Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

I am writing on behalf of my family and many other residents of Sisters. We have been hiking and camping this area for years and have never encountered anyone as rude and discourteous as the employees of Northwest Land Management.

Recently while camping at Suttle Lake, we had an encounter with an overzealous employee who was not only rude but went so far as to kick ashes in my husband's face from a barely lit fire.

This was no bonfire, my children were only preparing to roast hot dogs. We are no stranger to the rules and regulations. We are not stupid, and this man fully intended for us to feel that way. I am appalled at the way the staff is conducting this business of campground management. This is not California. A lot of us have left the south for a more considerate and pristine way of life.

Never have we felt so unwelcome in our own backyard. Camping should be a memorable time for friends and family, not a playground for insolent employees, exercising their authority.

I would, however like to commend Mr. Dusty Rhoades, volunteer of the Cold Springs campground. He was courteous and explained his purpose as campground host. This man truly cares about his campers. Perhaps we should learn from him.

We understand that there are rules; we live here. But what about those who don't? These employees are a direct reflection of us, the residents of this area. I can say this, If I were just passing through and encountered such rudeness, I would never come back.

NWLM should feel privileged to be in control of such a magnificent area. Treat people with respect and use your power wisely.

Sherry Silva

To the Editor:

We had, last week, a letter concerned about the injury of dogs being struck by a vehicle; hopefully an accident and it sometimes happens with the driver being unaware the dogs were actually hit.

My sincere sympathies go out to the dogs.

Sympathies to the owner? Perhaps.

Were the dogs home on their own property when they were injured? Are the dogs always kept home with a fence or containment system but accidentally got loose that day? Then, yes, the owner also has my sympathies.

If, however, the dogs are allowed to roam free and were not on their property when they were injured, then the fault lies solely in the owner's lap. It is our legal and social responsibility as dog owners to not allow our dogs to roam free. This both keeps our dog safe (from vehicles, poison, bullets, porcupines, being caught in fences or injured by another animal) and ensures that our dog will not be involved in damage to another person's property (we've all heard the stories of a pack of dogs harassing livestock).

I hope that when my neighbors speak of me and my dogs, they say "Karen's huskies? We hear them sing sometimes, but it's nice to know they are kept at home." That way, should I ever have an "escape" it will truly be recognized as such. Yes, we do need people to drive safely on our neighborhood roads, but we also need to keep our dogs (and our very young children) out of harm's way by keeping them home.

Karen Yeargain

To the Editor:

As one of those at the Tollgate meeting as reported in The Nugget , August 21 issue, it was interesting that the reporter did not pick up what Linda Dodd said.

She wasn't fed up with the "bitterness" at the meeting, but rather the personal attack on her daughter and herself by our business manager, and the "petty crap" was directed at the administration and their policies.

I'm sure that nearby communities are happy they do no have to contend with he likes of Chairman Kalar and his unprofessional and bizarre conduct and leadership.

The fact is, intimidation has been rampant from the board and the manager's office to anyone who wanted answers that the board did not, or could not answer.

I thought the most contemptible exhibit was when the chair recognized local attorney Fadley, who said his lot number was 278. Kalar knew Fadley had no right to speak or address the board; lot 278 is owned by Betty Thompson, the business manager -- we checked.

So much for malcontents.

Clayton Garrett

To the Editor:

I read your review of the Annual Meeting of the Tollgate Property Owners with keen interest.

Having taught physics for 35 years, I try to quantify any problem which I attempt to decipher. Perhaps TheNugget, in devoting its initial and final paragraphs to ideas promulgated by six agitators, felt that the numbers that count are the number of decibels raised by loudmouths.

We can understand that TheNugget might not have learned that four of the agitators are related by blood or marriage. I took great care to share the ballot results with your reporter. You failed to relate that the nominated directors received at least 85.8 percent of the votes for directors and that both sets of proposed bylaws achieved at least 65.8 percent affirmative votes. Not bad considering the misinformation contained in TheNugget ad only three days before the annual meeting.

On a more personal note, the correct quote is, "Kalar said, `Never in my 66 years of life has anyone attempted to intimidate me to this extent.'"

Unintimidated, our board will continue to seek ways of maintaining Tollgate's quality of life while not treading on the toes of responsible property owners. As always, we shall respond fully at one of our regular monthly public meetings to the written concerns submitted by any property owner who chooses to take the effort.

Sincerely,

Blaine Kalar, Tollgate Property Owners Association, Chairman

To the Editor:

Due to an overwhelming positive response from the voters of Sisters, the Committee to Save Sisters was able to gather well over the number of signatures needed to put the initiative petition to require the voters' approval before any annexation can occur on the ballot for the November 5 election.

Thanks to you, our voices will be heard.

Thank you very much for your support on this important initiative. Keep Sisters, Sisters.

Sincerely,

Virginia Groom