Council negative on ‘hat’
RE: “Hands off our hat” (CP 22/6).
I think the council’s negative stand on this issue is shameful and incongruous in its attitude to a volunteer organisation that is so positive in its aims.
At a time when anti-social behaviour is a problem with a lot of young people, scouting teaches them so many life skills and a mindset of service to the community.
Instead of being so antagonistic towards Peter Digweed and putting him in a no-win situation, the council should offer to pay for the engineers’ reports they have asked for, then pay for fixing any faults, if indeed there are any, and then offer to pay for a new scout hat.
As for putting up a questionable objection to Peter Digweed’s plans for the use of the building, they should applaud his initiatives.
As for the costs involved, it is a matter of getting your priorities right when spending ratepayer money. Vivian Wienert, Fishery Falls
They are living in an unnatural environment of large man-made grassy areas.
In natural bushland, their normal habitat, they would have to wander continually in search of relatively sparse patches of fresh pasture and mix with other groups, ensuring genetic diversity.
In their current location they are both overpopulating and inbreeding to the extent that the only options are to: 1. move them all, 2. cull them or 3. wait for nature to regulate them with disease as they weaken.
Mind you they will spread a lot further before that happens.
As with most environmental issues, we have created the problem but there are no simplistic ‘good’ solutions. Ian Horn, Trinity Beach