Letters to the Editor 10/24/2018

To the Editor:

The October 10 Nugget featured an article entitled, "Fire crews quell fast-moving blaze." A fire in the area of Sno Cap Lane and Vista Ridge Drive came dangerously close to destroying many homes. However, it was stopped by, "quick and heavy response enabled fire crews."

What's the lesson? Quick responses from firefighters and putting the fires out immediately saves lives, property and minimizes the impact of smoke. It's a lesson we should be applying throughout the Sisters-Bend-Redmond area!

Unfortunately, federal forest policy has grimaced at the practice of putting out fires quickly in favor of a wait-and-see approach that allows fires to rage before action is taken by firefighters. Perimeter containment only magnifies the effects of smoke and results in the burning of millions of acres of forest.

The impacts are unhealthy smoke, destruction of forest and property, loss of business and spiraling costs to fight the fires and repair infrastructure. Most costs are borne by local communities, not the federal government. According to a Headwater Economics' Research Report entitled, "The Full Community Cost of Wildfire," nearly half of all costs are paid for by the local community in long- and short-term impacts. The national cost in 1990 was $1 billion and increased to $4 billion in years 2000-2018. The forest service spends 67 percent of their budget on fire suppression, which accounts for only 12 percent of the total cost of fires.

According to the Center for Disease Control, one in three households are at risk for smoke. The very young, the very old, those with respiratory issues and chronic illness are all impacted by smoke. It's unhealthy and puts us at risk!

Smoke and fire also have some significant economic impacts. Let's take the Sisters Folk Festival for example. This year attendance was lower because people were unsure about the smoke situation and the cancellation of the previous year's festival. Or, how about the Shakespeare Festival in Ashland? According to The Nugget's October 3 article, the Shakespeare festival lost $2 million dollars. The list goes on but the message is consistent - fire policy costs us millions locally.

So, what can we do? We can INSIST that all fires are put out IMMEDIATELY. We can change federal forest policies and institute measures to put a fire-free zone around the Sisters-Bend-Redmond area. Our health and economic wellbeing are at stake. What's the risk of doing something? What's the risk of doing nothing? Make a difference, stop smoke by stopping fires now!

Susan A. Wilson

•••

To the Editor:

It's that time of year when we'll all be forced to set our clocks back an hour. Numerous studies show a substantial spike in accidents and health problems following the time changes, along with decreased productivity. As for myself, I resent the disruption to my circadian rhythms, the disturbing disorientation regarding mealtimes and scheduling of outdoor activities, and the week-long general malaise that I'm forced to endure two times a year until my brain and body adjust to the unnatural shift.

Oregon state Senator Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer) introduced SB 99 in 2015 to end the unnecessary time change. Nine other states have all introduced similar legislation. Arizona and Hawaii do not suffer daylight savings time. The EU will end daylight savings on October 28.

I don't know why three years after Thatcher's bill was introduced we are still stuck with this messy relationship to the rising and setting of the sun, but I encourage our legislators, both state and federal, to seize this opportunity to work on bipartisan legislation that will make us all happy. Just choose one time scheme, be it daylight savings or standard, and finally put an end to this nonsense.

Susanna DeFazio

s s s

To the Editor:

I have two comments about the mid-term election:

1. Do we want an 80-year-old billionaire buying the next governorship? What does a governor who gets $2.5 million dollars from one person owe in return?

2. I received a mailing from Knute Buehler's campaign, nice, glossy, colorful, EXCEPT for the photo of our governor which was in black and white, with her hair, eyebrows, and facial lines deepened and darkened, wearing a gray and black outfit and making her look witch-like just in time for Halloween. She is also being targeted for something that the legislature needs to address.

Why is it that men feel the need to portray women as ugly as possible, or demean them by publicly using slurs against them?

I am very angry and I think a lot of women feel the same. VOTE! Save our democracy.

Phyllis Lewis

•••

To the Editor:

I'm voting for Jamie McLeod-Skinner for U.S. Congress because Medicare, healthcare and honesty are important to me. Jamie is unequivocal in her support of Medicare and access to affordable healthcare for everyone.

Her opponent and his party have engaged for years in efforts to slash Medicare, abolish the Affordable Care Act and end protections for pre-existing conditions. Do not believe their claims that they are champions of healthcare protections. Not true. Our current Representative was the architect of the plan to end the Affordable Care Act. The stated goals and policies of his party are to replace Medicare with inadequate vouchers, to end subsidies that help people buy insurance, and to end regulations that prevent insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.

The choice is clear. If you believe, as I do, that Medicare is worth defending and that all Americans deserve affordable healthcare, regardless of pre-existing conditions, then vote for Jamie McLeod-Skinner.

Our health depends on it.

Janet Keen