|
Norman Transcript Sunday May 16, 2004 Editorial Page "Another view" WATER People or fish? If one were forced to choose, which species has a greater claim to what little water remains in the region's drought-depleted reservoirs: human beings or trout? Readers who chose fish over their fellow man should change careers - they have all the common sense it takes to be a federal judge. U.S. District Judge William Downes of Wyoming recently prohibited the Forest Service from allowing rivers and streams below certain dams in the region to go dry, no matter the time of year, no matter the weather conditions. The ruling could force water authorities all along the Front Range to flush precious drinking water from reservoirs in order to accommodate wildlife downstream. Any dams located on national forests could be affected. Such an inversion of priorities might seem questionable even in the wettest of times. During a drought, it's nothing short of insane. But it's not unprecedented: A federal judge no long ago forced Albuquerque to flush millions of gallons of drinking water down the Rio Grande to accommodate an endangered species, the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. It too an act of Congress to reverse that judge's ruling. It might take another to reverse this one. "This is a significant victory for Colorado's rivers and fisheries," said a spokesman for the Boulder-based group. And the trout, we're sure, will be laughing all the way to the frying pan. --The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo. May 17, 2004 To the Editor of The Gazette, Colorado Springs, CO: On May 16, 2004 an editorial from "The Gazette" was published in The Norman Transcript under the heading "Another View", titled "People or fish?" If find this opinion highly offensive and extremely near sighted, if not just blind to the world around us. First of all, the idea that human beings have a "greater" claim to water than a trout does. Where does this greater claim from? From your own greediness, self righteous, egotistic ideal, and better-than attitude? Yes, indeed! That Trout has the greater claims to that water because that is where the fish lives! You, nor anyone else has ANY right to deny a living creature it's very home. You, nor anyone else has ANY right to destroy any other living creature of its habitat. When it comes to wildlife, egotistic attitudes as yours will have us all dead in the future. And I wish I were a Federal Judge. I'd be after insane people just as yourself, to protect you from yourself for not seeing the big picture. If you don't like the water situation, then move. The greater claim to that water belongs to those there first, and belongs with the trout. Humans have no greater right, or any right at all to that water. Until we have the attitude that we must share our habitat with trout and other wildlife, we will only continue our self destruction. Any one action taken with a habitat can have a multitude of negative changes associated with that selfish act. We are the care taker of this earth, and must exercise the wisdom a human can have of his surroundings and how actions can affect many others. What would happen, if you had your way, shut the water off to the trout to die. When water is plentiful again, what will be of the trout and all the wildlife that depended on them for their own nourishment? They will all be gone, and will never come back. Think before you stick your foot in your mouth. David Dibble Norman Oklahoma david@muq.org |