Protect mature and old-growth trees and forests

America’s forests once stretched from coast to coast, housing thousands of species of flora and fauna. Our country’s early practice of uncontrolled logging decimated most of the forests of the eastern United States. While some have regrown, they are not equal to the forests that stood before European settlers arrived. The western United States has fared slightly better, thanks in part to federal intervention and the establishment of the U.S. Forest Service to manage logging. But the agency’s practice of prioritizing management to maximize timber harvests, current and future, has left us with far too many young trees where old forests should be standing.

The Forest Service has acknowledged that inappropriate logging (“ecologically inappropriate vegetation management”) currently occurs in national forests. Now, we can tell the agency that it’s time to end harmful logging of mature and old-growth forests on Forest Service land. The agency has announced an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and is accepting public comments until July 20.

I urge members of the public to participate. Tell the Forest Service to move swiftly to protect mature and old-growth trees and forests, especially from logging, before the end of 2024.

Our wildlife and our watersheds depend on healthy forests anchored by mature and old-growth trees. Americans find peace of mind and spiritual fulfillment from spending time in forestlands such as the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests. They are worth more standing.

— Ellen Montgomery, Denver

Voters must control political parties

Re: “Red states got redder; blue ones got bluer,” June 4 news story

Across the U.S., the Democratic and Republican parties are viciously fighting for single-party control of the U.S. Government and American people/voters. Such party stronghold leaves citizens with little or no voice in our representative form of government. These parties have always shown dominance, but registered voters are now showing change by being labeled accordingly. These parties have divided voters and the social foundation and liberties of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Amendments.

In Colorado, change is happening to the Democratic and Republican parties, as voters show frustrations with both Parties. The Secretary of State, as of June 1, reveals that active Colorado voters are registered as 27% Democrats, 24% Republicans, and 47% as unaffiliated. These numbers show unaffiliated voters are more unified and fed up with the control of these parties of the U.S. government’s legislative, judicial and executive branches. The parties don’t represent the voters’ majority interests but the parties’ own ideology through an autocratic party leadership, which is financially supported by powerful elitists, lobbyists, and private/corporate political donors.

It is apparent that the American people strongly desire to regain control of government. However, to further this change, the registration process needs to be legislatively revised on a state level to allow a voter to be registered just as “U.S. Citizen” without any political party labeling.

— Garry Wolff, Highlands Ranch

Many arguments against meat

Re: “The real opponents of the Beef Checkoff are animal rights activists,” June 4 commentary

Has the writer, Janie VanWinkle, been asleep like Rip Van Winkle? Does she not realize that the push to eat less red meat (beef) and other meats is coming from several directions and not just abuse of animals?

Environmentalists have been saying cattle worldwide are contributing to global warming with their methane output. Nutritionists have been saying red meat in the diet has negative health consequences for humans with cardiovascular problems and diabetes and stroke and arthritis and certain cancers.

And since when has the Humane Society of the United States been labeled an “extreme” animal rights group? The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has been a rich and powerful lobby for a long time, trying to counter any objections to eating beef. The many grazing associations are powerful lobbies that want their tax-subsidized public grazing lands for cattle and therefore want to push off what they call “invasive” species like wild horses (who genetically preceded cattle in this country by a long shot).

So who are the “extremes” trying to control our diets? I’d say pushing the beef is more harmful than pushing some beef alternatives.

— Janet Carabello, Fort Collins

Abide by Court decisions

Re: “Two ways to fix U.S. Supreme Court,” June 4 letter to the editor

The Supreme Court doesn’t need fixing. People need to face the truth on the decisions of the court.

— Kenneth Martynuska, Arvada

Originalism and life expectancy

With the questionable integrity and legitimacy of the Supreme Court being in the news daily, I am intrigued by the suggestion of establishing term limits. As has been pointed out, when a term of life for the justices was originally set, the average life expectancy was less than 50. Folks living into their 80s were almost unheard of. Since several of our current justices and many conservatives are obsessed with textualism and adhering to the supposed original meaning of the drafters of the Constitution (as if the world and thought should have frozen), then perhaps life-term should be interpreted as the life expectancy as of the time when it was originally written.

— Lynne Forrester, Littleton

DIA not very welcoming to international passengers

Re: “Why is DIA security such a dumpster fire?” May 17 letter to the editor

A few weeks ago, a writer wrote in to deplore the security lines at DIA. I write to deplore the entry area for flights from overseas. I arrived from overseas on Monday. After sitting on the tarmac for 45 minutes, I decided to stop at the restroom before going through the entry process. I found broken locks on stalls, empty or non-functioning soap dispensers and a mere trickle of water from the faucets.

The unwelcoming entry area was dull, worn and depressing. For what we’ve been told is the greatest country in the world and the third busiest airport in the world, visitors are greeted with dinginess and broken facilities.

What does this say about Denver? I’m assuming it’s not the image Denver wants to promote. Furthermore, the endless construction and disarray, having now gone on for several years, is frustrating and aggravating. Thankfully, the staff was efficient.

— Mariann Storck, Wheat Ridge

More letters about Boebert

Re: “Absent: Well, Boebert didn’t vote against it,” June 4 letter to the editor

I am in staunch opposition to Lauren Boebert and anyone in Congress who acts like she has these past two weeks. I have held back in recent months in writing about this because, quite frankly I struggle to keep my comments respectable for public display. I support a recent reader’s letter about her antics leading up to the debt ceiling bill.

What irritates me more, though, is that since 2020, when Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District voters sent her to Washington, they have not been meaningfully represented and, in my view, have lost any influence they had on Colorado politics. If her views are truly theirs, then there is no hope for them.

But the Western Slope needs to hear these opinions as well; a letter to The Denver Post is not enough. So I encourage all of us to write directly to the editor of the Glenwood Springs Post-Independent, which is read along the Western Slope, to voice your opposition to her being your voice in Washington.

And to the people of District 3, I say this: you deserve to be heard. Do not focus on what Boebert says but on what she does. And she has done zero for you.

— Gary Rauchenecker, Golden