To the unknown

Your Dec 31, 2008, editorial, “Striped bunny,” which noted that “a variety of new (animal) species” were discovered during 2008, hit the nail on the head.

As cryptozoologists (those who study reports of animals not yet in zoos, museums or biology books) well know, observations by reliable witnesses of numerous land and aquatic unknowns in various locations around the world increase the likelihood that more “new” animals will be discovered in coming years.

Regrettably, in the allegedly more “civilized” regions of the world, the news media actively discourages reports of such creatures by treating the observers as drunks or sub-intelligent persons. Such characterizations are largely based on the pontifications of stay-at-home scientists who demand witnesses produce the proof said scientists are too timid to seek out themselves.

Indeed, it is established fact that any scientist who seriously takes up cryptozoology will be ostracized, denied university tenure, and in a thousand and one other ways be pressured to abandon his/her “unscientific” interests. But is it not the role of science to investigate the unknown?

As Dr. Karl P. N. Shuker observed in 1995: “Local people inhabiting a given area for countless generations are likely to know more about the types of creatures sharing their region than visiting researchers who rarely penetrate far beyond the relatively tame fringes and borderlands.”

So Hooray! for the striped rabbit, Vietnamese rhinoceros, and the many other former “unknowns” who have made the transition  from the land of legends to being real animals. Now if we can only get Africa’s Mokele-mbembe to make that move …

George W. Earley
Mount Hood

Editor’s note: Mokele-mbembe is the “living dinosaur” sighted, by many accounts, in areas of central Africa, over the past 200 years.

Water and sewer

Recently I received a bill for water and sewer services in Hood River for a period of less than 10 days.

The amount due was $38. I am not sure of the breakdown. (I do know that $10 was for a change in name.) Of course, I never received a bill to my address so am not certain how far this change went.

This amount plus the recent costs of these services led me to compare our services with Ft. Collins, Colo., a relatively dry area in comparison to our area.

The costs for Ft. Collins, per month, were $32 for sewer and $16 for water. These figures were rounded up. In addition, the water amount allowed in Colorado was 1,000 gallons less that Hood River’s. This makes the minimum charge $48 per month. The cost for an additional 1,000 gallons was $1.95, if used.

Hood River’s costs are $48 for sewer services and $24 for water. (The water figure was rounded up.) This makes a total of $72 per month, minimum charge. In addition, the explanation of excess water uses indicates a charge of $1.42 per 1,000 gallons above 5,000. The table used for this situation has a quote of $1.48 per 1,000 gallons.

In effect, we, in Hood River, a relatively moist community, are paying about 50 percent more for our services than people living in Ft. Collins. Why is this?

When meters were first proposed in Hood River, we were told that they would not be used to change the pricing method. This promise lasted a very short time!

Leonard Hickman
Hood River

A first

Congratulations to Hood River’s own Paul Nevin (Jan. 10) for being the first to blame our country’s huge deficit on President-elect Barack Obama.

I haven’t even heard Rush or Billo try that one yet.

Don Stevens
Hood River

Sour grapes

I am very amused about the recent letters reminding us to honor our current president and wish him well after his eight years of awful management of our country.

Let us review the damage done under President Bush’s administration: 1) major rollbacks in protection of our withering environment; 2) damage to relationships with many previously friendly countries; 3) renewal of pro-big-business policies from the Reagan years; 4) the Patriot Act, which permits huge intrusions into everyone’s personal privacy; 5) creation of the largest (in my opinion) division in American social and financial culture in decades; and 6) an administration known for its blatant disregard for scientific evidence, social opinion and transparency.

Gigi Murphy (Jan. 10) is correct in stating we should not use generalizations to critique specific policies or situations. Conversely, it is our duty as responsible citizens to speak out when we see blatant misuse of power (declaration of war without Congressional consent) or unwillingness of government officials to openly answer questions regarding their actions (Cheney multiple times; Rice ditto).

Incoming president Obama has been under the microscope far more than Bush recently. Most forget he has yet to be sworn into office. Yet his opponents are so saddened by the hammering of their beloved President Bush, they can find nothing else to do but dig with every tool they have to uncover some mysterious skeleton.

Remember, the current administration had eight years to set policy and implement changes. A large percentage of Republicans, not Democrats, have been quite critical of those years. Sounds like a lot of sour grapes. No substance; just a bunch of sticks and stones.

Steve Kaplan
Hood River