Letter to the editor
The letter writer under the headline ‘Options for Lake Windermere’ (June 20) asks for civil discussion without mudslinging. To that I would also request that we exclude alarmism, arguments from absurdity and on/off options.
Let’s be clear about what primary problems require solving and whether responsible practices will largely mitigate them.
Many but not all people regularly enjoy a range of activities that activists try to segregate in order to create false conflicts.
In reality, cyclists drive cars, hikers ride mountain bikes, wake surfers go paddle boarding and early morning water skiers also fish. It’s not either or.
Advocacy groups spring up when they feel their cause is under threat and their voices are not heard. When attacked or vilified the discussion and resulting actions may turn ugly. At their best they are a valuable resource to promote best practices and steer their community toward better outcomes for everyone.
Sometimes education won’t mitigate a problem fast enough to prevent permanent damage and regulation is required. Invasive species are a good example; once introduced it can be expensive or even impossible to remove.
We can all agree that we love Lake Windermere. Let’s proceed with thoughtful discussion, promote responsible use, mitigate selfish behaviours and only when necessary, regulate.
John Parkin, Windermere
