|
|
|
|
Email comments to: dave@utahoutdoors.com. We'll publish them here. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
From Karen: YAHOOOO for the wolves. Now maybe i won't have to drive 5-6 hours to Yellowstone to see them. As for having an affect on the deer and elk, well of course they will, but i bet not nearly as much as the drought, over hunting, land loss from developement and over grazing and just plain bad management by fish and wildlife. They were here first, and they deserve to be here now. I would rather see or hear a pack of wolves on my camping trip then to see and hear and smell a stinking herd of 600+ cows or sheep as they trample my campsite. Anyone had that happen to them? (1-27-03)
From Joel Gray: I think it's great that wolves are coming back. That means their population must be up and the threat of extinction is decreasing. I also think that the wolf should remain a protected species for many years to come. I know ranchers, in general, don't like the return of the wolf for fear of the impact on livestock. I have several comments on this issue: Nobody should have the right to kill a wolf unless it is threatening attack on human life. Ranchers should be compensated for loss due to wolves. But, also the ranchers need to see that there are places that livestock just don't belong, such as deep in the forests and mountains, and keep the livestock out of these places and harms way. (12-26-02)
From Bill Housley: Wolves are dangerous to livestock but they are also dangerous to the coyotes. Coyotes are a far worse hazard to livestock than the wolves are because wolves try to avoid man and coyotes do not. Studies have shown that having wolves in an area reduces coyote populations and livestock losses. Of course wolves hunt wild game, but maybe having a few wolves around will help stir the deer off of private land. I think that Utah is ready for the return of the wolf. However, the livestock owners need to be given proper consideration too. They should be allowed a reasonable ability to protect their livestock. Wolves are smart, and giving the livestock owners adequate freedom will provide the wolves with a deterrent and they will respond by killing less livestock. (12-25-02)
From Kevin Noorda: We plan just don’t need them. They eat everything and how can people say that they are a balance to the environment. We have struggling deer herds as it is. And I really think they are a threat to humans–what predator isn’t. I love the outdoors and am an avid bow hunter. I DON'T want to run in to a wolf, and yes I have seen many bobcats, cougars and bears in the woods. I don’t want to see wolves to. (12-12-02)
From Jared M: I personally am glad the wolves are back. It’ll be nice to have more of a wild history back and if they get a few of the millions of livestock o well, more food for the native deer and elk. (12-12-02)
From Jeff George: I don't think they'll hurt anything. They might get a few cows and sheep but they love to eat elk and deer. But this means that we shouldn't issue quite as many tags. Coyotes eat more livestock than anything. I don't really care wolves are in Utah as long as they don't bother me. (12-11-02)
Dear Editor:
The dichotomy of sentiments expressed in your July, 2002, issue was disturbing. You lamented the invasion of our “red-rock paradise” by teeming hordes of city kids while, at the same time, promoting further invasions.
“Solitude and unspoiled beauty are magic ingredients... harder to find,” you said, then had Mark Reece tell us how to trash them both, ploughing up Onion Creek in a shiny SUV with the stereo blasting (six SUVs, actually, for only 11 people and a dog)! How about an article on Desert Ethics 101?
Our impact on the fragile desert landscape is severe. Tracks across the cryptobiotic soil crust last decades and promote rapid soil erosion. Orange peels can remain for years. Driving up a rare desert stream can be devastating.
I chalk it up to selfish ignorance rather than malice. Kill a weed in your city garden and another replaces it soon. Kill a weed (?) in a crypto garden and it might be years before anything else grows in that spot. It’s that dry here.
If I took my 4X4 off-road in, say, American Fork, across the flowerbeds and up the courthouse steps or churning through the water hazards at the golf course, the visible impact would be healed in weeks. Down Moab way, those scars might last a lifetime.
Driving off-road is illegal EVERYWHERE in Grand County with the exception of some sand dunes and dry washes specifically set aside for that use. Stay on the roads. There are plenty of them, some tough enough to break a Rover.”
As for hiking in solitude amidst unspoiled beauty, if you’re a destination oriented hiker and your destination is a popular one, tough, you’re part of the horde. Consider non-destination oriented hiking. It’s easy and there are zillions of places you can do it.
Just pull over at a wide spot. Turn off your noisy stereo. Shut down that smelly engine. Get out into the fresh air and stroll up over the hill or down the wash. Listen to the silence. Careful where you put your feet. Don’t want to crush living things. (This can be an exciting challenge in itself.) Get naked if you want. Have some fun. Enjoy the freedom. Always remember where you parked. It’s your only destination.
I can’t help but agree with Golden Webb’s opinion (The Dark Side of Canyoneering) in that same issue regarding the massive incursion of outsiders to the backcountry, but I’ll be gentler. Attention Metropolitan Hordes!: It might be better if you just stayed home and sent us your money. No, really. We’ll be glad to send you the video.
Your rural buddy,
Randy Evans
Moab, Utah
Dear Editor:
As one of your long-time subscribers, and you've used some of my Dutch oven recipes in the earlier issues, I have really liked the "new" Utah Outdoors—until now. I don't appreciate seeing "a..h..." in your magazine and I don't feel I can now pass it on to my grandkids to read with such crud in it.
I hope you don't continue to feel that such crud is necessary in what has been a family magazine.
Best wishes,
Dick Michaud
Logan
Dear Editor:
Your juxtaposing the anti and pro fishing cancellation letters in the September issue was compelling. It points out the difficulty of providing a magazine that entirely satisfies such a diverse reader base. It seems to me there are enough Utahns who enjoy the outdoors to easily support a magazine. But they are divided into groups that possess alienating philosophies. If you try to make everyone happy by avoiding anything that might offend, you end up with a bland product which people find uninteresting.
Because of Utah's limited population, the mountain bikers can't have a local magazine without the fishermen, and the fishermen can't have a local magazine without the mountain bikers; everyone should try to live in tolerance or live without.
I've noticed that there is a large number of Utahns who simply haven't heard of the magazine. Perhaps your embracing controversy and diversity of opinion will alter that. I think you offer quite a bit for $20 per year.
Sincerely,
Jim Owens
Park City