Reeling in Bourbon Street behavior
To the editor,
The recent article about banning tubing from Oxbow misses the point. This is not a classist, socio-economic fight. As a practical matter, most people in a craft without a paddle – particularly if drinking alcohol – have difficulty holding their bladders for as long as it takes to travel between Oxbow and 33rd St., which basically ensures trespassing on the all-private beaches and river banks. But using a paddle on a tube, as acknowledged by Cathy Metz, causes tubers to spin in circles as the design of tubes prevents effective navigation with a paddle. A “paddle only” zone above 33rd Street makes sense on this stretch of historically serene water with its abundance of diverse wildlife. Today’s tubers will be tomorrow’s mini-raft users, as a variety of one- and two-person mini-rafts with paddles are available at the big box stores and online from $13 to $25.
The greater issue is on-river enforcement. In the past, tubers have accounted for the lion’s share of the increasingly disruptive Bourbon Street-style conduct largely fueled by alcohol, such as frequent party barges with loud music, littering, trespassing, yelling at and confrontations with homeowners, and dogs running loose on the shore following the watercraft downriver. As word has spread among younger users that this is an area where they can party hard without consequence, the volume of river traffic has jumped markedly each year during the past three years. Most river users above 33rd Street do in fact trespass on the entirely private property riverbanks and beaches between Oxbow and 33rd Street, with the mistaken or careless mind-set that it is OK to use ANY beach. Trespassers routinely ignore or destroy “no trespassing” signage.
Alcohol, trespassing, noise, and loose dogs of tomorrow’s mini-raft users are problems that can only be effectively managed by on-river law enforcement, which is utilized on other high use rivers. The modest cost of a full-time officer in an inflatable kayak for three summer months could be covered by a 50 cent fee on each commercial river customer, or simply included in the City budget. The cost is substantially greater to not have on-river enforcement and permit the current summer Bourbon Street-style river behavior to get more and more outrageous every year.
– Tim LaFrance, Durango
Support Hermosa Watershed Act
To the editor,
In this time of hyper-partisanship, it’s refreshing to see a bipartisan piece of legislation that protects something valued by all Southwest Coloradoans: the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) This Act would protect a prime wildlife watershed used by hunters, fisherman, hikers and other outdoorspeople, while also preserving existing uses by mountain bikers and other recreationists (including snowmobiling on Molas Pass). But this Act is not yet passed, so please help support Sen. Bennett and Rep. Tipton pass it by contacting them and letting them know of your support! (Google “contact Tipton” or “contact Bennett.”)
– Matt Kenna, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Durango
Holes in the anti-tuber argument
To the editor,
I live in north Durango on the river. My house faces the river and is as close or closer to the water as anybody else’s, and the proposed river trail extension passes within 200 feet of my front door. I am disappointed and dismayed that the Parks and Recreation department would consider banning a major constituent group from accessing this city’s most valued treasure. The notion that folks who can afford a thousand dollar paddleboard or pay a rafting company are OK but those on inner tubes are not is purely discriminatory and repugnant.
In the 20 years I have lived here, I have never seen any tubers (who are sitting in the water, for pete’s sake) go to the shore and get out to pee. That is just another ludicrous claim aimed at managing the river like a private lake for members only. I only hope that the powers that be come to realize that this is the wrong way to go. If they don’t, and move forward to ban inner tubes, then I would be very supportive of a citizen’s initiative to place the issue on the ballot. Denying a huge recreational opportunity to many because of the noise made by a few diehard NIMBYs is just plain wrong.
– Jerry Brown, Durango
Moon Fall
– Burt Baldwin, Ignacio
Military spending’s breaking point
To the editor,
The United States has quickly worked its way to the top of the totem pole in its young history by dominating international relations. Lately, it seems, the more time that passes, the more America turns into a corrupt country. The nation creates unfairness among security, equality and liberty. Our government has prioritized security through its extravagant military spending.
Exponential amounts of money were spent on the defense budget in 2011. $549 billion was requested by Congress for basic military measures and another $159 billion was requested for U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This vast amount was nearly equivalent to military spending of all other nations in the world combined. Currently, the U.S. spends about seven times as much as China, 13 times as much as Russia, and 73 times as much as Iran, making for about 39 percent of the world’s total defense spending. Is this really necessary? During the Cold War, the U.S. faced significantly more dangerous adversaries. During that time, the U.S. was opposing East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary and Poland, who were all on the Soviet side. Cuba, North Korea, China, Mongolia and numerous other countries were also allies with the Soviets at various times. Despite the enemies that the U.S faced during the Cold War era, U.S. military spending accounted for only 26 percent of the world defense budget. Today, we have fewer enemies yet are spending more.
It is argued that the potential of another attack like 9/11 will rise with the reduction of defense funding. Even so, with an efficient plan, cutting money would not turn the military into an ineffective organization. If approximately $487 billion was deducted in the next decade, there would still be a budget roughly larger than the next 10 countries’ military budgets combined. The U.S. would still spend $550 billion in the next decade, which doesn’t include the extra costs of war. Kori Schake, of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, argues that, “our biggest threat is the scattered remnants of al-Qaeda” and that, “our state enemies (North Korea, Iran and Syria) don’t have the means to attack the U.S., and while Russia has nuclear power, it doesn’t have enough population to carry out a large-scale war.”
The main finances supporting the military are tax dollars. According to Chalmers Johnson, a political scientist and former CIA consultant, as much as $250 billion per year is used to maintain approximately 865 U.S. military facilities throughout the world. When calculating the benefits of these expenditures, the U.S. should also include the opportunities missed through military spending. How many times is there not enough money for health care, schools, the arts, and parks; for public broadcasting; unemployment insurance; law enforcement; and maintenance of America’s highways, bridges and rails? The United States has put so much money toward protecting our borders that patterns of negligence toward the preamble of the Constitution are becoming apparent. If the United States keeps prioritizing military while overlooking programs such as welfare, it is disregarding domestic tranquility.
On the other hand, Philosopher Jeremey Bentham would argue that in order for U.S. citizens to be as happy as possible, we must be willing to sacrifice some “pleasures” so that security can remain at its peak. He would argue that citizens would be much more worried if our country was prone to attack than if local parks aren’t being tended to. But, it is hard to deny that is a heavy price for making military power the top priority. With more than half of U.S. spending going to feed the Pentagon, we should not be surprised that in America, it is no longer feasible to use public resources to feed the hungry, heal the sick or house the homeless.
We would do well to recall an observation by Martin Luther King Jr.: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” If the United States desires to create equality and societal uplift, there must be a change. If the U.S. continues to prioritize military, our country will slowly but surely reach a breaking point.
– Ranier Ford, student, Animas High School