Letters to the Editor 12/14/2016

To the Editor:

Merry Christmas! Just a reminder that the Christmas Food Share & Gifts sponsored by Sisters Kiwanis, Sisters-Camp Sherman Fire Department, and Furry Friends Foundation will happen this Saturday, December 17, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at Sisters Fire Hall.

Remember to have a letter of permission if you are picking up for someone else. If you are unable to pick up your certificates, please call me, Shirley Lalli, at 541-977-6643.

From all of us to you, we hope you have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Shirley Lalli

Sisters Kiwanis

•••

To the Editor:

The long laudatory description in "The Bunkhouse Chronicle" of Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis (The Nugget, December 7, page 25), who has bragged about how he enjoyed killing people and who is Donald Trump's selection as Secretary of Defense, ignores two important points.

First, it is unconstitutional for a military official to hold the office of SecDef unless he has been retired for seven years. The law will have to be "waived" to allow him to serve. The rationale for this law is that putting a military official in that position undermines civilian control of the military.

As we know, war is too important to be left to the generals. They are experts at blowing things up but have no idea what to do afterward.

Second, appointing a general as SecDef is to set up a major conflict of interest. His primary task is NOT to advise the president on warfighting, but to oversee and manage the organization of the military and its huge bloated and wasteful budget. I say this as one who worked for DOD for almost 30 years. As a member of the privileged military caste who are the beneficiaries of this budget, a military official as SecDef will be the fox running the hen house. He will not be inclined to put the public's interest above that of the military.

In short, appointing a military official to the position of SecDef is a very bad idea.

Gary Leiser

•••

To the Editor:

Chuck Humphreys' letter regarding the closure of the gravel pit (The Nugget, Letters to the Editor, December 7) has some appropriate points, and it is definitely worth noting that the safety issues it presents are significant.

However, I do feel the underlying issue was not stated and, for reasons known to those residing in Crossroads, might not be something the writer wanted to emphasize.

Crossroads residents, and especially those who've been here for some time, are well aware of the intention Sisters Trails Alliance has to develop public trails on private land which, by the way, will not happen - ever. We, its residents, intend to keep this community private and will not tolerate an invasion of privacy from any outside entity or rogue residents looking to gain favor from any organization.

As I stated earlier, the gravel pit appears unsafe and its usage does need some serious review. However, is a permanent closure the right answer, or is it the ultimate intention of Sisters Trails Alliance to gain futile progress toward the development of land, despite the consequences it could have on private community residents?

Why not a reconfiguration effort for the gravel pit to become one of the named cinder pits the USFS designates and recognizes?

Eric Diaz

•••

To the Editor:

The point that I wished to make in my letter of September 28 and today is that we are not necessarily safe in our homes during a high-wind event.

The only place to be is away from all of the big trees.

Sincerely and experientially,

Anita Louise Kirkaldy

•••

To the Editor:

I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to Chuck Humphreys for his letter to The Nugget dated December 7, calling attention to a serious and dangerous situation we have here in Sisters, the McKenzie Gravel Pit.

As a member of Oregon Equestrian Trails (OET) and Sisters Trails Alliance (STA), I helped build the Jimerson Trail and it is my adopted trail for making sure all trash is picked up at least twice a year.

About a month ago Donna Timmerman of STA drove me out to inspect the McKenzie Gravel Pit. I was horrified to realize just how close the pit is to the Jimerson Trail and was appalled by the graffiti and trash in the pit. The Forest Service had placed a sign, "no shooting," but it had been shot full of holes and knocked down. The gate that had been put at the entrance had been torn off its hinges.

Chuck has provided all the facts. The major and most sobering fact being a statement by Bill Lewis of COSSA, after a recent inspection of the pit, in which he states, "...it is definitely unsafe for target shooting..."

I wish I had the answers. Do we just wait until there is an unfortunate accident - be it in Crossroads, a car or cyclist on Highway 242, or a child playing on Trout Creek Butte - before some form of legal action is taken?

I totally agree with Chuck that everyone has a right to be in the forest doing what they love most. Cyclists (STA) and trail riders (OET), have been working together for several years to achieve that goal. By working together building and maintaining trails these two organizations have made great strides in making sure that each of their respective sports gets to enjoy the trails in a safe and respectful manner.

There are multiple places for shooters to enjoy their sport that are safe. Why are a few idiots allowed to get away with this defiant, derelict and disrespectful behavior? What action can be taken to stop the shooting at McKenzie Gravel Pit before a serious accident occurs? With what I observed it is just a matter of time.

Gayla Nelson