Leah Cantor
A May low-intensity prescribed burn in Pacheco Canyon consumed ground fuels and lower branches but left the upper canopy intact.
Cover, Oct. 16: “Prescribed Protection”
Co-Exist
The only saving grace of this one-sided story is how it ends. …
We have forgotten in our panic to prevent climate-driven fires that every end is also a beginning. Nutrients wash in from the burned hillsides. Charred tree trunks tumble downslope to create pools and slow water flow.
It's futile to attempt to tame the forces of renewal as nearly 20 years of fuel reduction efforts by the US Forest Service has shown. After spending billions, less than 1% of cleared and intentionally burned areas have encountered the wildfire they were designed to control. Co-existence with the forces of nature is the better choice. And patience to let the forest and streams self-heal.
Sam Hitt
Santa Fe
No Consensus
… The only consensus that prescribed burns are helpful is among the employees of the Forest Service, their affiliates, the timber industry and individuals who receive grants and contracts to promote and implement prescribed burns.
Journalism must guard against being used to promote harmful projects in the Santa Fe Forest. The Forest Service should adhere to federal law and have an environmental impact study before they do any burning.
Fred King
Santa Fe
Opinion, Oct. 16: “Full Story Needed”
No Defamation
Dear Mr. Brent,
… You must be an extremely sensitive person or a good friend of Dr. Parker to find the letter threatening. If you want to see threatening, just watch the news or read Trump's tweets.
The definition of defamation—look it up—there is no defamation in the letter. I was happy to see a public official publicly support what he believes in. Don't think it will compromise his reputation.
By the way, I am not a customer of the New Old Trail Garage.
Paul Elsey
Santa Fe
