Comments from readers.
BUSINESS COSTS
So, let me get this straight: We decimate the wildlife that used to live here by taking over their land to raise cows so we can eat far more meat and dairy products than we need or that is healthy, and then we get all up in arms if we lose a few animals to the apex predators that were here to begin with, as they dare to hunt what’s still around after we replaced their original prey with cows? (“The true cost of wolves,” May 2025) That’s just ridiculous. When humans and livestock outnumber wild mammals, it’s no wonder we’re on the verge of losing our entire web of life. Loss to predators should be part of the cost of doing business. If you can’t take the stress, find another way to make a living.
Julie Smith
Golden, Colorado
Just the fact that ranchers pay practically nothing to graze their cattle on public land that’s government-subsidized tells me they are in the wrong business if it ain’t working out.
Karen Byington
Ogden, Utah
MANIFEST THIEVERY
In her May 2025 editor’s note (“The social contract”) Jennifer Sahn said that transferring public land, or any “public good,” to private hands should be considered “un-American.” As a student of American history, I have learned that such transfers are quintessentially American and have been since before our nation’s founding.
HCN should spend even more time educating Westerners about the thefts, not just of land but of culture as well, that Western expansion has entailed. Knowing our history will help us better understand the events of today and their implications.
Felice Pace
Klamath, California
NO RENAISSANCE FOR NUKES
As a water protector and anti-nuclear activist, I was disappointed in “Is a nuclear renaissance coming?” (April 2025).
We are woefully uneducated about the nuclear narrative that began in WWII with atomic bombs made at places like Washington’s Hanford Nuclear Reservation, one of the most toxic sites in the Western Hemisphere. It is shrouded in Department of Energy and nuclear industry greenwashing saying we need new small modular nuclear reactors to fight climate change. People misunderstand what nuclear energy is and how dangerous it is — for thousands of generations.
Jonathan Thompson’s mild reportage of nuclear power’s “renaissance” omits many important aspects of a technology that has changed the planet’s DNA. His rendering of the gravity of the situation is so misleading it hurts.
Many people and landscapes have been harmed by nuclear energy since the splitting of the atom. This simply is not the way forward. Besides, renewables like solar, wind and water are already outperforming nuclear and fossil fuels.
“Lasting scars” are living scars that thousands of generations will have to deal with. And if we don’t tell the truth about nuclear energy, those who follow us will be none the wiser.
Laura Feldman
Portland, Oregon
PUBLIC HANDS NEED PUBLIC LANDS
I appreciate your coverage of these turbulent times (“Another form of love,” April 2025).
It is well-known that our public lands enable millions of people to engage in a wide range of recreational activities. What is not talked about nearly enough is the investment thousands of people make every year in the places they care deeply about.
“Selling public land is selfish and short-sighted.”
Through much of my 44-year career with the Forest Service, I worked side-by-side every field season with hundreds of volunteers: campground hosts, members of the Back Country Horsemen clearing equestrian trails, OHV enthusiasts adopting motorized trails, Boy Scout and church groups seeking service projects, American Hiking Society members building retaining walls, AmeriCorps crews protecting wetlands, climbers mitigating impact to famous bouldering and sport-climbing destinations. The list could go on.
Many of the volunteers I worked with are fortunate to live near their public lands. Others came from communities across the nation. Their work is significant and helps federal land managers address land-management responsibilities.
Their sweat equity and concern for public land are not only invaluable, but inspirational. Current proposals for transferring or selling public land are not only selfish and short-sighted, but painfully dismissive of those who volunteer to care for the places they love.
Bill Broadbear
Salem, Utah
TIME TO WAKE UP
“Industrial Revolution” (March 2025) was devastating to read. I grew up in West Weber in the ‘70s and my grandparents had a house on 3500 West for decades.
In those days, we’d pick and cook the wild asparagus that grew between the edge of the road and the ditches that ran through West Weber. It was a quiet place with great birds.
Reading about the Utah Inland Port Authority’s disregard for the wetlands and the Great Salt Lake is disheartening. What will it take for governments and developers to understand that we need to care for the Earth and ALL its inhabitants, not just wealthy developers looking to get even wealthier?
Marnie Lansdown
Castle Rock, Colorado
We welcome reader letters. Email High Country News at editor@hcn.org or submit a letter to the editor. See our letters to the editor policy.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
