OCR Text |
Show Letters from our readers . . . Dear T.I. Readers: I'm writing as a concerned parent interested in seeing more active interest and support sup-port for our Little League Football program. The season for football has ended here, and as the mother of one of the ten year old players, I am really disappointed at the nearly total lack of interest shown by the community. With the exception of a handful hand-ful of people, no one really seems to care whether the youngsters play football or not. There is such great support and dedicated enthusiasm for Little League baseball. By comparison, football is treated as the "poor unwanted relation." rela-tion." Why is this? There are so many young boys who love to play football, and a few dedicated men who turn out every year and try to teach them the game. Yet, for all their efforts, they have to play on poor fields with poor equipment, and with only a few Moms and Dads on the sidlines cheering for their favorite team. I would like to thank the men and women who have turned out to coach the boys and do the many things that must be done. A very special "thank you" to Clara Blanch-ard, Blanch-ard, a very nice lady who hs spent many, many hours working to see Little League Football played here in Moab. I, for one, plan to try to do more to support these people who are trying so hard to help the boys play football. Why don't more of you parents try to help and support the boys too? They are our kids and need our help. Others who need our help are the people that coach and spend all the hours organizing teams and refereeing the games. There is a lot of work behind the scene for the Little League football games. As long as it is for our children, in our town, why can't we all turn out and help too? Sincerely, Kathie Cresswell Dear Sam: In last week's editorial you shared a laugh with a humorous humor-ous letter mocking current government bureaucratic nonsense; non-sense; and in doing so, you tried to link that negative aspect of government procedures proced-ures with the recent proposals for managing Canyonlands National Park and Glen Canyon Can-yon Recreation Area. In linking link-ing the two, one stretches the connection to the breaking point, thereby pointing out why the opposition to those proposals sounds so hollow. By and large those who object to the plans are in favor of more government money being spent on development of those areas. Those same pro-development people, however, how-ever, are usually heard expounding ex-pounding the virtues of the free enterprise system, priding prid-ing themselves as fiscal conservatives, con-servatives, and generally ab-horing ab-horing waste in government spending on such questionable programs as welfare. Medicare, Medi-care, etc. Herein lies the irony and flaw in their reasoning. How can you on the one hand complain about government govern-ment interference in one's life and business, waste in government gov-ernment spending, deficit budgets, and balance of trade, as any good fiscal conservative conserva-tive might, and then howl bitterly because the government govern-ment is for once proposing NOT to waste taxpayer's dollars dol-lars on needless so-called improvements im-provements to Canyonlands and Glen Canyon? Who would benefit from such proposed spending excesses, ex-cesses, and how could anyone justify the expense economically? economi-cally? The park areas themselves them-selves wouldn't benefit, since more roads and development would only help to destroy the very qualities which make those areas unique. The average aver-age motoring tourist would hardly benefit, since the Confluence Con-fluence Overlook, in particular, particu-lar, cannot even begin to compare in terms of grandeur to existing, easily accessible overlooks at Grandview Pt., Green River Overlook and Deadhorse Point, in addition to the Anticline and Needles Overlook. The taxpayer certainly cer-tainly wouldn't benefit by spending millions of dollars for three miles of road and a bridge, since visitation figures continually rise without them. To a good fiscal conservative, conserva-tive, what coud be better than leaving those two park areas as they are. Adequate access already exists in both of them, and if anyone desires to see and experience more, they are free to do so by exerting a little effort or spending their own money on 4-wheel drive vehicles, or by taking advantage of the many available tour and guide services ser-vices in the area. What could be more in the spirit of free enterprise? And how can anyone any-one propose more government govern-ment spending in already heavily visited parks and call himself a businessman? That sounds like "Welfare Tourism" Tour-ism" to me. If you are going to continue to publicly criticize government govern-ment spending and policies, you can't have it both ways. "If you want to get the gov- j ernment off your back, youll first have to get your hands ' out of the government's pock- i ets." Sincerely, Raymond G. Taylor Dear Sam, I'm sorry District Supervisor Supervis-or Gene Day of Bureau of Land Management does not agree with me or my way of reporting. He had three chances chan-ces in meetings to swing opinion the other way, and didn't convince one person, so Til just stand on the record. However, I dislike ill feeling, feel-ing, and I would like to say to Supervisor Day: "Don't be a sore loser, Gene; even BLM can't win them all. Let's be friends. Who knows maybe we will be on the same side next time, and if I am as good as you say I am, youll need me!" Thanks, Sam, for letting me set the record straight. Sincerely, Pearl Baker |