Editor:
I am not surprised that a leading attorney for Humboldt’s marijuana industry would want to deflect criticism of the marijuana industry (“Cannabis Crossroads,” Aug. 6). However, Ed Denson’s Aug. 20 letter presents a confused and misleading argument.
First, he misrepresents what I actually said, when he refers to me “citing the small amount of ‘native habitat’ remaining here, and its importance to ‘Humboldt’s largest species.'” Actually Ed, my point was that Humboldt retains a relatively large portion of native habitat, which is a rarity in the temperate regions of the world. This distinction makes Humboldt special because large animals and top carnivores need large areas of habitat, and without top carnivores, biodiversity plummets. Given the current rate of extinctions, what we do here in Humboldt is extremely important.
Then Denson presents some numbers in a highly misleading fashion. He cites the total acreage that is owned by timber companies in Humboldt County, and compares that to his estimates of the total acreage of marijuana grows, rather than the total acreage of land owned by private individuals. Pretty sneaky. By using this misleading comparison, he grossly underestimates the impact of marijuana grows. His comparison infers that the impacted land is only as big as the grows themselves. This is untrue. Fragmentation affects the whole region.
Throughout the world, habitat fragmentation is a leading cause of extinctions. Just one road through an ecosystem is enough to negatively impact ecosystem functioning and wildlife. As the fragmentation increases, so do the negative effects. To claim that concern over habitat is a holdover from the timber wars, and has no place in the “marijuana context” is ludicrous. When marijuana is grown in habitat, habitat fragmentation becomes a central marijuana issue.
Amy Gustin, Ettersburg
This article appears in The $50 Million Henhouse.
Amy, maybe you misread the tone of the editorial you’re criticizing? Definitely not as I read it, as such a criticism, for sure. I believe everybody including ed denson, who I only know from his editorial, would agree that the total effected area of a marijuana plantation spans beyond its canopy. I believe the purpose of the comparison was to point out the lack of exposure to exponentially larger plantations, the effects of which span well beyond their canopies as well. If the damage being done to the environment as a result of illicit marijuana grows is so significant as to deserve the degree of attention the issue is receiving in our local media, then our local media is pitifully incompetent in its coverage of the county coffer’s real cash crop, timber. I agree with you’re editorial, I just think you’ve misinterpreted the other editorial. I might be wrong, I don’t remember it very well, but different than you.
I posted the comment at 6:31, and have since read ed denson’s editorial. I don’t read it as being critical in the way amy gustin interprets. If the concern is the environment, and certain marijuana plantations are a detriment, then timber, wine and new developments are exponentially greater detriments to the environment, yet are consistently and completely ignored by the same people demonizing marijuana supposedly for that reason. Who’s really passionate about what?