Letters to the Editor 03/18/2009

To the Editor:

Alas and Forlorn...

If the people really want to keep the Metolius Basin pristine then by all means keep the resorts out of there...hiking trails and perhaps some horseback riding in designated areas perhaps OK.

When folks get into an wilderness area, no matter the original intent, the mess will soon follow. Let's face it, humans are a messy bunch. In the area where we have a part-time residence, the business manager is continually reminding dog walkers to pick up the droppings. So much for pristine forest land.

The Metolius Basin has been kept clean for all to enjoy for these many years. Let's keep it that way.

Jeff Miller

•••

To the Editor

It is preposterous to claim, as some have done, that Resolution 2009-04 passed by the city council is "neutral" regarding destination resort development near the Metolius Basin.

It is, rather, quite the opposite. Just look at the lineup of those "usual suspects" who spoke in it's favor at the hearing.

The most egregious act, however, was the total disregard of the recommendation of the Committee for Citizen Involvement opposing the resolution. What's the point of a public hearing if there's no regard or action to what's presented there? It reminded me of the jury asking the accused "Do you have anything to say before you are convicted?"

My hat's off to Bill Merrill and Sharlene Weed for representing the citizens of Sisters. They listened to the testimony at the hearing and acted based upon it. That's what the city council was elected to do.

Al Krause

•••

To the Editor:

First let me say that I enjoy wildlife and the outdoors for hiking, camping, and hunting as much as anybody, but the whole Metolius Basin resort issue seems to be very hypocritical.

So, two destination resorts are proposed for the Metolius Basin area. These two private property owners have or are going through all of the applicable land use planning steps and then the Governor of the state steps in to override the entire process. WOW.

I find it very interesting, if not stinky, that the state waited until these two private properties are proposed for development before they suddenly decided that these lands are "critical habitat." So, these properties were not "critical habitat" for the last 20 or more years. They only became "critical" when a development was proposed.

The state was quite happy to collect the appropriate tax money from these landowners as long as nothing was developed, but now that something is proposed the land has become "critical habitat."

What is the value of "critical habitat"? Priceless seems a bit high, perhaps $1 million per acre is more reasonable for "critical habitat". Is the state ready to buy these parcels of private property for $1 million per acre? Not with the State of Oregon's currently reported budget problems.

Personally, I do not believe the middle of a recession is a good time to be developing destination resorts, but then that's capitalism for you. If they have the money let them build. That's what made our country great. We do want to create jobs, don't we?

Under socialism the government (the state) would take the private property land "for the public good" and not give the land owners any reasonable compensation for their loss.

Since the Metolius Basin has suddenly become such a "critical habitat" area, perhaps all of the existing permanent residential structures should be removed from the entire Metolius basin including all of the homes and commercial structures in the Camp Sherman area.

What's fair is fair. What is fair for one is fair for all. Right or wrong?

Dave Marlow

To the Editor:

The recent executive order by President Obama that he's allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (SCR), and the subsequent newscasts about it, needs clarification. 

It seems they are all either deliberately obscuring the whole story about SCR, or are ignorant of the facts. I don't think any of them are ignorant, so that leaves us with knowing they are pushing embryonic SCR for political reasons.

They fail to mention that there's another kind of SCR that President Bush did approve and provided funding for - adult SCR, which obtains stem cells from ethical, non-controversial sources: cord blood, bone marrow, and a person's own cells.

The real hope is in adult SCR, which has been successful for some time in providing increasingly effective treatments for about 70 diseases and debilitating injuries. It is showing great promise in treating juvenile diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's, paralyzing spinal cord injuries and much more. (You can find more info online at Family Research Council.)

Since adult SCR is presently being used on humans, giving relief and hope, it is a huge waste of taxpayer money to fund embryonic SCR, which requires the unethical killing of human embryos to obtain stem cells. They want taxpayer support for embryonic SCR because private funding sources for this already legal method are reluctant to spend more, since it has failed to show any good results, despite huge expenditures and years of research - causing tumors in rats and uncontrollable tremors.

The successes of adult SCR and the development of new iPS cell technology has rendered embryonic SCR obsolete.  Yet the new administration wants to take even more of our tax money to fund false hope and fool the public into thinking they have our best interests in mind.

Lorene Richardson