I believe Jenni Gomez' January 25th letter was an unfair characterization of the glyphosate issue & corresponding discussion at the January 17th SLVWD meeting. The issue I heard discussed was the adoption of a strong statement of policy that banned the use of the herbicide glyphosate as an option for invasive species eradication. Contrary to what Ms. Gomez implied, it was not a general discussion to abandon habitat restoration efforts in the sandhills parkland. In fact, the board unanimously expressed concern for that habitat but was insistent that the prior board's embrace of glyphosate was ill advised. This was an election promise of the new board majority & they appeared determined to honor it.
I also think it disingenuous of Ms. Gomez to criticize the decision as shortsighted because the board did not offer her a "science based" alternative. That was neither justified nor the point. They were making a simple statement that a specific, broad spectrum herbicide was an unjustified danger & they would investigate alternatives with an eye to all of the science they can find. There is, in fact, a growing library of understanding around glyphosate that suggests their concern may be justified. Though still unsettled, saying anything in science is settled is dangerously arrogant to those who remember thalidomide, DDT, Agent Orange and other gifts from the chemical industry.
There are better ways to frame a righteous argument than with moral superiority, innuendo, misdirection & straw-man fallacies. Base it on principles and ethics without arrogance. Then, even if you are wrong, you will find yourself in good company.
Mary and Virgil Champlin, Brookdale