Peace is still the only option

Dear Editors,

I am writing to thank you for printing the letter from Ben McDonald. Although he seems to vilify your publication, he does, by writing to you, recognize the "far-left" media to be the forum that is balanced and open to a discourse of ideas from both sides.

With the dialogue open, I would like to note some objections to Ben's letter. He takes the unimaginative stand that we have only two extreme options: submit to the evils of a weak government on the other side of the globe, or kill millions of innocent people to protect our freedom. Mr. McDonald naively blames those who protest war for the deaths, instead of looking to those who claim to be political leaders to actually lead us to something other than war.

Many of the freedoms weenjoy, voting rights for women, desegregation, etc., came about through political dissent. Communist and dictatorial governments do not allow dissent. We should embrace dissent as a sign of a healthy democracy.

It's not difficult to understand how Americans appreciate the service of those who protect our country but still have the right to tell their government to stop fighting a war they believe to be unjustified and inhumane. Who can deny that the use of napalm on civilians in Viet-Nam was wrong? Acts like this were brought to a stop because of protest and dissent. Not just by pacifists but by soldiers as well. The majority of Americans have not fought in battle but still contribute in many ways to their country. Freedom protected by killing innocent people is not freedom. Freedom that prevents people from openly criticizing their government and its policies is not freedom.

The Swifts may not have all the answers but neither does Ben. Hopefully peace is still a viable option until we get leaders intelligent enough to look for solutions without going to extremes. That magical war that will end all evil has never existed and never will. In closing, I would challenge Mr. McDonald to go to Iraq and explain to the parents of the more than 500,000 innocent children who have died because of U.S. led war and sanctions, why their children's deaths were necessary to protect our freedom. I, along with the Swifts and many others, believe that there just may have been another option and am saddened that we did not work harder to find it.

- Greg Rossell,
Durango

Violence begets violence

Dear Editors,

In answering Ben McDonald's letter in the Telegraph of April 21, 2005 we will let the War Resisters League speak for us: "How many more people have to die before we recognize that war can never build justice and real peace? We cannot end terrorism (or any form of war) by answering violence with violence - violence only and always breeds fear and hate and more violence. Arms and armies make war, not peace; soldiers are trained to fight, military weapons are designed to kill, military alliances maintain power - which is always rooted in inequalities that breed still more violence. World War I - the "war to end all wars" - set the stage for World War II. From Colombia to Iraq to Afghanistan, U.S. bombs and missiles have killed thousands (including people working for peace and justice in desperate situations) and shattered the lives of millions. The only way to see a world at peace is to demand an end to war."

- Charlie and M'Lou Swift,
Durango

The horrors of hydromowing

Dear Editors,

I am visiting from the East Coast. Recently, I hiked up through what used to be a favorite area of woods in lower Hermosa Creek to discover to my horror that it had been hydro-mowed by the Forest Service. A whole ecosystem was removed leaving an essentially lifeless plot of ground and disturbed earth, devoid of underbrush, shade-loving plants many of the old-growth junipers and some ponderosa. The ground was hot and drying as were the remaining trees, which were now clearly at risk from high winds, storms and insects that will take advantage of the lowered immune systems. The balance and harmony of that area may be gone forever, certainly for our lifetime. The previously abundant wildlife was absent, and I wondered if the bears would be driven deeper into the mountain for acorns or perhaps come closer to the homes where the scrub oak was left for aesthetic value.

This irreversible cutting of the forest is the local level of the Forest Fuel Reduction Plan, which is part of a federal mandate called The Healthy Forests Initiative. Boy, what a misnomer. The idea is to reduce the severity of forest fires by preburning areas and hydromowing where burning is not possible. I do not want to take an antagonistic stance toward the Forest Service that is responsible for implementing this program. However, after meeting with three representatives including Craig Goodall, who is the supervisor for the Falls Creek area project, I believe that public input and assistance is absolutely necessary for the greater good to be upheld. Craig is a good man, dedicated to the forests and wildlife. Several extremely import facts were revealed in the meeting. The first was a feeling that was expressed verbally: that due to the immense wilderness of Colorado that the targeted numbers of acres (potential millions?) were only a drop in the bucket compared to the overall amount of acreage available. The second issue was that some of the project was being initiated at a local level primarily from funding concerns. If they don't spend the federal funds on something they get less next cycle. And my third concern was the statement that they could not micro-manage the cutting of each area due to the constraints of money and time and felt it was not necessary. I am not an expert but I can see that each eco environment here is different and needs specific attention. I also see that on the Hermosa Creek project, there was not enough overview by the supervisor in charge and much damage was done by unskilled or uncaring workers. Even the area that we were shown in Falls Creek, which was infinitely better than the Hermosa area, still had altered the eco-system irrevocably.

My point is that without knowledgeable citizen input we will loose much. Where I live in Delaware, it is nearly impossible to escape the crush of people, cars, commerce, pressure, artificiality. The Earth is unhappy, and you can feel it. I am sure it affects the people there. Yet it once was part of a vast and wild forest from Maine to Florida, which no one ever thought could be destroyed. I am sure that as each business expanded, each house was built, farmland cleared, each road pushed through, that all of those humans had a very good reason for destroying their little portion of the forest and disturbing forever the ecosystem. I see the same movement here, as land is quickly becoming privatized, trails closed, trees cleared, etc., all for "very good reasons." Now I have to travel to places like Colorado to experience nature at its finest. Please become involved. You can make a difference for your grandchildren and many succeeding generations. If you are as concerned as we are, feel free to contact us at Kalidamay@yahoo.com.

- Sincerely,
Stephan Cameron,
a Delaware friend

Arrogance solves nothing

To the Editors,

In reading the April 21st "Thumbs down" on letters of attack, much to my horror, I saw myself. Although I had no intention of attack, I am aware that I publicly vented my frustration and my own arrogance in reaction to what I perceived as other people's arrogance. That deserves an apology from me. Arrogance solves nothing.

I would like to replace my last sentence. Other photographers are already documenting trailer homes and occupants losing out. (Wouldn't it be wonderful if the city would use its new funds to buy the mobile-home park west of town and save this housing for the workers this town needs?) The photographer that I referred to could do a wonderful service to our community if she would encourage architects, builders and residents with a "small is beautiful" mindset. Future generations would benefit as well as we would.

- Sincerely,
Kassandra Johnson,
Durango