Letters March 3, 2010

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

By JH Weekly User

Protect Wyo. Range
The recently released Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the 44,720 contested acres leased for energy development in the Wyoming Range identifies “No Action” (to not drill in this area) as the preferred alternative. If chosen, this would permanently retire the leases, thanks to the Wyoming Range Legacy Act.
Please voice support for the Forest Service’s wish to protect this area. Send your comments by March 22: Bridger-Teton National Forest; attn. Forest Supervisor Kniffy Hamilton; PO Box 1888; Jackson, WY 83001 or comments-intermtn-bridger-teton@fs.fed.us. And when you see Kniffy Hamilton, express your gratitude and hope for the same finding for other areas currently being evaluated for drilling.
– Heather Mathews, Hoback

The Toyoda Inquisition
As one of many, I had my eyes and ears focused upon the congressional inquisition of the Owner in Chief of Toyota automotive industries, Mr. Toyoda himself; following his extradition to the United States. With his explanation of uncertainty, (nonchalance), and an insincere apology for his company’s hasty growth, (greed), the outcome had appeared to suffice to let bygones, (profit for all), be bygones.
I sincerely hope that the top officials of Ford, General Motors and Chrysler were witnessing the same hearing as I. Perhaps, if they were truly committed competitors in their field, this may have inspired them to shift into a higher gear and produce the the best automobiles in the world; which at one time they had a claim to.

I believe that it would be a boost to this ailing economy if we were to import less foreign automobiles, eliminate their American production factories and employ those auto workers, along with recalling all of those whom have been laid off after years of devotion, in plants that produce American cars of top quality of which they would be proud of and that the American consumer may once again purchace with confidence. Such an act may be a true stimulus package of pride and esteem for a people in which these virtuous values have dissipated.
– Patrik Troiani, Jackson

Dog Sense
Recently I authored a letter to the editor as per the dog situation in the valley [Letters, JH Weekly, Feb. 24]. Planet Jackson Hole’s letters to the editor online comment remarks responding to my opinion was so askew they bordered on the ridiculous.

One response compared the chemical make up of moose to dog droppings, a lot of responses criticized my motorcycle, some even suggested I go for anger management treatment yet not one respondent tackled the problem of irresponsible dog owners.

I added a comment that even if 80 percent of dog owners were responsible (high estimate) that would leave 20 percent that aren’t meaning that at anytime there are about 200 dogs running free around our neighborhoods.

In my neighborhood alone as I head for work there are at least six dogs running free, how many times do responsible dog owners walking their dogs on a leash get challenged by free roaming dogs?

Does anyone believe that the Town Council will take up the issue of uncontrolled dogs, the odds on bet is no way, the reason being is because of a conflict of interest I’m not sure but I’d bet that most council members are dog owners.

As the population of Jackson grows who in their right mind believes the situation will improve unless some meaningful restrictions are enacted and enforced. So lets grab hold of the tail of this problem and doggedly come to some sort of consensus we can all abide by.
bkrichmar@msn.com
– Butch Krichmar, Jackson
PERMALINK:
Letters March 3, 2010 | Planet JH News Article: Letters To Editor

Reader Comments
Sorry, Butch, I missed your last letter and blog comments, so here goes: Hell, no, the town council will not take any further issue with anything related to dog control. Dogs are politically correct, dontcha know. Aren't they cute when they crap everywhere in sight? Dogs have a RIGHT to be anywhere, anytime and do anything they want completely unattended, including barking at all hours, crapping in your yard, chasing your pet, chasing wildlife, jumping on strangers with muddy paws...yes, I could go on. Further, owners have a RIGHT to be completely inattentive to their charges; they're free spirits, pal, they need to roam free (and aren't they cute?). Leash law? Don't make me laugh. "But I have him under CONTROL!" Hmph. The forest service at least made a half-hearted attempt to police Cache Creek trail by publicizing how much dog-doo they cleaned up and threatened enforcement. Yeah, right. We'll see about that. Did Paul DeBoer have the right idea all along? This is all being tested now, you know. A young lady who has been awarded an affordable home thinks she has the right to inflict her dog on wildlife (and everyone), as she thinks she has a right to go against a Housing Authority rule prohibiting pets in the new development at Golf and Tennis. So now it goes in front of the county commission for a ruling on what's already been ruled on, and everyone can have a lot of fun wasting time and money on such foolishess. So, the Housing Authority made a mistake by erroneously saying dogs were allowed there, then realized there was already a rule against them. Big deal. They were right the first time, no reason to go against the no dogs rule there. Unless, of course, you think that "wildlife is sacred! Except where MY dog is concerned!!". What a curmudgeon. See what you started, Butch? Anonyholic II
The simple fact is, most people love dogs, most dogs are sweet, and most people don't give a damn if a dog is off its leash. Should we all be in a twitch because YOU and a few others don't like free roaming dogs? If dogs run free, then why not we, across the swooping plain? that's mr. dog lover too you
lets draw a line in the poop. just say no when you have the chance teton county pols. most of us are sick of dog poop. sick of dog poop bags left on the side of our trails. too many dogs!!!! dave
So the way I see it is you have two very separate issues that are clouding the main argument which is should dogs be allowed in affordable housing (not should dogs be allowed anywhere). My opinion is yes, dogs should be allowed in affordable housing, and why not? If the wealthy homeowners across the street in the newly built, "on prime moose habitat" cabins can have dogs, why can't their new neighbor? And why are you blaming the affordable housing applicant for bringing this issue to the forefront when it was the cabin owners across the street who fought to get the dog prohibition put in at the last minute. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Take a drive up north to see the actual lay of the land in question. From there, it all starts to make sense. The free-market luxury cabins were recently built on a much larger footprint than the current affordable housing now in question and were built in prime moose habitat. Compare that now to the smaller affordable housing footprint across the street and you start to see the reality of the situation. Poor rich people! They think only their dogs should be allowed on prime moose habitat and they certainly don't want their property values harmed by the new development across the street. It stinks of elitism and is unfortunate that more people aren't paying attention to this. It's not about dog poo, it's about people being poos. Anon

Opinion

Letters March 3, 2010

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Reader Comments