Letters to the Editor 07/17/2013

To the Editor:

As an animal lover and concerned citizen of the Sisters community, I strongly urge pet owners to consider their pets (dogs in particular) in the warm weather.

This last week I have been witness to several cases of what I can only consider neglect. Dog owners leaving their dog in the car with the windows only partially down (even all the way down does not work) in the shade of a tree or building outside the library. I've called or gone into the library on many occasions to ask them to find the owner of cars with dogs locked inside. Many of whom are panting and crying.

On one occasion I called the police about a large black dog chained to the black-colored bed of a truck, left in full sun on a day it was already 80 at 10 a.m. The dog was in distress and miserable. The police informed me they can cite people for this only if the animal is in a contained space like a car or camper. They did speak to the dog owner and he was not happy the police were called.

I know it's not the responsibility of the library to police the cars parked outside their facility, but I hope they will consider posting something on their front door or in the entryway regarding leaving pets in the car. Perhaps posting the heat chart The Nugget has used in the paper (a larger version so they can't miss it).

If you want to be an animal owner, be responsible. Check the temperature; even if you don't feel the heat, your pets will. How would you like to be locked in a car with a fur coat on when it's over 70 degrees outside?

Jeanne Fairman

•••

To the Editor:

I congratulate Mr. Fisher on being a long-distance hiker (Letters to the Editor, The Nugget, June 26). I, too, used to hike and enjoy all the beauty we have around us. If Mr. Fisher has ever spent a significant amount of time in a wheelchair, he might be able to appreciate the pleasure one can get from the outdoor experience, even if on a paved path on flat ground with limited opportunities to enjoy scenic vistas. The definition of scenic is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, bicycle riders will use the trail. It will provide a significant number of people the ability to travel between Sisters and points along the route, saving energy in the process. As to the cost, I agree a million dollars is a lot of money. I wonder if Mr. Fisher has ever explored the cost to create the trails he uses, plus the cost to maintain them and the roads he uses to access them.

I hope Mr. Fisher is able to continue his long-distance hiking for many years to come, but maybe he will keep in mind that someday he might be willing to settle for a flat paved trail with limited vistas.

Blair Osterlund

•••

To the Editor:

Thank you so much for a really good whole-body laugh after reading the adjacent headlines on the front page of The Nugget. It read, "Woman seriously hurt in Quilting project..." or so I thought. On further inspection, saw that the woman was hurt in a Camp Sherman wreck (a real tragedy, I'm sure), while the quilting project was a different item. But imagining what might cause serious harm while quilting, tickled my funny bone and I'm still enjoying it.

Lynn Jameson

•••

To the Editor:

I have serious concerns regarding the Sisters-BBR paved pathway.

My primary concerns are fiscal and environmental.

Fiscal: Nobody seems to know (or is willing to honestly say) just how much this bike path would cost. Estimates run between $1-3 million. Yikes. The STA has pledged to maintain, repair, and take responsibility of the path, yet has not budgeted the money to do so, nor have they demonstrated exactly how they would go about funding their bike path on an on-going basis.

Environmental: The amount of forest and animal habitat that would be permanently destroyed and paved over makes this proposed bike path an unqualified environmental nightmare. The details can be found in the Environmental Assessment prepared by the USFS. I am no tree-hugger, but I do feel that there is something very wrong about clear-cutting a 20-foot swath through our forest for the sake of an afternoon bike ride.

However, in his letter to The Nugget last week, Mr. Thompson takes the age-old approach of wrapping himself in the flag and states that to be against the bike path is to be unpatriotic, selfish, anti-veteran, unsympathetic to people with disabilities, narrow-minded, guilty of ageism and uncaring to those who are born with birth defects and, of course, ignorant. Huh?

(Perhaps even Mr. Thompson would begrudgingly acknowledge my time-management skills in that I found time to write this letter between organizing Old Glory-torching rallies and clubbing physically challenged baby seals.)

Greg Werts

•••

To the Editor:

As the specter of wildfires roaring into sub-divisions and destroying homes increases around Central Oregon it seems (to me) something must be done to prevent the cost of fighting these fires from becoming a burden on the whole community. It isn't a matter of "will it happen" around Sisters, but

"when."

It appears the only answer for those people who want to - and do - live in the forests, sagebrush and juniper, is they must pay for their own fire protection. Homeowners will have to team up and purchase that protection; create their own fire district, hire firefighters, rent equipment and station it on site all summer long. Or, they could pay a fee to the local fire department to hire additional summer help and purchase the equipment required to stop wildfire from burning

them out.

That way, you and I, or, "The Government," doesn't have to foot the bill for those who scream: "Don't tell me what I can or can't do with my land!" All they have to do is pay for it; and that includes people like me who live in the Sun Mountain sage and juniper woodlands.

It should also be a state law, not just something for the counties to play with. I believe it's called, "Putting your money where your mouth is."

Jim Anderson