Soap Box

The finest of light
Is in each of us
If we allow it to shine.
Each precious moment,
A note of a greater song.
The harmony of love
Lessens the burdens,
Showers the anguish
And gives us the strength
To meet the challenges
To make us whole
Under the continuous
Pulse of time.

– Burt Baldwin, Ignacio

To the editor,

As a former Colorado Division of Wildlife (before the merger with Parks) employee and part of the staff involved in the development of Colorado’s existing plan for managing wolves (cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Wildlife Species/SpeciesOfConcern/Wolf/recomendations.pdf) I wanted to help clarify a statement in a Jan. 9, Durango Telegraph on the wolf restoration effort (“Call of the Wild / Wolves going to the ballot box.”)

The last paragraph states in part, “state wildlife managers have also come out opposed to releasing wolves. In 2016, Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners voted against any sort of formal wolf reintroduction.” It’s important to understand that the Wildlife Commission is a  governor-appointed political body that develops and directs policy for the agency. That’s perfectly appropriate, but the Commission members are not biologists or professional wildlife managers. While I don’t know what the views of all professional biologists in the agency are, some (and perhaps many) support the restoration of wolves to Colorado.

Some of the folks opposed to wolf restoration disparage the initiative as “ballot box biology.” It’s not ... it’s ballot box policy making, which is as it should be. Biology informs wildlife management decisions, but very few of those decisions can or should be made on the basis of biology alone; politics are a necessary part of the process.

Just as the Commission has stated its policy, the voters of Colorado have the right to state theirs. That’s why the initiative process exists.

– Gary T. Skiba, Aztec

To the editor,

With all that’s going on in Washington – impeachment, Iraq, Iran and many other things – what does a press secretary do?

Stephanie Grisham was appointed in July 2019 with a salary of $179,000 a year. I bet you, an editor would like that kind of a wage for not having a press conference for over 305 days. Sara Sanders, whom she replaced, was at the start of the 305 days and same pay.

Sen. Gardner and Rep. Tipton get a base pay of $174,000. At least they do some work and release statements. You, the tax payer, are paying Grisham’s salary for doing nothing. If you think this is OK, call someone who can get you a job like that. No press conference for the public on what’s going on and great pay. For anyone who loves Trump, he has had three press secretaries in three years. You could be next very soon. Great pay, no work but short lived in the job.

– Bob Battani, Durango