ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, March 12, 1996 TAG: 9603120052
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
IN RESPONSE to Paul Angermeier's Feb. 25 commentary, ``Reinstate the Endangered Species Act'':
Please consider that only a miniscule number of fish, wildlife or plant species have been saved from extinction or removed from the endangered list (more than 900 species listed to date) since the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973. The bald eagle, often cited as an ESA success story, was banned from hunting and was increasing in population before ESA.
Angermeier mentions polls showing that ``most Americans do not favor weakening the act,'' but another poll has shown that most Americans favor an incentive-based rather than the current penalty-based approach to ESA. What would happen if my 8-year-old was caught innocently picking a sun-facing coneflower (an endangered plant in Virginia)?
It's true that neither scientific nor historic facts should be ignored when making a decision about ESA. Prior to 1973, private landowners voluntarily saved the wood duck, turkey, bluebird, ruffed grouse and other animals by managing their property according to these species' needs. If ESA had been in effect, landowners wouldn't have been allowed to manage their farm or forested land once any of the aforementioned species were sighted on their property.
Contrary to your beliefs, indicated by the picture accompanying the commentary, those with ``economic interests'' in natural resources have no intention of defiling the populations of endangered plants or wildlife. The issue isn't whether we should have an ESA. The issue is that we need a major overhaul of ESA with incentives for private landowners to manage for endangered species rather than being penalized for doing so.
ANNETTE MEYER
BOONES MILL
Editor's note: Commentary page pictures are selected to illustrate the writer's comments, and do not necessarily reflect the newspaper's views.
Observance wasn't for spin control
WE WERE dismayed to read in your Feb. 23 article (``Handicapped students like being `included''') that Exceptional Children's Week was in part an attempt to counter negative perceptions of the Roanoke County schools' special-education services.
This week was promoted statewide by the Virginia Chapter of the Council for Exceptional Children, an organization with chapters throughout the country. The Parent Resource Center sought to bring observance of this week to the county.
The Roanoke County Parent Resource Center seeks to help parents understand more fully the nature of their child's disability with respect to the child's academic and social functioning. It also strives to develop parents' confidence as primary advocate for their child in dealing with the schools. Our constituency often faces an uphill climb in these areas due, among other things, to public misinformation and preconceptions about people with disabilities.
Given these objectives, we're appalled at the notion that we would promote this week to divert attention from negative publicity. We work with a wide cross section of parents who present a diverse set of concerns to us. Short of helping them to actually sue the schools, a request we get on occasion, we act with impunity and without interference from the Department of Special Education. We would never exploit the struggles and lives of our families for the shallow gain of a publicity spin.
In promoting Exceptional Children's Week, we attempted to increase understanding and tolerance for children who receive special-educational services. Studies show that educational success of children with disabilities is strongly linked to social acceptance by their peers. As parent coordinators, we believe the future belongs to all children, and that increased tolerance will make the future a better place. This was the goal of Exception Children's Week.
LYNN SHERMAN
JANE SPURLOCK
Coordinators, Roanoke County Parent Resource Center
ROANOKE
Put the billboard issue to rest
IN RESPONSE to Clonnie H. Yearout's Feb. 8 letter to the editor (``Subliminal message isn't tolerable''), noting ``the lack of success that counterculture groups are having in their efforts to subliminally slip their `Diversity Enriches' message into the everyday thoughts of area commuters'':
I felt obliged to outline an important fact about subliminal messaging: While it can subtly prod you into doing some wild and crazy things, it cannot in any way, shape or form make you do, say or especially believe anything that's diametrically opposed to your belief system.
In that light, what exactly is the problem with signs that say ``Diversity Enriches''? Is it that people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong don't believe themselves capable of maintaining their viewpoint when faced with such gross and overt attempts at undermining their entire system of ethics?
Enough is enough for the deluge of letters from the pro-billboard crew, myself included. This is a war lost before it began. Lamar made its decision, and the editorial staff of The Roanoke Times can't change it. Its only success that I've seen has been in upsetting those opposed to the signs and prolonging the death of this issue. Whether or not Lamar's decision underlines all of the intolerance in the world (which, you have to admit, it doesn't), it's a decision that you can best affect by writing to Lamar, not our newspaper.
Bottom line: Let it rest. I think we all have a fair idea of the opinions of both sides.
JEREMY BALDWIN
ROANOKE
LENGTH: Long : 101 linesby CNB