In the editor: The explanation of our rules for forest protection is a shining example of happening if money can influence politics in a negative way (“The Trump administration rescinds ‘Roundless Rule’ protects 58 million acres of national forest,” June 23). I am not against capitalism and find wealth. As, I am opposed to the idea that some can do their wealth by harming the majority. This is exactly why we have some rules and regulations in place designed to protect society throughout. The best benefit of all should be tratok with greed and aspirations with some if those who want to be a great disaster to others.
Our forests are important places to help maintain life on our planet. They have cooled most of our carbon flaws to emit and give us oxygen we need to breathe. They give us prista waterways with clean drinking water. They also give a habitat for other species other than people. We need this biodiversity to keep the ecosystem who strengthens life for all of us.
Removing forest protections is an objection to all, causing a lot of damage while just helping certain logging companies have their own economic economy. This is not a lasting model if we want to keep our world to live.
Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel
..
In the editor: It is not important that the current leadership of the United States agricultural department can only prevent an act more important to the banks in public place like San Gabriel Mountain National Monument. This will open in public countries for further logging and new logging logging roads.
Trout Unlimited Chief Executive Chris Wood has a surface when he says that the Roundless Rule serves as a more important watch at the time of climate change.
Common sense of real. We all live below.
Drew Irby, Lincoln, Calif.
..
In the editor: Our administration seems to be considered to disrupt regulations that protect us, our environment and wildlife. The USDA Secretary of Brooke Rollins argues with no road rule that is over tight, but I strongly disagree. The purpose seems to privatize everything for the benefit of some and who left others to lose our valued national countries. In that purpose, the administration is as aggressive to destroy our public lands – the lands held by all and for the future.
Thanks, staff writes Hayley Smith, for the shining of a bright light on this issue on ground ground. American businesses used innovation leaders and can also not destroy our land. Energy independence is an issue with National Security. If this administration is serious about this, officials help grow our renewed energy sector, knowing that fossil fuels are a fossil fuel and cause harm. Changed sources are a better way for the future. We must protect our forests and ecosystems for the future.
Melissa Waters, Laguna Niguel
