I read the Bear Reports section of the Sierra Sun regularly. I appreciate the Bear League’s efforts to help us live with the bears in our area.
However, I read the Sept. 7 report and felt it deserved a response. The column stated, “Again, homes left unoccupied for more than a week at a time should be removed of all food and there would not be a problem. Bears do not enter homes in order to steal TVs and silverware.”
I own a rental in Talmont. It hasn’t been occupied since mid-May when I put it on the market for sale. I thoroughly cleaned the house before listing it, removing all food, and by the way, all TVs and silverware. recently, a bear broke through a window.
There was no food for him and he left. I had the window replaced. A week later a bear broke down the front door, despite the deadbolt being locked, breaking the door jambs from the framing. Again, there was no food for the bear’s efforts.
I find the Bear League’s advice to be unrealistic, and based on my experience, plain wrong.
Many Tahoe residents enjoy travel and frequently leave our homes for more than a week. Are we to throw out everything from our refrigerators ” and our pantries ” every time we leave for a week? Are we to tell the second homeowners to do the same? I personally think this is a bit over the top and based on my experience, it doesn’t work.
I think it is a shame bears have become so dependent on people food. Perhaps those who have left garbage outside without a bear bin are to blame for creating the situation. However, the reality is, when bears are breaking into homes (unoccupied or occupied), they have become a serious problem. What will we all say if a bear, perhaps scared, injures someone inside their home? (To short-circuit an expected response, bears do break into occupied homes, as happened to a friend of ours a few weeks ago).
I don’t pretend to be an animal expert, however something needs to be done.
How sad! A mother bear and nursing cub doing absolutely nothing but sitting in a tree, which is natural by the way, and ending up with a cub that has no mother to feed it or watch over it.
Shame on the shooter. Not only did you directly or indirectly kill an animal that was threatening you or your home, but you put other people in danger also by firing a gun in close vicinity to other dwellings. I hope they throw the book at you.
It’s unfortunate that a recent guest columnist did not ask a friend to apply a “logic test” to his recent column “Is Measure C Really Necessary?” (Sierra Sun Sept. 3); perhaps they’re now letting him know the shortfalls of his rationale.
The writer is right on one point: Assessed values do rise over time. However, unless a property is bought or sold, assessed values rise proportionately and have no effect in raising the cost of the bond measure to the taxpayers. Each taxpayer still pays his proportionate share over the life of the unchanging bond.
The writer further states, in regard to the shortage of doctors and nurses, that, “Having fancier facilities is not going to attract people if there are none to attract.” How does he logically get from “shortage” to “none”? Good health care professionals, like engineers, architects, etc. frequently leave their communities seeking better places to ply their trades, and those reasons for relocating obviously include improved living, as well as working conditions.
It’s unfortunate, too, that the writer is “scared” by the truth. I have no reason to believe that the state is going to magically discover a pot of gold and pay for their seismic retrofit mandate. If they don’t do it, our community, like all other vibrant and caring communities, must step up to the plate.
As another senior citizen, I’m not terribly excited about adding anything to my tax bill. However, if the writer’s (il)logical arguments are the best that the opponents to Measure C can muster, I’m going to vote yes.
It is my understanding that Measure C is asking for an assessment tax on local private property owners to fund improvements for Tahoe Forest Hospital. This is not good business for any type of organization. Whenever an organization is supported by public funding, that organization will become more bureaucratic and inefficient (and prices will usually go up for services provided). Personally, I don’t want my hospital starting to resemble the DMV or court houses that we all currently share.
It is time we all realize that a special interest tax on personal property will always be an unnecessary burden for some people. Why should people who prefer to go elsewhere for health care have to pay this tax? Additionally, I ask, do the second homeowners even get a say in this vote if they are registered elsewhere? Sounds like taxation without representation to me.
Like most of you, I believe Tahoe Forest is a great hospital and a gem to the Tahoe area. If it needs money for improvements, let us find a better way to get it and not ruin it with public subsidies. I simply believe a tax will send the fiscal responsibility of this hospital straight down the gutter and the administrative costs through the roof.
I think if we put our heads together we can come up with something better. For example, how about a consumption tax based on your actual usage of the hospital? I am challenging the hospital governing board to come up with a better solution and am voting no on Measure C.
I wish I could vote in the upcoming Measure C election for the Tahoe Forest Hospital. Do the area residents realize how very lucky they are to have such a well-equipped hospital with efficient, friendly, courteous employees and pleasant, clean surroundings? When a friend recently collapsed at the dinner table in our home in Tahoe Donner, the paramedics arrived immediately and took her to your wonderful hospital. The emergency was handled so very well, and her friends who waited with her in the emergency waiting room all had the same thought: How lucky we were to be in Truckee and not at our “top-notch” East Bay hospital emergency room. I will not have a vote in the upcoming election, but I will be paying the tax, and I am most happy to do so. Please vote yes.
Recently, my husband, and another couple attended The Los Lonely Boys concert in the Truckee Amphitheatre. This venue holds many happy memories for us as we have resided in Truckee for the last 16 years and often take advantage of the music there. This is the first show that we have attended that has been put on by the Crystal Bay Club, however. While Ryan Shaw and Los Lonely Boys lived up to expectations, the vibe created by Crystal Bay Club security did not.
We have never been treated as suspects when entering the venue and we are well aware of the glass prohibition, as surely most Truckee residents are. Crystal Bay personnel acted as if they were expecting violence or gate crashing. One member of our party was asked to open his bag, which he willingly did. He was not happy with the intrusion but offered the backpack on the first request. A very large security officer was on the scene immediately threatening to kick this very good friend of ours out of the Truckee Amphitheatre. The C.B. security employee did not once ask what was going on, or how he could be of help, he just immediately physically threatened our friend. This, along with the copious security patrolling the area, made one feel as if one was living in some sort of police state. While I totally agree that folks should be made to pay for the shows they watch, this was particularly over the top.
So, while the bands were great, my family and friends will most definitely not be attending concerts put on by the Crystal Bay Club unless they can remember that this is a community venue, where good times are to be had, and treat the patrons as community members, not suspected criminals.
After reading the article about the day laborers in Kings Beach (“Tensions rise over Kings Beach day laborers” Sierra Sun Sept. 11) I couldn’t help but wonder why people feel uncomfortable and why the Sherriff receives anonymous complaints about people (NIMBY’s?) feeling threatened by a group of men standing around looking for work. What if that group of predominately Latino men were white? A group of middle-aged white men looking for work, trying to make some money to send home so their wives can feed their children and buy uniforms in order to go to school. Would people still feel threatened by “the large amount of people that are standing there?”
If you really want to help these men find a safe, educative (out of sight NIMBY’s?) place to meet, then support the local effort to establish a Day-Labor Center. Another step is at the ballot box. Why do so many people feel compelled to come to the U.S. desperately in need of work? What is it that isn’t working in their countries? One possibility is free trade. So consider NAFTA/CAFTA and the like and pressure your local and federal politicians to reconsider what free trade is doing to other countries.
Lastly, next November cast your ballot for the candidate serious about immigration reform, not one who wants to fortify the United States and force even more immigrants to go underground and work illegally, but one who is willing to change the prevailing paradigm.
Immigration reform must include a legal avenue for workers to be here and work. The old mantra of “they can all get in line and wait for a visa” is null and void. That line is backed up nearly 15 years. The worker’s children need to eat and go to school now. So write your congresspeople and encourage them to pursue a logical, humanitarian approach to fixing a system that is in a state of serious disrepair.
Meantime, work locally to help provide a safe space for the workers to meet. A place where they will not be intimidating people who are buying Slurpees.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User