State doesn’t need to expand wilderness
Your Oct. 13 editorial [“State should hear alternatives on Boreas plan”] on the possible classification of the Boreas Ponds area as wilderness raises some questions. One is that we already have more than 1 million acres of wilderness in the Adirondacks, and the rest is heavily protected by the Forever Wild Amendment to the Constitution.
You would be hard pressed, for example, to find a difference in air or water quality between wilderness areas and wild forest areas.
Your editorial mentions the solitude found in wilderness areas. Where’s the solitude when you hike in a line of hikers belt buckle to wallet three miles up a mountain and three miles back down? That’s the result of over-promotion by groups like the Adirondack Council and The Nature Conservancy.
For years, they’ve promoted wilderness as protection for wildlife. Anyone who reads the newspaper or watched TV knows that we have bears, coyotes, moose, fishers and bobcats roaming the Capital District. Wildlife numbers are determined more by habitat and food than by anything relating to wilderness.
Last year, Washington County was one of the top counties in the number of bobcats tagged by conservation officers and Saratoga near the top in number of fishers tagged. If you want to see something interesting, Google “fishers killing cats.” It’s happening all over the Northeast.
Numerous times I’ve read about the Boreas area as “pristine” with rare and sensitive environments. To me that sounds like an endorsement of the logging that went on there for over 100 years. During the logging years, hundreds of people got enjoyment from recreating in the Boreas area — pronounced “Boris” by natives — especially senior citizens. With wilderness, those senior citizens can apparently find something else to do, perhaps bowling.
If we had 3 million acres of wilderness in the Adirondacks, we would still have a small hard-core group promoting more with their fancy, inflated rhetoric. Why do they do it? Some of them because they get paid for it. While that may be good for them, it’s not so good for many others.
South Glens Falls
Ryan’s agenda does not support women
One week after House Speaker Paul Ryan was “sickened” by Donald Trump’s sexist remarks about women, Ryan stated he wouldn’t be campaigning for Trump because he wanted to keep Republican control of the House.
Several Republican politicians running for office promptly joined in the chorus of moral outrage by publicly withholding their support for the standard-bearer of the Republican Party.
Since 2010, the Republican-controlled House has introduced “personhood” laws that would give a fetus the status of a person and criminalize a woman having an abortion in certain situations. They made their first legislative goal to defund Planned Parenthood, which primarily provides health care for women, proposed an amendment that would permit employers the right to withhold health insurance coverage for contraception, and opposed the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would give women equal pay.
In their display of faux moral outrage, Paul Ryan and his fellow Republicans are hoping no one notices that their legislative actions with regard to women’s issues are more subtle but no less vulgar than Trump’s words.
If actions do speak louder than words, Ryan’s desire to retain Republican control of the House is intended to legislatively continue to treat women as less than equal and in the process prove his actions are just as repugnant as Trump’s words.
Want president who will be thoughtful
During any presidential debate, one side can say anything about the other side. However, when push comes to shove, and we listen to the debates and the candidates campaigning, we form impressions. We get a sense of how each person handles themselves, what their vision is for our country, and how they might act once in the White House.
Will one be thoughtful and the other shoot from the hip? Will one reflect on decisions or depend too much on immediate feelings at the moment? One thing that most would agree with is that decisions made from the White House require a lot of reflection and thought, and hopefully not a canned or reactive response.
The reason is because of the complexity of the decisions and the huge impact on others. I hope that voters are looking for a person with the temperament and experience needed to do the thoughtful work of the president.
I wish for our next president to lead with a level head, calm deliberation, weighing the pros and cons of issues, and making decisions using all of those factors.
Will new president have time to do job?
The United States is trying to elect a president to lead our country. Hopefully, whomever is elected, that person will have time to assume those duties.
What the people who are trying to elect someone for the job have noticed is that the candidates running for that office appear to have quite a few problems of their own.
Walter “Neal” Brazell
Letters related to the Nov. 8 general election must be received at The Gazette no later than 5 p.m. Tuesday (Oct. 25).
Letters of about 200-300 words are suggested. Longer letters may be published online only.
GAZETTE COVERAGEEnsure access to everything we do, today and every day, check out our subscribe page at DailyGazette.com/Subscribe
More from The Daily Gazette:
Categories: Letters to the Editor