I attended an Audubon presentation at Sweet Springs on Nov. 19 and scratched my head in wonderment.
This could have been a presentation warmly endorsed by the community, with volunteers eagerly signing up on clipboards to join in the effort.
Instead, it was marred by many outbursts and anxious questions regarding the planned removal of 120 full-grown, 90-year-old eucalyptus trees.
This invoked dissension is totally unnecessary! Almost all the eucalyptus are in alignment with the furthermost western border of the 8-acre east-end portion of Sweet Springs preserve in question. How easy it would be to allow these old trees to stand and live out the rest of their well-deserved lives, while the plans by Audubon for the rest of the 8 acres continues on.
But, no. The “kill the hated eucalyptus” faction of Audubon prevailed and insists on the unnecessary, and unnecessarily divisive, decision of pushing for the eucalyptus removal over the cries of protest.
Can’t we do both things? Plant the expansive open area with native plants and allow the trees in a line on the west end of the area finish their days in peace? Why not?
Poor job defining
The local Tea Party’s attempts to define Occupy Wall Street protesters on this opinion page are a disaster. The Tea Party should just stick to defining itself as favoring U.S. government for and by the super rich who wish to punish the poor and middle class.
Joblessness, income disparity, infrastructure decline, unaffordable health care, Chinese competition, congressional gridlock, lack of safety regulations on Wall Street, lack of campaign-finance reform ... These are real problems in the U.S. The Tea Party rhetoric is as unreal as an Ayn Rand fantasy.
Proves the point
Merle Price’s letter (Nov. 16) about losing our “freedoms” because of laws such as the proposed bag ban expresses exactly the reason for the laws! What the writer doesn’t realize is while “doing whatever we want” may have worked in the past — when population was low and Earth could handle abuses — it simply doesn’t now.
The Fallacy of the Commons is brought to mind: Each farmer decides they have the right to graze just one more cow on the commons ... and then overgrazing causes the herd to suffer.
Freedom does not mean each of us has the “right” to use plastic bags, drive polluting gas-guzzlers, burn as much wood as we want, etc. It means we have the responsibility to act responsibly!
Since it appears to be in our human nature not to want to do so (evidenced clearly by the letter!), we are forced to enact laws to limit irresponsible actions that eventually harm us all.
Don’t blame the politicians, blame the human attitude.
Such laws the Republicans claim are overregulation are, in fact, the logical response to no regulation and the resulting wanton disregard for Earth and our society as a whole.
San Luis Obispo