Keep your hat on: Measure bans fur
Re: “A ban on fur in Denver would only hurt this thriving cow town,” Sept. 15 commentary
I read the commentary on the ban on fur in Denver with great interest. It’s unfortunate that it supported the rapidly declining fur factory industry. The article makes it seem like the National Western Stock Show would be economically devastated without the sale of fur products. This opinion is not only exaggerated but very one-sided. The Denver Post owes it to their readers to present the other side of the argument so that Denver can make an informed decision when voting on this issue.
Initiated Ordinance 308 is a citizen-initiated ordinance that would prohibit the sale of new fur clothing, accessories, and home decor – we are talking mink coats and fox-trimmed gloves – with clear exemptions for other materials like leather, wool, and mohair. Fur products purchased for traditional tribal, cultural or spiritual purposes by a member of a recognized Native American tribe are also exempt.
Most Americans support an end to the sale of new fur products and cities across the U.S., including Boulder, and the entire state of California, have already passed legislation to prohibit it. We can keep our cowboy hats while also removing ourselves from one of the cruelest remaining animal exploitation industries. I think Denver deserves to be presented with the whole picture on this issue.
Catherine Parenteau, Denver
Vote “No” on veterinary professional associates
Re: “Proposition 129 will help Colorado pets,” Sept. 15 editorial
I am a pet owner who believes that Proposition 129 could put my pets at risk. Unlike the author of the editorial, I do not believe that the risk of poorly trained veterinary professional associates (VPAs) or large chain veterinary hospitals abusing the intent of the law is worth the potential outcome of more pets receiving medical care such as surgery from an inadequately trained and supervised VPA. All pets should receive medical care from adequately trained personnel under close supervision. The level of supervision required is not defined in Prop. 129.
I am also skeptical that this will result in a lowering of the cost of veterinary care. Large chain practices are unlikely to lower costs because of their desire to make a profit, and corporate practices appear to be increasing in Colorado. I imagine it may not lower costs in independent veterinary practices either because those veterinarians may not be willing to take on the risk of liability for the actions of an inadequately trained VPA.
I think it is also worth noting that the Colorado legislature had an opportunity to introduce legislation with a similar purpose and declined to do so.
I will be voting “no” on Prop. 129 and hope that many others will join me.
Carla Bennett, Denver
The editorial states: “Physician assistants for human care — a master’s degree program — spend long hours in clinical care seeing patients and getting hands-on experience diagnosing and developing treatment plans.”
Related Articles
Denver fur ban initiative targets fashion industry, but it’s got fly-fishers and cowboy hat makers worried, too
Opinion: Colorado ranchers, restaurants worried about ballot issue that would shutter meat processing plant
Bird flu outbreaks die down, but Colorado keeps monitoring cows and poultry
Endorsement: Will Proposition 129 help or hurt Colorado pets and their vets?
Opinion: A ban on fur in Denver would only hurt this thriving cow town
This will do nothing to make vet care more affordable. When you go to the doctor’s office and are seen by a physician assistant or a nurse practitioner, you pay the same as seeing the actual doctor. The same will happen here.
Dale Healy, Golden
Pushing back from the overhyped, overpriced tables
Re: “Overpriced and inedible,” Sept. 15 commentary
The view in Allyson Reedy’s Opinion piece could be applied to eating out everywhere, not just in fancy, upscale places. Two burgers, a shared medium fries, and two medium drinks at my local walk-up, quick service burger place is now $32, plus tip for the counter help. Not to sound like my mother-in-law, but do you know how many hamburgers, fries and soft drinks I can serve for $32?
You can get an eight-pack of raw burgers and a package of buns for under $15 at the grocery store, giving you eight burgers for under $2 apiece. Two-pound bags of frozen fries are $4 and pop is on sale for $2.50 per six-pack. Fast food places are trying to address this issue with value meals and online ordering deals, but the rest of the restaurant businesses need to catch up. Convenience is nice, but at some point, you just have to say, “Whoa.”
Mike Conkey, Thornton
Thank you, Allyson Reedy, for speaking truth to poultry! I, too, have spent a fortune on chewy, tasteless chicken washed down by a minuscule $20 martini, served to me at a tiny table by the kitchen. I, too, have had to put a down payment on my meal when making a reservation (I’m not buying a house!) and then when seated, waited twenty minutes for the waitperson to bring me water. Don’t get me wrong, Denver has a number of first-class restaurants. But the price of mediocre food is through the roof. I can make my own at home for a lot less.
Kathleen O’Brien, Denver
This is the first time I have ever written a note to a newspaper. I was basically forced to do so after reading this article because in a world where we are getting food and restaurant recommendations shoved down our throats, I appreciate how straightforward this article is. I agree that not every new restaurant is worth the price, which is why my partner and I end up visiting the places we know are going to serve great food every time. We’ve stopped taking risks on new restaurants overhyped by influencers because they are just not worth the price tag. Instead of falling into the same endless recommendation cycle, thank you for validating my experience and the refreshing honesty about the state of the Denver food scene.
Charlotte Simmons, Denver
We can’t go back to warehousing mentally ill
Re: “A random assault has me rethinking approach to homelessness,” Sept. 15 commentary
My heart goes out to journalist Chris Smith. No one deserves the random physical assault he experienced last month in downtown Denver. I hope he is doing well.
In my 40-plus-year career as a therapist serving clients struggling with severe mental illnesses, I have been assaulted a few times by the very people I was trying to help. So I can sympathize with Smith’s frustration and anger. I’ve always believed that the perpetrator of an assault needs to be held accountable, mental illness or no mental illness.
However, I take issue with his assertion that “we need forced re-institutionalization for those mentally ill who cannot take care of themselves.” That would take us backward to the days of mentally ill people being warehoused in the back wards of hospitals, the way they were before the advent of effective antipsychotic medications.
Resorting to taking away the civil rights of our citizens is not the way to go. It has been clear for many years that the experience of homelessness exacerbates the symptoms of mental illness. If we really want to minimize the chances of being assaulted by an unhoused person with a severe mental illness (and let’s be clear, according to Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, 71% of people experiencing homelessness struggle with a mental illness or post-traumatic stress), the best way to do this is to provide them with stable housing and intensive case management to make sure they are caring for themselves.
“Institutionalizing” as a remedy is a costly and dehumanizing knee-jerk reaction to an age-old problem. We need to step back and breathe. We need to remember that someone with a severe and persistent mental illness also needs appropriate treatment, which must include stable housing.
Michael Pikna, Aurora
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.