May

---

Charlie,
That pond up on top of Garden City hill was a beautiful beaver pond when I was a child in the early 30s. We stayed at what we called the Eagles Nest, that big house on top of the hill, and every day I went to watch a family of beavers that lived there. After several years the Conservation Department as they were then called removed the beavers and built a spillway. The beavers actually did a much better job of building the dam and it was a pleasure to watch them work. Never could understand why they removed the beavers unless they thought a human dam could be stronger than the beavers.

Ken -

The post you reference was moved to the anonymous discussion area.

Earlier today wasn't there an article here about placebos? Or was it my imagination?

George -

Jonathan and I were up at Garden City pond on Sunday, and we took a close look at the broken wall, trying to deduce what happened. It appears the dirt was held by the boards, which were held by angle irons. Looks like the metal rusted or the boards rotted, and the whole thing came out natuarally and washed downstream. Wouldn't take much to build it back.

But it does look interesting to see a marsh where the pond used to be. Did you notice all of the stumps? It hasn't been a pond for too many years.

Too bad we didn't have the Pasty Cam with us.

Why has the Garden City Pond been allowed to empty
and are there plans to replace the spillway stops
so that it will fill again?

Ever wonder when direct dial phones came to the Keweenaw? Check out today's Pasty Cam.

Since the Clinton Roadless Initiative was a prior issue here, those who are following that "environmental melodrama" might find this news piece interesting:

May 11, 2001
Judge Bars New Forest Rule, Citing Potential Local Harm
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, May 10 — A federal judge in Idaho blocked the Clinton administration's forest-protection plan today, saying that if the rules went into effect as scheduled on Saturday, they could cause "irreparable long-term harm" to local communities.
The ruling by the judge, Edward J. Lodge of Federal District Court in Boise, abruptly halted a plan that would have put about a third of the national forests off limits to road building and most logging. After an internal review, the Bush administration said last week that it would carry out the rules but with major amendments, a plan that Judge Lodge rejected today as "a Band-Aid approach."
In ruling in favor of a challenge by the State of Idaho and Boise Cascade, the giant timber company, Judge Lodge recalled his own earlier scorching opinions in which he had accused the Clinton administration of drafting the rule without adequate attention to local concerns.
In issuing a preliminary injunction, the judge sided with arguments by Idaho, Boise Cascade and other opponents, who say the restrictions could cause economic harm to the state and to the timber and mining industries. The plaintiffs argued that the administration had failed to meet its obligation under federal law to take those concerns into account.
A Justice Department official said tonight that the administration had not decided whether to appeal the ruling. But environmental groups granted status as intervenors in the case said they would challenge the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Thank you for your support Sarah Mary et al.
And now a word from the Deeper Story of Our Time:

Charlie,
I don't understand anyone's need to know the real identity of anyone and everyone who posts an opinion. Of the people who have posted a response to your question, I don't know any of them, other than what they have posted on-line. Actually, I saw a photo of Roger Wickstrom (if Roger is the man who worked at the Gazette) and I saw a photo of Jeff Buckett posted on-line, but I don't know if that helped me know who they are. (I also vote to permit Jeff to post his opinions, though he is AWOL from the area.) And I recall a photo of George Hite somewhere, possibly on Keweenawtoday, though it was taken from the bow of his boat as he sat with his back to the camera near the rudder.

So I vote for real names, with an un-retouched photo, a list of qualifications, education, a brief philosophical piece that describes their worldview, whether or not they like whole wheat or white bread, whether they fish with live bait or tackle (and if the first fish taken is always a "keeper" until a second is caught whereupon it becomes one badly hooked), whether they maintain a bait pile or are they "traditional", tree stand or ground blind, their opinion on Deet or any other effective mosquito/black fly repellent.

I also vote for anonymous, but with a twist. I like the idea of only one anonymous name per poster, so that suggests we'd have to register. That way, when we are on-line at the topic board, we could read how many of us are "on-line" (does the system know if you are on-line but not on-site? h'mmmm, and who is that man in the Nazi helmet behind the potted plant?). For those dear readers who insist on knowing the identity of a poster, that option should be available to them. With a twist. They could access the information and news of that access would be made available to both the anonymous poster and everyone else who enters the topic board.
A running total could be maintained and "real" posters would have a kind of win-loss column by their name--win being the number of times they have accessed the information repository, and loss being the number of times they didn't take an interest in an anonymous poster.

Regards,
Sarah Mary Williams George Elexander Peters

Charlie,

Let me say that I respect the views of those who wish to bar anonymous posts from the Keweenaw Land Use forum, and I wouldn't object if you restricted the forum in that manner. In fact, I started to vote that way myself, but had second thoughts and rewrote my post.

The reason I changed my view is that I thought of some logical reasons that folks might have for withholding their identities despite having information that would advance the discussion. For example, people who actually work for the county might be reluctant to take a public position on issues that could become politically charged, but those people might have valuable insights nevertheless. Other people might not take a public position because they suspect (or know) that their employer has strong opposing views. Or business people, who clearly have a major stake in this, might not wish to risk alienating some of their customers.

Because we can readily see who is posting anonymously and who is not, each reader of the Keweenaw Land Use forum can simply take into account whether or not a post is anonymous when the reader judges the value of that post. I realize that allowing anonymity might elicit some inappropriate, or even foolish posts (although I hope that wouldn't happen), but perhaps any inappropriate anonymous posts could be moved to "Anonymous Ranting".

Charlie,

I agree with George Hite. People should state their real names when commenting on matters of local public policy. Requiring real names would enhance the discussion's credibility and increase responsible comments. I don't think requiring real names would diminish an individual's freedom to speak his or her mind; rather, it might boost his or her self-confidence and self-determination.