including pillaging villages, enslaving populations, stoning adulterers, and marrying any woman you rape.
The anti-gay crowd embraces one bit of scripture while ignoring much more. If these folks are concerned with striking out against biblical sin, then where is the effort to shut down Red Lobster or to prohibit cotton-poly shirts?
Pete Kolbenschlag, Paonia
Questions of faith
My religious training began 63 years ago in elementary school. Every day, Sister Grace Marie taught us our faith in catechism class, and on Friday, Father John Emmerth dropped in and quizzed us, I suppose to make sure Sister Grace was doing a good job.
We loved those days because we could propose tricky hypothetical moral dilemmas for him to solve. One I remember vividly was: “What if a man and his family were starving and he stole food? Would that be a sin?” Father said that if the man took from someone who had more than enough food for himself and his family, he would not sin. In fact, the man with an excess – for instance, a baker – would have a moral obligation to share with the man who lacked life’s necessities.
I don’t have the solution to the problem of illegal immigration in America, but I hope that when it comes, it’s one that Sister Grace and Father Emmerth would have applauded.
Allen Peacock, Berthoud
Solar potential in Colo.
Re: “Sunny days ahead for lab devising solar systems,” July 24 business news story.
As an investor, I think Xerox Corp.’s developments in solar production in California are great news for the market, our pocketbooks and the climate. But as a Coloradan, I question whether our state is taking advantage of the sun.
In 2004, Colorado voted to move toward a clean-energy future by approving Amendment 37. This measure requires that 10 percent of Colorado’s electricity come from renewable resources like wind and solar power by 2015.
I would encourage Gov. Bill Owens to support the establishment of a clean-energy fund, which would use severance tax money to fund renewable energy, clean technologies and energy-efficiency programs. An initiative like this would take the technology off the shelf and put it onto the roofs of our homes and businesses.
Richard D. Casper, Morrison
Jeffco DUI checkpoint
A reasonable person would have to wonder how wise Jefferson County officials were Saturday night. There was a massive DUI checkpoint at the intersection of Simms and 64th Avenue in Arvada. There seemed to be close to 30 police officers (and that may be a very conservative estimate) stopping vehicles and asking questions. Is this really a wise way to spend taxpayers’ dollars? Anyone who was driving under the influence could have easily avoided it because you could see the flashing lights about a mile away. One has to wonder.
Chris Sandoval, Arvada
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
