Many apologies for the long delay. However, while posts were absent from this blog, the work in the Beaver Creek watershed has progressed.
I stumbled across two recent News Sentinel articles that speak volumes about public understanding of science and how a lack of it -- particularly among the voting population -- can be detrimental to the environment. The August 22 article explains briefly why a naturally meandering stream supports wildlife far better than one that is is straightened by roaring stormwater laden with sediment -- further facilitated, as in this case, by the Civilian Conservation Corps.
An interesting article, no doubt, but even more interesting are the 50-plus comments following the story. More than one person fails to connect the value of Beaver Creek to the quality of wild and human life but is able to link work done on the creek to wasteful government spending. The discussion becomes one of paranoid political views rather than the critical state of natural resources.
About two weeks later on September 3, a News Sentinel contributor writes fondly of his days fishing in Beaver Creek. He memorializes the creek as it was when he was a boy, its banks steadied by the roots of an old oak tree. Among those roots he found bluegill seemingly just waiting for the worms to drop down into their watery world.
One story brings comments from readers who mock what they perceive as the futility of rehabilitating Beaver Creek. The other one reminds us just why we need it.