May

Keweenaw Issues: Responsible Opinions: 2001: May
An archive of previous comments

By
Bill Penprase on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 10:46 pm:

Charlie,
That pond up on top of Garden City hill was a beautiful beaver pond when I was a child in the early 30s. We stayed at what we called the Eagles Nest, that big house on top of the hill, and every day I went to watch a family of beavers that lived there. After several years the Conservation Department as they were then called removed the beavers and built a spillway. The beavers actually did a much better job of building the dam and it was a pleasure to watch them work. Never could understand why they removed the beavers unless they thought a human dam could be stronger than the beavers.


By Charlie Hopper on Sunday, May 27, 2001 - 07:38 pm:

Ken -

The post you reference was moved to the anonymous discussion area.


By Ken Pierson on Sunday, May 27, 2001 - 03:06 pm:

Earlier today wasn't there an article here about placebos? Or was it my imagination?


By Charlie Hopper on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 10:37 pm:

George -

Jonathan and I were up at Garden City pond on Sunday, and we took a close look at the broken wall, trying to deduce what happened. It appears the dirt was held by the boards, which were held by angle irons. Looks like the metal rusted or the boards rotted, and the whole thing came out natuarally and washed downstream. Wouldn't take much to build it back.

But it does look interesting to see a marsh where the pond used to be. Did you notice all of the stumps? It hasn't been a pond for too many years.

Too bad we didn't have the Pasty Cam with us.


By George Hite on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 05:07 pm:

Why has the Garden City Pond been allowed to empty
and are there plans to replace the spillway stops
so that it will fill again?


By Charlie H. on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 02:49 pm:

Ever wonder when direct dial phones came to the Keweenaw? Check out today's Pasty Cam.

Pasty Cam
Happy Mother's Day!
By
Jeff Buckett (Jeff) on Thursday, May 10, 2001 - 11:16 pm:

Since the Clinton Roadless Initiative was a prior issue here, those who are following that "environmental melodrama" might find this news piece interesting:

May 11, 2001
Judge Bars New Forest Rule, Citing Potential Local Harm
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, May 10 A federal judge in Idaho blocked the Clinton administration's forest-protection plan today, saying that if the rules went into effect as scheduled on Saturday, they could cause "irreparable long-term harm" to local communities.
The ruling by the judge, Edward J. Lodge of Federal District Court in Boise, abruptly halted a plan that would have put about a third of the national forests off limits to road building and most logging. After an internal review, the Bush administration said last week that it would carry out the rules but with major amendments, a plan that Judge Lodge rejected today as "a Band-Aid approach."
In ruling in favor of a challenge by the State of Idaho and Boise Cascade, the giant timber company, Judge Lodge recalled his own earlier scorching opinions in which he had accused the Clinton administration of drafting the rule without adequate attention to local concerns.
In issuing a preliminary injunction, the judge sided with arguments by Idaho, Boise Cascade and other opponents, who say the restrictions could cause economic harm to the state and to the timber and mining industries. The plaintiffs argued that the administration had failed to meet its obligation under federal law to take those concerns into account.
A Justice Department official said tonight that the administration had not decided whether to appeal the ruling. But environmental groups granted status as intervenors in the case said they would challenge the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Click here for rest of story

By
Jeff Buckett (Jeff) on Monday, May 7, 2001 - 03:36 am:

Thank you for your support Sarah Mary et al.
And now a word from the Deeper Story of Our Time:

Slavery Triumphs

By
Sarah Mary Williams George Elexander Peters on Saturday, May 5, 2001 - 06:46 am:

Charlie,
I don't understand anyone's need to know the real identity of anyone and everyone who posts an opinion. Of the people who have posted a response to your question, I don't know any of them, other than what they have posted on-line. Actually, I saw a photo of Roger Wickstrom (if Roger is the man who worked at the Gazette) and I saw a photo of Jeff Buckett posted on-line, but I don't know if that helped me know who they are. (I also vote to permit Jeff to post his opinions, though he is AWOL from the area.) And I recall a photo of George Hite somewhere, possibly on Keweenawtoday, though it was taken from the bow of his boat as he sat with his back to the camera near the rudder.

So I vote for real names, with an un-retouched photo, a list of qualifications, education, a brief philosophical piece that describes their worldview, whether or not they like whole wheat or white bread, whether they fish with live bait or tackle (and if the first fish taken is always a "keeper" until a second is caught whereupon it becomes one badly hooked), whether they maintain a bait pile or are they "traditional", tree stand or ground blind, their opinion on Deet or any other effective mosquito/black fly repellent.

I also vote for anonymous, but with a twist. I like the idea of only one anonymous name per poster, so that suggests we'd have to register. That way, when we are on-line at the topic board, we could read how many of us are "on-line" (does the system know if you are on-line but not on-site? h'mmmm, and who is that man in the Nazi helmet behind the potted plant?). For those dear readers who insist on knowing the identity of a poster, that option should be available to them. With a twist. They could access the information and news of that access would be made available to both the anonymous poster and everyone else who enters the topic board.
A running total could be maintained and "real" posters would have a kind of win-loss column by their name--win being the number of times they have accessed the information repository, and loss being the number of times they didn't take an interest in an anonymous poster.

Regards,
Sarah Mary Williams George Elexander Peters


By Lynn Torkelson (Ltorkelson) on Thursday, May 3, 2001 - 06:17 pm:

Charlie,

Let me say that I respect the views of those who wish to bar anonymous posts from the Keweenaw Land Use forum, and I wouldn't object if you restricted the forum in that manner. In fact, I started to vote that way myself, but had second thoughts and rewrote my post.

The reason I changed my view is that I thought of some logical reasons that folks might have for withholding their identities despite having information that would advance the discussion. For example, people who actually work for the county might be reluctant to take a public position on issues that could become politically charged, but those people might have valuable insights nevertheless. Other people might not take a public position because they suspect (or know) that their employer has strong opposing views. Or business people, who clearly have a major stake in this, might not wish to risk alienating some of their customers.

Because we can readily see who is posting anonymously and who is not, each reader of the Keweenaw Land Use forum can simply take into account whether or not a post is anonymous when the reader judges the value of that post. I realize that allowing anonymity might elicit some inappropriate, or even foolish posts (although I hope that wouldn't happen), but perhaps any inappropriate anonymous posts could be moved to "Anonymous Ranting".


By Roger Wickstrom on Wednesday, May 2, 2001 - 07:32 pm:

Charlie,

I agree with George Hite. People should state their real names when commenting on matters of local public policy. Requiring real names would enhance the discussion's credibility and increase responsible comments. I don't think requiring real names would diminish an individual's freedom to speak his or her mind; rather, it might boost his or her self-confidence and self-determination.


By Jeff Buckett (Jeff) on Wednesday, May 2, 2001 - 12:05 pm:

Charlie: If you are proposing a separate Land-Use forum then I partly agree with both Lynn and George. At the very least there should be one handle per person(if you want to enjoy a playground, visit Anonymous Rants). I tend to side with George on using "real names", but still...a good idea is a good idea is a good idea...if some prefer to be anonymous that's fine too. It's the "stability" of the poster's identity that matters, I believe, in a "responsible" opinion type forum(and Land Use is a serious community discussion that deserves such a designation).
I am not a resident of Keweenaw County however so perhaps that should preclude me from the forum all together.

On the other side of the transom I have a question for Tom Cat on the sale of the Garden City Pond. Is this being developed into a residential site? I thought it used to be a "public" fishing hole of sorts(though I visited there last summer and saw that it had been drained)?


By Janet Shea (Janet) on Wednesday, May 2, 2001 - 10:14 am:

I think one of the most important issues facing Keweenaw today is getting a comprehensive land use plan in place. Developing is coming...we can either sit by and let it happen and 10 years ask, "what happened?", or we can have a say in what the future of Keweenaw County will be and preseve some of what we truly value here. Eagle Harbor Township had their first public meeting last night for the purpose of getting public comments and input to the land use process as well as developing a survey to be sent out later this year and to plan another public meeting when more residents are here for the summer season.

Six "work groups" met independently to decide: 1. What are our assets? 2. What do you like (in Eagle Harbor township)? 3. What are our shortcomings? 4. What are our goals for the future (what do we want Eagle Harbor Township to look like say, 20 years from now)? After spending about half an hour formulating answers, the six groups reconvened and, surprisingly, they all came up with pretty much the same answers, emphasizing preservation of our natural, cultural and historical assets and the rural nature of our community.

More will be reported on this meeting through keweenawtoday.com and also at keweenawland.com where minutes of previous meetings and lots of information about land use planning can be found.

We urge everyone in Keweenaw County to get involved if you have time, but to become an informed citizen and voice your opinions and wishes for Keweenaw County. Presently, there are over 45 devoted residents working very hard within the townships to develop land use planning, but we are only steering committees to assist the people of Keweenaw in the land use process. We are not there to tell you what we want you to have....we are there to make sure you get what you want for the future of this unique area, and we need as much input as you will offer, anonymous or not.

We are determined to make responsible land use a reality before the choices are taken from us. Thanks for any input you have to help this process happen.


By Lynn Torkelson (Ltorkelson) on Wednesday, May 2, 2001 - 08:47 am:

So our Congress and President have come to an agreement to return to the days of huge deficits in Washington. How disgusting! I guess our kids had better start saving up the money now to pay for our irresponsibility in electing these jerks.


By George Hite on Wednesday, May 2, 2001 - 07:26 am:

Charlie, I vote for identity. If someone wants to post anonymously, they can use the Anonymous Ranting board. A topic board on a local public policy matter should operate like a public meeting, where if you wish to voice an opinion, you stand up and state your name.


By james studebaker (Ahmeekguy) on Wednesday, May 2, 2001 - 07:24 am:

Why change the format on this site?


By Scott Laurie, Mohawk on Tuesday, May 1, 2001 - 10:33 pm:

Charlie I am all for land use commentary. I vote for posts with real identies. Hope to see it soon.


By Lynn Torkelson (Ltorkelson) on Tuesday, May 1, 2001 - 10:29 pm:

Charlie,

I'd hate to have people decline to post their actual opinions about Keweenaw Land Use just because they aren't comfortable with being identified to the public. So I vote for allowing anonymous posts.

However, I would like to see the anonymous posters pick one pseudonym and use it consistently. So perhaps a password could be required, but with only the Username (pseudonym) being displayed.


By Charlie Hopper, Pasty Central webmaster on Tuesday, May 1, 2001 - 09:16 pm:

Last month the "Anonymous" side of this slow-motion chat area had some very interesting (and some off-the-wall) comments. For a while there, it seems the whole world was inclined to go anonymous. That's OK. Whether you choose to withhold your identify or respond to those who do, the Anonymous Rantings page is there for your use, and you're welcome to it. Our logs suggest for every person who posts a message here, there are several dozen who spend time reading, but not writing. That's OK, too.

There have been a few comments suggesting that we devote space to the specific topic of "Keweenaw Land Use". Here's a question for you: Should such a discussion board require your identity, or allow anonymous comments?


Keweenaw Issues Home | Pasty Central | Daily Mining Gazette | Keweenaw NOW | Pasty Cam