Letters To The Editor

NATURE

Gutting law benefits only a few

I’m very concerned about the current dismantling of environmental laws in Congress. This shortsighted, profit-driven, anti-scientific lawmaking trend represents our significant pathological disconnection from the natural world.

This issue is epitomized in the current attempt to gut the Endangered Species Act with a Senate bill (S768) sponsored by Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) and a House bill (HR2275) sponsored by Reps. Don Young and Richard Pombo (Rep. George Nethercutt of Spokane is a co-sponsor). The goal of these bills is to significantly weaken the Endangered Species Act in the face of the current risks of mass extinctions. Politicians aren’t being paid to maintain biodiversity or healthy ecosystems but are being paid by special interest lobbyists wanting weaker environmental laws. This results in the current attempt to drastically revise the act in spite of its popularity as demonstrated in public opinion polls.

There are numerous problems with the bills. One of many proposed changes would be to allow the secretary of the Interior to determine that the only protection given to a species would be to prohibit its direct killing. This one provision by itself would make the Endangered Species Act virtually meaningless.

These anti-environmental, extremist bills benefit only a few at a great cost to America’s public national heritage. Jeff Hedge Spokane

A mistake or misinformation?

I read your paper quite regularly, as well as other publications here in the Inland Northwest. Recently, I read an article by Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) that said, “The drawdown tests on Lower Granite and Little Goose dams last year cost the taxpayer $5 million.”

This is a lot of money, so I called the Army Corps of Engineers to complain, and they told me there was no drawdown test last year; the only test done was in 1992 and to date has cost only about $1 million.

Now, normally I’m not sure if I can believe bureaucrats, but when compared with a senator, what can I say? This article was in the recent Inland Power & Light publication, Inland Country.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that this article hit the market just when Sens. Gorton and Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) are trying to cap fish recovery costs. Perhaps this article was designed to make you think that fish recovery costs are out of control. Maybe not, but the timing and the wee exaggeration by our good senator seem slightly suspicious, don’t you think? A typo of three years and $4 million. Come on, senator. Chuck Scheerschmidt Airway Heights

Forests suffer for almighty dollar

This is a response to the nearly full-page ads placed in The Spokesman Review by logging company Boise Cascade. These misleading ads seem to be trying to say that the primary concern is saving Northwest forests.

I was always under the impression that the company’s main objective was to turn a profit. Why else would it shell out so many timber dollars for this corporate-sponsored propaganda? Boise Cascade and similar companies care far more about money than they do about the environment or their own employees.

Forest management? It seems forests managed themselves for millions of years effectively. Now, after 200 years of human “management,” we’ve reduced America’s forests to around 5 percent of their original area, and that last 5 percent is slipping fast. Great going, guys!

I understand that many local families are “supported by timber dollars,” and I’m truly sorry for hardships suffered as a result of layoffs. However, opening more irreplaceable wild lands for “harvesting” is only a short-term solution for economic woes. Yes, trees grow back, but the delicate intertwined web of life we call a forest takes more time to recover than the impatient and ever-growing human race is willing to allow.

In short, I value living more than making a living and believe that God works through nature rather than the almighty dollar. If this makes me a pagan, then please spell it with a capital “P”! Adam J. Larson Spokane

GRASS BURNING

Dollar comes before health

For years, the government has spent huge sums preserving our old-growth forests, worrying about spotted owls and other species of animals, not considering the jobs that have been lost or giving credit to animals that have a lot more “smarts” than we give them credit for.

Now, we’ve spent years fighting the grass growers who fill the air with smoke so thick, we can’t even see. One day, the Rathdrum area was drenched in smoke. It must have involved 2,000 to 3,000 acres being burned all at once. Today, we have it coming from both sides of Spokane and the Spokane Valley. We have at least 13,000 people who are not able to breathe.

I suggest that Mr. Cornwall, president of the Intermountain Grass Growers Association, and (Washington) Gov. Mike Lowry take a second look following the burning of a field and notice the carcasses of pheasants, quail and other birds along with rabbits, squirrels and the occasional dog or cat.

Since they’re not concerned about human lives, maybe they will be concerned about the animals that will be joining the list of extinct species. Is the human race next on the list?

It’s too bad one of them wasn’t a pharmacist for 45 years, as I have been, and could see the little children and others who couldn’t breathe. You have other means of accomplishing the same results of having better crops, which you have admitted, but the almighty dollar comes first. Mrs. Fred C. Chindahl Jr. Spokane

We need to look for alternatives

As with most other complicated social issues, the field-burning debate is all too easily mired in blame. The more energy put into blaming the farmers and seed companies, the less energy for solution-finding. We are all to blame because we all make similar kinds of economic choices every day. Field burning makes sense economically just as any other form of pollution makes sense. It’s the cheapest way to produce (and buy) the product.

People produce and sell bluegrass seed because there is great demand. This is despite the facts that it’s ecologically unsuitable for use in lawns in semi-arid climates and the byproduct of particulate pollution is a serious health concern.

Instead of blaming, we need to work harder on possible alternatives. Again, as with other forms of pollution, recycling could play a big part. For example, imagine if small, well-run composting facilities were scattered conveniently all over the area, growers could at least be compensated for depositing their baled grass cuttings, and all would benefit.

So, perhaps we all need to be involved in alternatives instead of simply expecting farmers to take the responsibility. We all need to be willing to pay some of the higher costs of protecting the environment. Maybe it’s also a matter of rethinking what it is we really value in our vain attempts to have it all. Cris M. Currie Mead

OTHER TOPICS

Science center was not a good deal

Apparently, prerequisites for drawing cartoons do include a diminished mental capacity for economics. Milt Priggee calling me stupid for voting “no” on the science center is a compliment to my intelligence and sound business sense. I thought Arthur Fiedler was dead, but apparently he was resurrected to try to orchestrate The Spokesman-Review pops on trying to persuade us to vote for this financial Titanic in Riverfront Park. I’m delighted that the “no” voters grabbed their financial life jackets before entering the sacred election booth on Sept. 19.

Was this a good deal? Science centers, by their own national association survey, require 65 percent public funding annually to keep their doors open. That’s city, state and federal tax dollars. This year, the Seattle science center was denied some of the city funds it had received in the past due to competitive priorities from other groups.

How about this Pavilion deal? Our Park Board and City Council agreed to trade this outfit $1 million in revenue for a $1-per-year lease for 40 years, subsidize its operation for five years at $1.6 million and lose income from rides at $400,000 annually. Even you, Mr. Priggee, should get in line for the next deal. Henry Weaver Spokane

Blame politicians for insurance rates

Our morning paper told us that we all can expect to pay substantially more for medical insurance (Sept. 19). Naturally, the insurance companies get the blame.

For those with short memories, it was just a year ago that our liberal leaders, (Washington) Gov. Mike Lowry and Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn, proclaimed the wonder of the new plan, offering guaranteed medical coverage to all comers regardless of health. They also promised us that it would have little effect on premiums.

The word got out and busloads of sick came to Washington to take advantage. They now draw benefits and will continue to do so, far in excess of the premiums they pay.

Dollars in; dollars out. There must be a profit or companies go broke. Now, thanks to our liberal leaders, the insurance companies must charge a lot more to stay in business.

Might be a good idea to keep a copy of your next premium-increase notice next to your voters pamphlet. Gary Graupner Spokane

Column inaccurate, disparaging

After having spent most of a Saturday afternoon not only explaining in detail our manufacturing process but also laughing and playing Bean-O with Doug Clark, I was amazed and disappointed that in his column (Sept. 19), he chose to misrepresent aspects of our product - not only in how it’s made but also in how it’s played and its wholesome family-oriented intentions. I know this game will succeed on its own merit because of its integrity and quality, besides being safe and fun for everyone.

More importantly, I was amazed and disturbed that Clark somehow felt the need to write a rather disparaging and unnecessary remark about one of my closest friends.

Nevertheless, I do want to thank him for his time and for having taught me some invaluable lessons I won’t soon forget.

I want to publicly apologize to Terry Finnerty and Benny Hinn for any embarrassment Mr. Clark’s column might have caused them or their families.

Anyone interested in what Bean-O is really about can check it out at Uncle’s Games & Puzzles, Etc., inside Auntie’s Bookstore. John B. Manion, CEO Innovative Games Inc., Spokane

Mothers shouldn’t get the blame

Cartoonist Chuck Asay would like to depict “mom” as the prime neglector of her children with an absent father depicted in a Wanted poster on the wall (Roundtable, Sept. 11). Of course, to make certain that the proof of mom’s neglect is effective, she must be sitting on her butt, swilling beer and eating popcorn in front of the TV.

Try this one on for size: Where mom can get a job, it is just low-paying enough that she can barely afford an apartment, food on the table, clothes, education and medical care for her children. The deadbeat dad’s lack of support - something that unfortunately occurs on too many occasions - is the lack of help which the struggling mom needs.

What Asay doesn’t tell us is that many conservatives tell mom she shouldn’t be in the work force and it is dad who should be the sole provider of the bacon.

Well, which should society have when divorce happens or abandonment occurs: enough of a support system to keep the remaining family afloat or simply create stereotypes and condemn them without really addressing the problem? Joan E. Harman Coeur d’Alene