Becky Reed

Date published: 8/2/2006

Are the trail people correct about safety ["Hitting the trail," July 14]? Think. Our area has crime rates that greatly exceed the national average. Murderers from other areas have dumped bodies here, some close to the proposed trail.

The trail will lessen this? Really? Remember Chandra Levy, the sniper shootings, and the serial killers in Fredericksburg?

Do we want a venue that offers even better access to the lonely jogger and a back door to private homes?

This proposed trail ends at our Naval Surface Warfare Center (high on the terrorist target list). Why provide a trail that would pose greater opportunity and risk?

Many people own property on both sides of the railroad bed and enjoy shooting. These folks help control the deer population.

Would not placing a trail in the middle of target and hunting ranges be shortsighted and irresponsible?

Isn't part of the proposed trail landlocked? That should add difficulty to any necessary rescue. Rabid animals, bobcats, and even bears have been seen in these woods.

This isn't a place where nature's most vicious are not prevalent.

And what about fire? Can we afford repetition of the previous forest fire, which burned for 60 hours, with recovery taking decades?

Fire here would be more difficult to "reach and contain" and would be within burning distance of expensive developments and irreplaceable historic treasures--including Caledon, Lambs Creek Church, and St. Paul's Episcopal Church.

Recently, during the fire ban, we've seen developers leave fires burning, unattended, in wooded areas. These people certainly should know better, but they don't seem to care.

It only takes a spark to ignite a tinderbox. Unfortunately, along the trail there are no neighbors to see the first spark to report it.

From a safety standpoint, the proposed trail is a nightmare.

King George

Date published: 8/2/2006