As both an avid wilderness camper/hiker and a dirt biker, I believe there is reason to compromise on the construction of motor sports trails on public lands ("Border-to-border 'adventure' route poses significant risks," Opinion Exchange, June 3, and "Let wheels turn on 'adventure' route," editorial, May 21). The issue is complex, and opinions are strong on all sides. I have done 250-plus miles of permitted hiking/camping in the Grand Canyon, and similar low-impact experiences from the Emigrant Wilderness to the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona. Motorized toys were a part of my youth and enjoyed for 50 years — I still ride. I also teach environmental and technical classes at St. Cloud State University.

The motor-sports participants are on a spectrum ranging from low-noise 50cc trail bikes puttering to a lake to fish to radical four-wheelers with dirt-throwing extremes making ruts that wash out hillsides and noise that disturbs habitat for miles.

Building trails and access opportunities for both but keeping them absolutely separate is foundational. There is no rationale for further encroachment into pristine areas. The trout streams and vistas we enjoy in solitude remain a treasure beyond the demands of motor-driven citizens. Hikers and wilderness campers are far less vocal. Their motivation may be seeing a moose or bear or catching a sunny for supper.

We can clearly divide our state into deer-hunting regions that provide clear boundaries. The task is made more difficult as the COVID-19 pandemic fades and outdoor activities commence once again with manifest enthusiasm. I recommend five levels of access. The most tainted areas should be dedicated to those with the thrill of operating on the edge. A second level should be for soft off-road vehicles with small muffled engines or electric-powered transport with attention to differently abled people. The third should be bicycle-only mountain bike trails that provide better washout control and marked trails. The fourth would be for equestrian traffic. It might be modest in total acres compared to the fifth, foot or portage wheel — human powered travel. In some cases, these could exist with modest wilderness camp sites and others just with trails.

The responsibility we have is to be ethical and justified in our commitment to the future. The solution may not include the desires of all, but it will serve the greatest number with the most ethical outcome.

James A. Nicholson, St. Cloud

•••

Thank you for publishing Bill Pollnow's counterpoint regarding the proposed border-to-border trail. The problems enumerated in Pollnow's counterpoint make, in our opinion, an overwhelming case that the Department of Natural Resources' decision to go ahead with the trail without an environmental assessment worksheet and the Star Tribune's decision to support that action reflect egregious errors of judgment and misstatement of facts. In this case, with the errors so clear, it is not enough for the Star Tribune to print a dissenting view. The Editorial Board should reconsider its decision or, at a minimum, print an explanation of its thinking process in light of the facts reported by Pollnow. The same should be required of the DNR. The border-to-border trail needs an environmental assessment worksheet; our precious natural resources deserve at least that level of protection.

Brett Smith, Minneapolis

This letter was submitted on behalf of the Sierra Club North Star Chapter's Forests and Wildlife Stewards.

It is gas car owners who will greatly benefit from the rapid adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Remember how cheap gas was at the beginning of pandemic because we were driving much less? The same logic applies when a significant number of vehicles are EVs. Just a 50-cent-per-gallon reduction would save hardworking Minnesotans about $1.5 billion per year.

Rapid adoption of EVs will benefit all electric rate payers. Utilities will sell more electricity to charge EVs, spreading their fixed costs over a larger volume of sales. EVs, which can be thought of as a fleet of rolling battery storage, can store and distribute renewable energy so utilities can provide reliable low-cost power.

How far can you go on $2.89 of energy, the approximate current price of one gallon of gas? With my SUV EV, I travel about 135 miles with off-peak electricity, with almost zero maintenance, sports car-type acceleration, quiet operation, no catalytic converters, clean air.

The clean car rules send a wonderful market signal to our electric utilities to aggressively plan for EV infrastructure. EV sales will easily exceed the manufacturer's mandates of these rules when the public understands the benefits.

Philip Adam, Plymouth

•••

Yet another commentary ("Data show EV rule would be poor policy," Opinion Exchange, June 10) bases its entire argument against legislation that would move us toward reduced car emissions via all-electric cars. But that argument doesn't hold water if the author considers plug-in hybrids.

We just had to buy a new car, and we bought a plug-in hybrid. We did all of our local errands the last two days on just the electric battery, no gas. At night, we plug it into a normal electric outlet and it is charged up by morning. We are about to leave on a two-week road trip. We may just use the hybrid feature for the next two weeks or we might find charging stations along the way. It won't matter; we have a backup plan for the all-electric feature.

The argument that people want pickup trucks and SUVs as an argument against EVs is also bogus. Ford has a hybrid pickup truck. And at least Toyota, Subaru and Kia have hybrid and/or plug-in hybrid options.

Becky Carpenter, Minneapolis

A recent commentary ("Life after ethanol: Are we prepared?" Opinion Exchange, June 6) suggests a near future with limited ethanol demand due to "unprecedented acceptance of electric vehicles" and diminished market options for our state's corn farmers and their crop.

Electric vehicles are promising but years away from being the norm for most Minnesotans.

Meanwhile, higher blends of ethanol like E15 are widely available right now and can make an immediate impact in reducing emissions. A recent Harvard study found that using ethanol made from corn reduces greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half compared to gasoline. Minnesota drivers recognize this, and, according to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, continue to fill up with E15 at record levels.

Ethanol is a critical market for Minnesota corn farmers and their crop, but the commentary overstates the amount of crop used to produce it. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 26.6% of field corn is used to produce ethanol. The largest use for U.S. corn is livestock feed.

Corn farmers recognize and understand the need to meet the demands of a changing marketplace while caring for our land and water. That's why Minnesota's corn farmers invest millions annually in research that improves on-farm practices and identifies new markets for our crop, like university research to develop biodegradable corn plastics that would replace petroleum-based plastics or research that explores the role of E85 as a range extender in an electric vehicle. And during the early days of the pandemic, our crop was used to help produce critical batches of hand sanitizer, helping alleviate widespread shortages.

The long-term economic and environmental sustainability of our farms plays a pivotal role in our local communities and our state. From "right here, right now" emissions solutions like ethanol to growing new uses like corn-based plastics, Minnesota's corn farmers have a proud history of supporting innovative and forward-thinking markets that benefit not only farmers and rural communities, but all Minnesotans.

Jim O'Connor, Blooming Prairie, Minn.

Tim Waibel, Courtland, Minn.

Jim O'Connor is a farmer and chairman of the Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council. Tim Waibel is a farmer and president of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association.

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.