Home 
Opinion Letters Letters and comments for September 6, 2008
Letters and comments for September 6, 2008
|
McCracken
Mount Emily Recreation Area faces serious funding challenges. As recently reported, short-term extensive logging will be required to cover purchase costs. The area would likely be left unrecognizable even at a distance. The current management plan for MERA reflects the widely held ideology that public lands resources should be “harvested” to support local economies. Therefore logging and cattle grazing are written in as ongoing activities. But how would Mount Emily’s natural resources best serve Union County? If managed and marketed for recreation, visitors would come here year around for slow-paced family recreation. Local business establishments would benefit. We would be building on sense of place, rather than diminishing it. How can we secure purchase money without destroying the area? The environmental community donates money to protect natural areas for recreation and wildlife. If a management plan for MERC focused on recreation and forest health, we might successfully apply for their money. For this property, environmental goals make sense for quality of life and the local economy. Why not use their money to achieve our dream? Let your commissioners know how you feel about Mount Emily management. E-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , or call 963-1001. Mary McCracken La Grande |
