Letters to the Editor July 3
If you don’t want a pet, take it to the shelter
The front page article on June 24 about the dog that was mistreated and left for dead was very disturbing. You did not publish the names of the people who did this terrible thing, and I can understand the reason for not giving their names. I am sure the threats of bodily harm to these people would have been many.
I sincerely hope these heartless people will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. They should have their ears cut off and their mouths taped shut and left to die.
If you have a pet and decide you don’t want it, take it to the nearest animal shelter and at least give the poor thing a chance to live.
Sandoval needs to stop slaughter of bears
Somehow or another I’ve always believed that the greater good for most things wins out. Not so with our native black bear and their survival.
We chose to live in Carson City because of the wildlife and the citizens’ caring nature, and now, we hear the powers that be are allowing their annihilation in open hunting season.
We’ve lived in Nevada for more than 20 years and have yet to see a wild bear. Letters from Catherine Burt and Billy Howard tell it like it is.
I’m asking you, Gov. Sandoval, to please stop this slaughter of bears, and possibly dogs, and humans.
Mary A. Perez
stay on their paths
In regards to Don Gurney’s letter on June 22, I agree 100 percent, regarding bicyclists ignoring the rules of the road.
When we take a driver’s test, it is stated, in effect that bicyclists should be given the same respect as a motor vehicle. Yet, in Carson, bicyclists seem to run amok. Why have we spent tax-paid dollars on excellent path lanes around this city when they are ignored? I live on a street with well-marked bike lanes and at least 50 percent of the time, I see bicyclists riding on the sidewalk, against facing traffic, or just riding in the bike lane, against traffic.
I’m sure our Sheriffs Department has better things to do, but I hope something is done before a serious accident occurs.
Furthermore, let me state, I love the concept of the bike paths and bicyclists, but are not lives more important?
Science says Yucca waste dump would be safe
In Guy Farmer’s column in the June 26 edition, he said there was evidence for Yucca Mountain being wetter than originally believed and vulnerable to earthquakes. That led him to observe: “So much for sound science.”
It is wetter than believed before there were scientific studies in the mountain, as can be read in the license application. Earthquakes are acknowledged in the license application. And when the risks from these two natural phenomena were added, using sound science, it added up to a likely outcome of a 1 percent increase in background radiation for a person pulling water from the most contaminated groundwater pathway into Amargosa Valley, a million years in the future. Somehow, that’s less safe than leaving the materials where they now are?
Farmer cites noted American physicist Michio Kaku of the City College of New York on the danger posed by Japan’s damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant.
Great argument for a repository that places it 1,000 feet under rock, like Yucca. Kaku has also written that the long-term survival of our species requires us to spread out to the stars, since the habitable Earth has a long, but still limited, lifetime. We ought to get to work on that and be ready.
Finally, the German decision to phase out nuclear power is cited as somehow being an argument against Yucca Mountain. Does that mean the 40-plus current orders for new nuclear plants around the world is an argument for Yucca? I didn’t think so.
Abe Van Luik
Regents didn’t do diligence to the public
Recently I attended the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents meeting. My expectations were high but performance by the board was woefully low. Approximately 50 of us – apprehensive about the future of Nevada higher education – took time off work to attend and share our opinions with the board.
The published agenda identified public testimony to begin at 1:15 p.m.; however, the Regents chose to postpone that. Why? So Board of Regents Chairman James Dean Levitt could show a video of his favorite Italian opera singers and another of himself in a television interview, read his favorite poetry passage, distribute do-rags (bandanas) to the Regents, conduct a photo session of the Regents wearing their headwear, and hold discussion for approval of the UNLV basketball and volleyball coaches’ contracts.
Those of us in attendance sat in disbelief. Many attendees had to leave. Once testimony commenced two hours later, Regent Levitt chastised a woman for wasting time getting her notes in order; furthermore, he was argumentative with the public and bullied several of the speakers. He demonstrated a lack of respect to Nevadans exercising their right to comment at a public meeting – he made a mockery of the process and the board’s authority.
The board, especially Chairman Levitt, owes an apology not only to those who attended the meeting, but to all citizens of the state of Nevada.
I would, however, like to thank Regent Knecht for acknowledging the board’s disregard for the agenda and our time.