Letters to the Editor
From our weekly issue dated August 11, 2010
(Editor“s Note: Views and commentary, including statements made as fact, are strictly those of the letter-writers.)
Typed, double-spaced letters are considered for publication. Hand-written letters that are double-spaced and legible also can be considered. “Thank you“ submissions are not accepted as letters.
Biofuels project
From Alice Pace
Cave Junction
Quite the front page story in the Illinois Valley News regarding the biofuels project. Some information wasn“t in the story, so I thought I“d offer the rest of it.
The grant to the Josephine County Soil & Water District was to achieve two specific objectives. First was to see if there were growers interested in growing oil seed crops that don“t need irrigation and can grow well on less than prime soil.
Indeed, there were at least 10 growers who went for it. Second was to achieve at least 300 acres in production. With only half the money spent, that goal was exceeded, with more than 500 acres planted. All this information is available to the public.
I contend that was not in the story is because the folks who have brought this so-called “complaint“ forward are all public supporters of Dave Toler“s opponent in the Nov. 2 election. They have aligned with Sandi Cassanelli to try and make this into something. However, the facts are there for all to see.
Further the story did not state that this project had done exactly what it was intended to do. It has spurred a new local business, Southern Oregon Seed Co., now based in Murphy. The business has even more growers growing for it, and is doing what one would hope could be done. It is producing a feed meal, a cosmetic product, and even dog supplemental products — all from these oil seed crops.
The owner is dedicated to non-GMO seed only and hopes to be crushing seed in Murphy in the future.
Toler has the willingness to try and stimulate our agricultural sector.
Editor’s Note: In the interest of free expression, we printed the preceding letter. However, it should be pointed out that the information the letter-writer feels was “left out” was not part of the meeting. The story was about the meeting; not about the background of the situation. We would like the letter-writer to provide an explanation as to how the information she feels was missing from the story is available to the public.
We want to hear from you!
Add your thoughts with the link below.
Comments returning soon!
Advertisement:
