Wednesday, December 18, 2024
44.0°F

Weed battle should target non-chemical options first

| June 4, 2008 9:00 PM

As a college student with a short attention span I remember excelling at vivid daydreaming during most of my classes. There was usually a common theme in my daydreams. Most consisted of where I wanted to live, being independent, and if things were really going well for me, having a dog of my own. Some might argue that ambition is not strength of mine. But for those who know me well I think they would say I’ve done well for myself and certainly exceeded my collegiate ambitions.

I feel like I am living a dream much of the time these days, especially on the days following a good night sleep. I am married to an amazing woman whose friendship I cherish, we have a healthy, happy, and precocious 3-year-old and we share our home with four dogs, and two cats. And to spoil us even more, we live two miles away from a lake called Pend Oreille, which I dreamt of living near during my college years in Indiana in the 1980s.

My wife and I realize that living a dream is reality and reality is rife with challenges. One of our biggest challenges these days if coming to terms with the poisoning of this beautiful body of water, Lake Pend Oreille, which is a big part of our lives.

I don’t think I will ever really understand how human beings can justify dumping millions of gallons of toxic poison into a lake where children swim, and commonly swallow water in the process. Our lake is a place where many people fish and eat these fish that have been ingesting poisoned water. I do understand that some people have put appearance (weedless water) and business profits before human and aquatic health and safety. I just don’t understand how they can do this.

There are alternatives that do not involve poison and have proven effective in other lakes. How can we humans responsibly and consciously choose poisoning others and ourselves before even attempting healthy non-toxic alternatives? History has not been kind to those who pushed DDT in the ’50s and ’60s or to those who believed it was not harmful to people and animals. Let us save this beautiful, natural resource from chemotherapy. Other options need to be used first.

JUSTIN HENNEY

Sandpoint