I do sense a change in your publication’s focus towards the politics and policy of the federal government. I believe I sense a hardening in your attitudes toward those of us who have for generations taken a living from the Western landscape. For those of us who live in the landscapes which you are trying to protect, I believe this is a disservice, for only through the promotion of community-building will a sensible evolution of Western land use be possible.
Those of us who have been here for generations bear a huge burden for not extending a welcoming hand to those who have recently arrived from other climes; we should have welcomed them as neighbors and made use of their talents in building stronger communities. Instead, newcomers are frequently shunned. We should have helped them understand the laws, customs and traditions of our uses of the land and the water. Instead, we ignored and often abused their fresh new ideas.
If you had told the original members of the RGWCD that we would be negotiating reserved water rights settlements with the Forest Service or sponsoring a bill to protect the Rio Grande Corridor, they would be appalled, but that is exactly what is being done. It is being done with consensus, with a community not yet totally fragmented by an "us against them" mentality.
If it is results which your board desires, I hope that they will not abandon the support of community-based consensus.
Monte Vista, Colorado
- Andy Grosland on I have a lot in common with the Bundys. Here's what I'd like to say to them.
- Melissa McDowell on I have a lot in common with the Bundys. Here's what I'd like to say to them.
- Richard Reinaker on No, federal land transfers are not in the Constitution
- Steve Snyder on Sugar Pine Mine, the other standoff
- Robert Waddell on Oath Keepers show up for a public lands dispute in Oregon