tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8999648290761146346.post6462989718276331630..comments2022-11-09T04:02:07.813-07:00Comments on Reid’s Interwebsblogg: Should we cut down mature ponderosa forest to accommodate a golf course expansion?Reidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01705216128276218311noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8999648290761146346.post-44320176745761616782012-03-16T09:38:23.399-06:002012-03-16T09:38:23.399-06:00Reid,
I know this is an old post and there have b...Reid,<br /><br />I know this is an old post and there have been many developments in this issue since then, but just wanted to thank you for this logically-stated letter. It has a very down to earth tone, and the framework is right on. Obviously as a forest user and not a golfer, you (and me and others) are opposed to removing any trees, but you used a non-dogmatic approach by asking the Expansion supporters to show why they want to do it they way they do. Ok, if they need to cut 5 acres of trees, show me why, and that you have explored *not* cutting them, etc. Removing their vagueness increases transparency and understanding, and is the only way for both sides to work together. You put down the exact questions I had as well, like what exactly are these "safety concerns", and I think if everyone can continue with this sort of tone and attitude, the project will turn out in a way we can all live with. Thanks.<br /><br /><br />AlexAlex Vnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8999648290761146346.post-18108629135072650632011-12-12T21:56:03.035-07:002011-12-12T21:56:03.035-07:00Hi Anonymous,
Thanks for commenting! However, I d...Hi Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for commenting! However, I don’t see how this is a serious response to my letter.<br /><br />Can you elaborate on why you think a zero-tree goal is “just silly”? Specifically, in my letter, I laid out a framework for how I believed the golf course could make its case for tree removal – show that the zero-tree option has been seriously evaluated and found lacking. Do you believe the golf course has done this? It certainly wasn’t in any of the materials I’ve seen, but I could have missed something. Or do believe that the framework I suggest is wrong? In either case, please say more.<br /><br />Second, I’m not discounting safety, and I obviously don’t believe that getting hit by a golf ball is any fun. But, you’re making the safety argument in the same way that we saw repeatedly at the meeting: with anecdotes. Thoughtful people do not spend tax dollars and destroy natural places based on anecdotes. Again, in my letter I lay out what I believe is the correct framework for making the safety case: use statistics to describe the level of safety issues, and then compare that level to other similar courses. Do you have the data to make this case? Or do you believe my framework is wrong? Please say more.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />ReidReidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01705216128276218311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8999648290761146346.post-36103441154849574182011-12-12T14:36:02.977-07:002011-12-12T14:36:02.977-07:00I use the trails a lot and golf a little. 0 tree ...I use the trails a lot and golf a little. 0 tree loss is just plain silly. Safety is associated with the driving range. When hitting from the range it's pretty easy to hit into the old #2 fairway. If you've ever been hit by a golf ball, which starts it's flight at 100mph, believe me hurts. I've gotten hit in the leg twice (not at LA), it leaves a welt for weeks. If I had been hit in the temple or the eye, it would have been very bad. Don't discount safety.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com