Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
First and foremost, I want to thank columnist Ross Talbott for keeping the debates rolling throughout the community.
After reading Mr. Talbott’s predator column of Sept. 13, I can’t help but comment. It seems to me that these policies are established by compassionate people with a natural balance in mind, lobbying for harmony. I believe these policy makers probably have the most diverse experience with wildlife; hence their desire to re-establish what is rightfully so; not what came later.
There must be compromise. Irrational are individuals who choose not to overcome preconceptions. The logic is lacking. Everyone must learn to respect and live with nature, rather than against it. Theory must be supported through education and study, only then will one understand the truth.
I have hunters in my family and have much reverence for their way of life. They utilize their kill to feed their families, something I would never criticize because they respect the life they have taken.
Coyotes, along with many other predators, exhaust a lot of energy to obtain their kill. Therefore I can’t wrap my head around why them doing so is an awful thought, when all we have to do is pull a trigger. But it’s acceptable because we hold a piece of paper giving us the justification to do so.
This is the circle of life, we of course being at the top. The reasoning and caring is evident among all living beings. It is the responsibility of individuals to make the effort to understand it.
Nature in its complexity must be looked at as just that, complex. We must expand our grasp further to realize the benefit each living being offers such a complex system.
Consciousness must be heightened at times, even when it is out of our comfort zone. The truth must be sought, to awaken us to the discovery of nature and all its magnificence.
Compassion’s enemies are moral outrage and fear. It is time the cycle is broken. How can we place all the blame on predatory animals? In essence, are we not the same?
Regarding Linda Hayes’ comment about the disposable bags being free, I beg to differ. Their cost is included in pricing merchandise.
Will prices go down to reflect the new fee? Will the reusable bag nickel rebate be retained? Hard to guess, but customers will now also be taxed to cover the use and disposal of bags and other initiatives as stated in the article.
A fee is yet another name for a tax if it is levied by a government body. This one is avoidable if you want to play their game and bring your own bags. When behavior does not change voluntarily, government is very willing to step in to coerce it.
I happen to use both cloth and disposable bags and have no guilty feelings, as the plastic ones I occasionally need are repurposed to line my wastebaskets. I don’t buy small bags for that purpose.
What’s next? A fee on all purchases of plastic bags, too?
I’m having a bit of a problem with all the talk about charging consumers for using plastic grocery bags. Besides being totally nauseated by any more charges for anything that the average family is expected to swallow, I simply don’t understand why “we the people” are being penalized for a toxic product that a corporation is using to sell, or package, its own goods.
If plastic bags are toxic, fine. Outlaw the stinkin’ bags and get over it. End of conversation. No mas.
I made one brief phone call to the first company I Googled that produces compostable bags the size of a typical grocery bag. The price of a case of 500 compostable bags is about $100. Do some quick math, and that comes to about 20 cents per bag retail. (Obviously a corporate chain will purchase tens of thousands of bags at lower prices).
Seeing that stores already have to pay for the grocery bags now in use, it should be a simple case of “requiring stores to use compostable bags. And not just grocery stores.
This ain’t rocket science here, folks. If a 20-cent compostable bag is not worth it to a company to have us to fill up their bag with $35 worth of goods, then so be it. If it’s a $5 item, tell the stores to quit putting these items in bags in the first place.
If the concept is to truly encourage people to bring their own reusable grocery bags, fine. Give them a per-bag discount.
It just seems useless to continue to allow a product that is being called “toxic to the environment” to be allowed to be used at all. Compounding this farce is the lunacy of charging the consumer for its ongoing use.
A related topic mentioned recently in a letter to the editor is about packaging. Here we have totally lost our minds. Most of the packaging inside of packaging and boxes inside of boxes is a farce. If we are going to attempt to cease using toxic bags and wasteful packaging, let’s just use some common “cents.”
Having read the statement made by Mary Elizabeth and Chris Geiger in their Sept. 12 letter, “Colorado is currently 49th in state spending on public schools,” yet once again, I am compelled to say not so.
An Issue brief of December 2010 written by the Colorado Legislative Council states that Colorado ranks 34th in per pupil operating expenditures.
People can read it for themselves here: http://tinyurl.com /4xfoeku.
I am not sure who is perpetuating this misleading and untrue information, but it is wholly untrue and deceives voters.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
The moratorium will prevent RMR Industrials from applying to update the special use permit for the limestone quarry north of Glenwood Springs.