An Aug. 12 front-page article reported on the proposed border-to-border touring route for drivers of highway licensed vehicles — primarily four-wheel drives ("A bumpy ride for a route in woods"). It seems increasingly more difficult to get away from motorized "recreation" in Minnesota. ATVs, UTVs, side-by-side ATVs — all have an increasingly large presence, not only on designated and nondesignated trails, but also along county roads. Crow Wing County, where I live, is but one example.
If I am supposed to feel sorry for those yearning for such a route, I don't. Minnesota cannot be all things to all users, or else we've become nothing. Law enforcement of ATV use along Crow Wing County roads is nonexistent. The same thing can and will happen with the border-to-border route. The locomotive, as usual, is out of the barn and under a full head of steam. Later, perhaps, the realization sets in that, yes, enforcement is lagging, and the issues are recognized.
About half of my forestry career was spent in Koochiching County. Most roads cannot handle increased volumes of traffic. They are ditch grades with no good base. So another question: Who will pay and maintain? Will it be on a timely basis or once a year?
It's hard for me to comprehend that the only way a person can relieve stress is to get into a vehicle and drive. I enjoy driving myself, but I know my place, and the backwoods treasure, the peace and solitude, matters to me and so many others immensely. Please pull the plug on this plan and respect what solitude we have left — and it's not enough.
Dan Wilm, Pequot Lakes, Minn.
The writer is a retired Minnesota Department of Natural Resources forester.
SEXUAL-ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS
The patterns seems to be to shame and silence women
In response to "How alcohol foils rape cases" (front page, Aug. 12; part of the Star Tribune's "Denied Justice" series): The instances presented of how law enforcement responded to these sexual-assault cases are atrocious!
As a health care professional, I am required to understand both the concept of consent and what it requires and implies. Also as a health care professional, I am witness to and very clear on the effects of chemical impairment on the ability to give consent. If I receive orders to administer a test or medication to a patient and the patient refuses to accept it — for any reason — then I cannot proceed. If I recognize that the patient's ability to think clearly is impaired, I am not permitted to seek consent. It is ethically wrong in the moment, and such an act eventually comes to light and threatens the license of the practitioner. The only time when consent is not required is when the risk to life or limb is immediate and the patient's best interests are the primary concern.
Call me crazy, but I do not think that engaging in sex with a chemically impaired person comes under the heading of selfless action to save a life.