The MT asks environmentalists for reason and agreement dealing with the Forest Service on timber harvest and forest health. However, the Tribune's uninformed opinion of history and issues surrounding the upper Rogue allows idealistic, simple-minded solutions.
Around 1996 the Prospect district ranger signed an agreement with the Headwaters environmental group asserting the district would prove compliance with soil standards and guidelines in the Upper Rogue. The timber shop was outraged because it was fully aware many areas were over the threshold for soil compaction. In 1997 the Forest Service hired me to measure past impacts and determine compliance. Many areas were over the threshold of tolerance for soil impacts. At that time, the Bybee timber sale was a controversial, tabled project headed for the scrap bin. Logging the boundary of Crater Lake was unpopular back then, too.
Now the Forest Service has dusted off the old and once tabled Bybee. But expecting less controversy today is unreasonable. One thing we may agree on is that many of the projects the agency, including Prospect Ranger District, has proposed in the past decade were collaborative and moved forward without controversy. Collaboration, not reverting to the battles of the past, is the best path forward. — Derek Volkart, Talent
I had the pleasure of enjoying the movie "Lore" recently at our local theater in Ashland. It was a very intense and important film that was disturbed on four separate occasions by the ringing of someone's cellphone. The malefactor continued to allow the phone's loud vibrator to continue, even though it disrupted every viewer's concentration.
What has happened to civility when we can't even be bothered to turn off our cellphones at movie theaters, music events, et cetera? Whoever was guilty of this disturbance, please don't allow it to happen again. — Richard Krieger, Ashland
All this cry from taxpayer pension people seems to me to say, "we want ours and couldn't care less about you who pay the bills."
We, the true payers of all bills, give them the money through our taxes; yes, even the money they pay taxes with. We cannot keep funding their wonderful PERS. We do not get what they have from our employers and they work for us, so we have a right to demand changes in PERS.
I have lived in Oregon since about 1966, and I have never been given a vote on their PERS package. What they have is a contract only with the same people who benefit from our taxes, the government, and that contract is with them — not with us. Therefore, we do not owe employees a thing and will not pay higher taxes. The government should not and cannot force us to do so.
Therefore, what they are saying to their fellow gold diggers is, "lay off who you will, government; just give us ours." — Antone Pedersen, Central Point