Another take on the Pelican River controversy

To the Editor:

It seems that all of the editorial letters that have been printed in the paper have been extremely one-sided with everybody being for the state “purchasing” the land for public use for perpetuity.

I would suggest everyone look into the outfit who bought these 70,000 acres. It is a group called The Conservation Fund — conservationfund.org. Here is what they state on their website:  “To ensure the land remains intact, sustainably managed for timber and with guaranteed public access, our best conservation strategy was to first secure conservation easements from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and then subsequently sell the property to a private buyer, who will be obligated to follow the terms of the easement.  (Italics my own).

My question is, “What buyer and how do we ensure they follow the terms of the easement?” America is not a democracy, it is a republic. A republic is made up of representatives who are elected by the people to represent their interests. Our representatives both locally (the Oneida County Board) and statewide (Representatives and Senator) all voted against this purchase. Only at the last minute, the governor decided that the representatives of the public would be overruled because he knew what was best.  

My dad would always say, “The only way a person could afford to live up north is to have a state job.”  I would contend that is not far off the mark. When my husband tried to find a job here, he was told that you didn’t need to make as much money because things didn’t cost as much. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything from the price of gas to the price of food is much higher. All glory to God that we are in a situation where we were able to find a house and pay cash for it and we are debt-free. I know that is certainly not the case for the majority of people. Sixty-seven percent of the land in Oneida County is already non-taxable or has a reduced tax base according to The Northwoods River News. This means the towns won’t be able to make enough in the tax base to keep up with rising inflation. They won’t have enough money in the budget for essential equipment and services. How is the average person expected to make a living if they can’t start new businesses or build new houses because we are protecting the land?

That is the practical economic aspect of it. The other thing I have seen a lot of one-sided opinions on is this issue of “climate change.” The government is helping the state out (although I have proved it is not really the government) by protecting our natural resources.  Well, I would look into https://clintel.org/ for the other side of the story. Not all scientists are in agreement.

An issue is rarely as simple as it first seems. We live in an age of deception. The world would be a much kinder, gentler place if we could have respectful dialog that wasn’t fueled out of emotion but was able to be backed up with facts. I wholeheartedly agree with Congressman Tiffany and the Oneida County chairman that this easement should be challenged. There obviously are some that love this decision. But there may come a day when there is a decision you may not like. If we have no rule of law, we no longer have a functioning society.

Mary-Elizabeth Vent

Rhinelander