Library concerns
Dear Editor:
What on earth is going on at our wonderful public library? As a regular user of our library I attended a meeting there last Wednesday which was very well attended by members of the public, all expressing concerns about the issues that have been discussed for months now about the library board and the issue of screening which books will be available for the public to read.
‘The ALA (American Library Association) believes that libraries should maintain collections that are diverse and that represent the population they serve. Everybody, regardless of who they are and what their abilities are, should have equal access to library materials. Libraries should also represent viewpoints and demographics that represent the wider world; i.e., if you live in a community that has a majority population that is fairly homogeneous, the library should also strive to provide materials that represent a heterogeneous society that may be reflected in the wider world. That way, the patrons can have access to a broader range of viewpoints. Censoring a specific demographic or topic would essentially cut people off from these broader viewpoints. The ALA strives to prevent this, as part of supporting the First Amendment right to free speech’. (From “How do libraries choose books? Collection development in public libraries: an interview with Library Director Noelle Boc”. May 10, 2022. Amy Amberg).
Surely our library board is there to help ensure that the library runs smoothly and to deliver the best possible library services for the local community, dedicated to protecting the public good through reading, learning, discourse and belonging. Instead, some of its members appear to be bringing personal agendas of bias. It is not their place to choose which books should be available for the public to read. Freedom of choice (which, while not being explicitly stated in the US Constitution, has its concept deeply embedded within its principles) is a wonderful part of American Society.
Tonie Phillippi
Meeker
Unintended consequences of aerial spray for Mormon crickets?
Dear Editor:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” -Margaret Mead
We’re sure you remember: Roughly six years ago, our beautiful White River ran solid green.
This unsettling turn of events concerned enough local people, that a new grassroots organization was founded to focus on the health and future of the White River. The founders called it the White River Alliance. Today this group continues to meet regularly to take action, invite expert speakers, remove weeds and trash, help riparian areas, and award scholarships to our two high schools.
When the White ran green, our members checked the river regularly where the problem occurred, both upstream and down, looking under rocks, checking the bug populations, and working to educate the surrounding landowners regarding some practices that might have had such a destructive impact on the biology of the river.
Regular aerial spray for mosquitoes was one of the key concerns our group identified, as we learned of its toxic effect on all insects and particularly the insects in the river which eat algae. Over the past few years our group travelled to both Rangely and Meeker, and the County Commission encouraging a transition to the use of biological agents (BTI) . These target only the larvae of mosquitoes and do not affect beneficial insects, frogs, and all other manner of living things, including humans and livestock.
Since the County and towns of Meeker and Rangely responded and moved to offer biological controls (BTI) to area citizens and landowners to apply in ponds, livestock tanks and any area with standing water, we have not seen the river turn green again. It is our belief that this vast reduction from repeated aerial spray of permetherin, highly toxic to all insects, both land and aquatic, has contributed to a healthier and clearer White River in the past years—thanks to a now healthier bug and fish population in the river.
Now the County is proposing a new chemical to address a possible Mormon Cricket outbreak. We are concerned that it will have a highly negative impact to our healthy river. Like Mormon Crickets, many river bugs have similar skeletons for which the proposed Mormon Cricket spray is lethal. Thus the chemical that impacts Mormon Crickets would be deadly to our beneficial river insects, and the native fish that depend on them. We could be addressing one issue, only to create a potentially even larger one, the White River running “green” again.
Mormon crickets are a native species to the western United States. According to Wikipedia, the reason for their sporadic expansion and movement is not well known, but perceived to be a reaction to weather. Their diet is largely sagebrush and forbs…and each other, though some landowners have reported damage. We look forward to the Conservation District’s upcoming speaker on this subject.
The County in its effort to be proactive has received a grant to apply an aerial spray of a chemical called Dimilin. Noted as HIGHLY TOXIC in federal safety sheets to fish and water insects, it notes specifically it should not be used anywhere near bodies of water. While large and unpleasant to look at, there have been conflicting reports as to whether these native insects are actually doing damage to fields and rangelands.
The safety sheet for Dimilin (Diflubenzuron) reads: “Very harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects.” In the event of contact with human, data sheet reads: “If breathed in, move person into fresh air, give oxygen or artificial respiration. In case of bluish discoloration (lips, ear lobes, fingernails) give oxygen as quickly as possible. If on clothes, remove immediately.” Further, “The use of diflubenzouron is expected to cause adverse acute and chronic effects to both freshwater and marine invertebrates, including endangered species.”
Also how will it affect the hardworking and effective special beetles that have been released around the county to attack invasive Tamarisk and Leafy Spurge? These beetles are showing progress in beating these two weeds back, the use of Dimilin could vastly reverse this progress.
Tamarisk drinks up enormous amounts of water and will turn springs and wet areas into salty dry barren soil. Both of these aggressively invasive weeds are now being devoured by beetles which according to the Palisades Insectary, part of Colorado State University, are exceptionally sensitive to any pesticide given that they are imported pests specifically to target these imported invasive weeds.
As the preventive campaign begins for this native cricket, it is good to see that the Soil Conservation District is inviting the public to learn more, but we call on the County and the BLM to exercise restraint and additional study given our County’s critically important river and many water channels that lead to it.
White River Alliance members:
Deirdre Macnab, Lois Williams,
Mike and Tena Theos
