A+ A A-

Emerald Ash Borer is already killing trees along Concord streets

To The Daily Sun,

We all know ash makes great firewood, and in light of the spread of the emerald ash borer (EAB) continuing to increase its range here in New Hampshire, we may have a lot more sooner than we would like. Recently Belknap County was added to the quarantine list since the adult bug was found in both in Belmont and Gilmanton EAB monitoring traps. If you are an ash tree owner in the quarantine area and this hasn't raised any red flags for you yet, it should.

In Concord where EAB was first discovered in 2013, EAB is already killing trees along the streets and in people's yards. This will continue as the population of EAB steadily grows and the destructive larvae decimate the conductive tissue in the trees. This will eventually happen as the insect population builds seeking out new victims. All ash, white, green and black are susceptible to the insect We have learned from other infested states that once an area has EAB it takes about seven years for nearly all ash to die without some sort of intervention.

In Detroit where the insect was first discovered in 2002 they have seen 99 percent mortality.

This will cost homeowners, businesses, and communities thousands of dollars in tree removals.

So what is one to do? Throw up their hands and wait for the inevitable? No, there are options and opportunities to plan ahead as well as intervention to treat highly valued landscape ash for the insect before it's too late. Planning ahead could mean planting another species near your ash tree to eventually take its place, or contacting a reputable tree care company to assess the tree.

They will be able to provide an estimate of cost to treat the tree with a pesticide, or possibly remove it. Treated ash trees can theoretically last as long as the treatment continues, but may succumb at some point. The decision to treat or not to treat can be used to extend the survival of the tree in order to spread out the inevitable removal. A high value landscape ash tree may be well worth the effort to protect it.

Communities and property managers should start assessing their landscape trees now. The loss will make a sudden impact in many communities leaving everyone pointing fingers and looking for money to address the problem. Taking the time to explore your options early will allow you to have some control over the demise of your tree as well as your tree removal budget. Purdue University has an online cost calculator that can be found at this site www.extension.entm.purdue.edu/treecomputer/ which estimates the cost of removal base d on the size of the tree. Be proactive, it is not too early to start evaluating your options and planning ahead. For further information and resources please visit www.nhbugs.org

Scott K. Rolfe, Community Forester

N.H. Division of Forests and Lands

Planning and Community Forestry Bureau

Last Updated on Thursday, 20 August 2015 10:29

Hits: 45

The burning of fossil fuels uses stunning amounts of water

To The Daily Sun,

I greatly enjoyed Tony Boutin's latest letter on the economic catastrophe that has befallen us due to Democrats and the evils of scientific consensus regarding climate change. His letter is a parade of hilarious Chicken Little alarmism. Tony has consistently played all the cards of science denial: fake experts, cherry picking, delusional magnification of minority opinion, fallacious reasoning, and most entertaining of all, conspiracy theories. After all, climate change science is being used to destroy capitalism! It's a vast left wing conspiracy. Just ask Russ and Don.

I recently said to Don Ewing, "The debate on climate change is pretty much settled among climate scientists. Like evolution, it's now the details that are being explored ..." This is fact. That is the present consensus. It's not 100 percent because no scientific explanation can be 100 percent certain. It is "pretty much settled." The degree of certainty is very high in the climate science community. One can go with scientists in the know or Internet neckbeards and right-wing corporate funded "think" tanks. What an oxymoron.

I could have a delicious time responding to all the conspiracy lunacy of Tony's letter but I would rather just point out that free market fundamentalist alarmists like Tony and his crowd of glassy-eyed tin-foil hat wearers have lost the debate in the highest places of scientific knowledge, policy making, and even the majority of people. The well funded climate denial machine is increasingly being ignored as strident and unreasonable. This is fact. Mr Boutin's appreciation of climate science clearly ranks with Mr. Demakowski's appreciation of evolutionary science. They fit the science to their beliefs, which is doing it backward. Science denial is just plain weird (and suspect) after a point whether it's creationism, anti-vaxxers, or climate change denial.

Last year, 53 percent of this country's new energy capacity was in renewables. So far in 2015, its is a 2-to-1 ratio, around 67 percent so far. The market is still rocking so its time to retire the climate denial memes and find another brand of fear mongering to purvey. States are increasingly passing legislation to ensure that actual climate science is being taught. Iowa just signed this into law. Wyoming, Hawaii and Minnesota have recently joined the crowd, too. The small city of Georgetown, Texas, decided in March to go 100 percent renewable. Why? Costs, both human and economic.

We could be facing water problems in the future yet climate change deniers don't tell you that fossil fuel burning uses stunning amounts of water which crops and yes, people, require. Yes, people. Air quality and health issues are also major issues to normal people even if Tony and the Tin Foils want to suck down or drink "harmless" industrial emissions because they are of course, just "nutrients."

James Veverka
Tilton

Last Updated on Thursday, 20 August 2015 10:21

Hits: 99

Minimum wage was not intended for the family bread winner

To The Daily Sun,

According to the Tuesday's edition of The Daily Sun, the issue of the minimum wage apparently has raised its ugly head once again here in Laconia, and the so-called people's rights associated with it. I guess as long as there are people who allow their emotions to rule their lives, instead of their brains, and their outlook on how everyone else should live their lives, we will always have to deal with secular-progressive ideas like this.

"Make the minimum wage as high as possible," is what some people believe, and it doesn't matter who it hurts, as long as the low-intelligence voter believes it's a good idea, when progressives and big-government socialists tell them it's a good thing.

FACT 1: People don't go into business to provide jobs for people. In a capitalist economy, people go into business to make money.

FACT 2: There is no such thing as a right to a job; sadly, many people believe the lie that they have a right to a job, and are therefore not even grateful for the opportunity of an employer who takes a huge risk, and gives someone unproven a job.

FACT 3: Most young people bring little or no skills with them when they enter the job market for the first time. The minimum wage was designed to give them an opportunity to develop some work skills, a work attitude, as well as a work ethic, things like the importance of being on time, showing up every day you're supposed to, things like that.

FACT 4: The minimum wage was not intended for the bread winner of a family of any size. It was, and still is for people with no marketable skills, many of whom are entering the job market for the first time. If someone is the bread-winner of a family of two, three, or four, or more, he should have made sure he had the skills to support that family before he had that family.

If the present minimum wage of $7.25 is not enough, as some progressives think, and that $10 or $15 is better, why stop at $15. Why not increase it to $25? If $15 is good, isn't $25 even better? How about $35? I tell you what! If $15 is better, why not increase the minimum wage to $50 per hour and make everyone happy?

Maybe progressives want to change the minimum wage laws, but they cannot change the laws of economics. Increasing labor costs by giving the least skilled members of the workforce a raise in pay that they haven't earned, means layoffs of those most expendable. That's a law of economics that can never be repealed.

Small business owners are the most powerful engine of any economy, and we are fortunate that most of them are benevolent and civic-minded enough to hire some unskilled and unproven workers who bring nothing to the job market in the beginning of their working career, except desire and a willingness to learn all they can, to improve their economic worth to an employer. But those employers are not going to do it at the expense of the success of their businesses, a fact totally misunderstood by the progressive worldview, and most politicians who have never worked in the private sector — like our current president.

Jim McCoole

Laconia

Last Updated on Thursday, 20 August 2015 10:18

Hits: 112

Idea that a wall will solve everything is the GOP 'white unicorn'

To The Daily Sun,

Here is a thought for our congressional leaders to ponder: How about they concentrate on finding and imprisoning the high-level drug kingpins instead of filling our prisons and jails with low-level drug abusers, users and pushers? This concentrated focus might actually help stem the tide of drugs coming into this country.

Or maybe The Donald and other billionaires could help those in Congress find the leaders of the drug cartels. Trump should put his billions into this effort instead of promising to build a wall. This mythical wall would only keep out families of those who flee to this country to escape horrendous living conditions that exist in their countries.

The whole idea that a wall is going to solve all the problems is the Republican version of a "white unicorn" (white perhaps being the key word). Did these people ever consider that those who want to come into this county will find a way under or around such a wall? Did they ever consider that there are these things called boats that can be used to land illegal immigrants in places where there is no wall: the same way that North African refugees have been fleeing to Europe? Do they propose to build an impregnable wall to cover every mile of the U.S. border? Maybe they should get serious about the issue of immigration instead of believing in a delusional "solution".

Come on One Percenters: put your money where your mouth is for a change.

Bernadette Loesch
Laconia

Last Updated on Thursday, 20 August 2015 10:12

Hits: 49

Outside large cities run by Democrats, most of us are pretty safe

To The Daily Sun,

Johan Andersen's letter of Aug. 13, suggesting repeal of the Second Amendment reminded me that some people haven't learned anything from history, reason, human nature or experience.

In elementary school most people learn that you don't stop a bully by being weak and unable to defend yourself. Nor does weakness protect adults from people intending to harm them. Stricter gun control laws create more victims by making law-abiding citizens weaker and encouraging criminals.
The Second Amendment doesn't kill people, criminals do. Criminals don't need to get guns legally. Guns, like the one used to kill Kathryn Steinle, can be stolen from law enforcement (or someone else). Guns are brought over the border along with tons of illegal drugs and thousands of illegal aliens monthly.

Even people who shouldn't be permitted to buy guns legally can do so when the background check system fails as it did for Dylann Roof, who murdered the Charleston churchgoers.

Nor are guns needed to commit murders. Victor Ramirez beat Marilyn Pharis to death with a hammer and, of course, nearly three thousand Americans were killed by 19 men with box cutters (I'll bet the victims wished they had guns).

But, Andersen is correct that too many people are being shot. Most crime and most shootings happen in large American cities run by Democrats, where criminals are coddled, education is poor, jobs are scarce, dependency on government is high, fatherless families are typical, drugs are rampant, corruption is common, and there are restrictive gun control laws that prevent poor people, often women, blacks, and the elderly, from arming and protecting themselves.

Democrats who have controlled our large cities for decades have shown that they have no intent to actually fix the problems that harm so many city residents. Different ideas, priorities, and leadership, someone like Rudy Giuliani, are needed to fix the problems in our cities.

Anyone truly concerned with protecting their fellow citizens should also oppose illegal immigration. A recent study indicates that illegal aliens, on average in Texas alone, kill more than one person every day. Simply enforcing our immigration laws will save many thousands of lives.

Former professor John Lott has written a book about this called, "More Guns, Less Crime". Lott claims that taking guns from law abiding citizens typically increases, rather than decreases, crimes. Nor do stricter gun controls reduce the suicide rate. Sadly some children are accidentally killed by guns, but Lott cites a National Journal report that more children under 5 drown in five-gallon buckets than children under 10 are killed by accidental gunshots.

Actually America's crime rate has been declining as the number of guns and concealed carry permits has increased, reducing the number of easy victims.

Outside large cities run by Democrats most of America is quite safe. Vermont and New Hampshire, with some of America's least restrictive gun laws, typically have America's lowest murder rates. Guns are not the problem.

But the Second Amendment isn't simply about crime, hunting, or self-defense, it's about all those and more. The Second Amendment is simply an acknowledgement that one of the inherent rights of American citizens is the right to be armed.

The purpose of the Constitution was to limit government in order to protect, not limit, people's freedoms. It was to make government work for the people's benefit, not the people to work for government's benefit.

The Revolutionary War wouldn't have been won and the Constitution wouldn't have been approved simply to replace one oppressive government with another. The Second Amendment demonstrates acknowledgement that: "An armed man is a Citizen, an unarmed man is a subject."

Don Ewing
Meredith

Last Updated on Thursday, 20 August 2015 10:06

Hits: 66

The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette