Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Who would have thought that Maui could have wildfires? But it's in a drought! More evidence of climate change — which prompts me to think about the impact of the proposed Summit Avenue regional bike trail.

It is good that trail opponents want an environmental report about the impact of the bike trail, because the effects go beyond the loss of the beauty and shade provided by the tree canopy. I hope the report will review the actual number of trees lost on the Como Avenue and Cleveland Avenue trail projects. Were the forecasts for tree loss accurate? And what is the impact on our atmosphere due to the loss of trees removed or dying due to construction damage?

The section of Summit Avenue where I live was repaved last year. It would be the last section of the separated trail to be built. I am retired and past 75, so I doubt I'll be around to see it if it is built in front of my house. I have watched the uptick in use of e-bikes and scooters and marvel at the few hardy souls who bike through the winter. But I wonder if there will be enough automobile drivers switching to bicycles to offset the loss of the trees.

This is one of the moments that the phrase "Think globally, act locally" applies.

Stephanie Martineau, St. Paul

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, the conservative sheriffs organization, believes in enforcing only those laws that aren't "evil" ("Sheriffs' group takes a right turn," front page, Aug. 22). They don't want to enforce any gun control laws, public health mandates such as masks during COVID or other federal laws that they don't agree with. They are truly an inspiration for all of us.

I really don't like to pay federal income tax, nor do I believe in the speed limits on federal highways. When the fish are actually biting, I should be able to keep as many as I want to clean. I can think of many rules and regulations that I personally don't like.

If law police officers can selectively enforce laws, how can we be expected to follow the letter of all laws? Personal political views should not enter into law enforcement. Any sheriff or other law enforcement person, at any level, who refuses to enforce either state or federal law should be fired. We normal citizens are expected to follow the law or else we go to jail or get a substantial fine.

The CSPOA unfortunately is symptomatic of the direction of our country.

John M. Schwanke, Cumberland, Wis.

•••

It has been said that America is a nation of laws. It's meant as a compliment. It means that the rule of law is respected by most people even when we don't agree with the law. A splinter group called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association doesn't really see it that way. They are a right-wing group that thinks that sheriffs shouldn't enforce laws, especially federal laws, that they deem unconstitutional. Some of their recent objections have been to mask mandates, health restrictions and gun-control laws.

The U.S. Constitution established three branches of government and the separation of powers. The legislature makes the laws, and the judiciary ultimately decides if the laws are constitutional.

Most of these law enforcement officers have taken an oath to uphold the laws of their county, state and nation. So, too, have district attorneys and county attorneys taken oaths to uphold the laws. While these two groups necessarily need to be given some latitude in performing their duties, they should conform to the spirit of their oaths and uphold the laws even when they might disagree with them. It is not just the right-wingers that want to ignore laws that they disagree with. Many sanctuary cities and big-city prosecutors wish to violate the spirit of their oaths by ignoring some laws or by not cooperating with federal agencies.

We need these agencies to respect the separation of powers, and stay in their lane.

Mitch Anderson, Eagan

The Wall Street Journal excavates a new low in statistical nonsense ("The lockdown toll," Aug. 21), speculating that disrupted routine health care, related in part to hospital preparations for "a surge of COVID patients that didn't materialize in most places," precipitated a 1.7% increase in U.S. cancer deaths in 2021, and perhaps, it goes on to suggest, a 2.8% increase in such deaths in 2021 compared with 2023.

The American Cancer Society, the Journal's statistical source, estimates 2021 U.S. cancer deaths at 608,600, so that 1.7% increase contributed just over 10,000 deaths. COVID deaths in 2021, even despite the lockdowns, totaled over 450,000. Had we not taken the advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others to stay home, wear masks, socially distance and so on, would that number have been twice as great? Three times? Almost certainly, the projected number of COVID deaths without such precautions dwarfs that of resultant cancer fatalities.

Further, to the point of hospitals over-anticipating the number of COVID patients, that very overestimation is a significant measure of the success of our lockdowns in reducing COVID infections requiring hospitalization, at a time when vaccines and widespread immunity were still incipient features in the public health tool kit.

Finally, the Journal carefully avoids the big picture. The CDC indicates that the overall age-adjusted U.S. death rate decreased by 5.3% from 2021 to 2022. That's about 184,000 Americans who did not die as the COVID pandemic played out. While one can only grieve the 10,000 souls lost, if the Journal were honest, and not engaged in a political vendetta, it would acknowledge that at least 184,000 Americans are alive today, as the result of the great work of our public health and medical professionals, who labored under the most trying conditions to protect us from a new and bewildering disease.

Peter Hill, Minnetonka

I am not quite sure what to make of the recent commentary about the Oppenheimer movie "'Oppenheimer' and the treason of the intellectuals" (Opinion Exchange, Aug. 22). Is the author suggesting there is an anti-intellectual bent in American culture and politics? Sure. Is the history of science and technology full of dangerous developments made without a broad and shared understanding of the risks? Of course. But underlying his opinion is the apparent belief that the evils of mankind ("hatred, nationalism and racism") arise because intellectual corruption exists on the side of "those who stood against revolution." The author conveniently ignores the evil inflicted on the world as a result of big revolutionary ideas. Soviet-style communism comes to mind. The fundamental point the author misses is American anti-intellectualism, with its all its good and bad aspects, operates in large part as a counterweight to the power of big bad ideas.

Hart Kuller, Minneapolis