I was disappointed to read James Arthaud's attack on Clay Jenkinson's qualifications to write about plans being formulated for use of the Eberts ranch. Jenkinson is a Rhodes scholar, articulate author, historian, historic interpreter, Dickinson State University Theodore Roosevelt scholar in residence and so much more. Furthermore, he grew up in western North Dakota and longed for years to return. His columns painstakingly set out both sides of an issue before stating his view. Along with many of my friends - both liberal and conservative - I turn to his column first when I open Sunday's Tribune. Clay privately enjoys jousting with conservatives who set out their case rationally, and he counts many among his friends. Thank goodness he has no need to resort to ad hominem attacks.

My understanding is that North Dakota has tried to encourage people to return to the state. I am one of those who returned after having lived in Colorado, England and several other places. All of my great-grandparents settled in North Dakota between 1883 until 1902. Am I, too, not eligible to voice opinions because I was educated out of state, had a career and then returned to North Dakota?

Arthaud suggests that Clay Jenkinson is an elitist because he advocates a different viewpoint from the Billings County commissioners. Is he intimating that former North Dakotans are welcome to return only if they leave behind their knowledge, experience, expertise, and ideas? Such closed-mindedness is unbecoming and unwelcoming.

Thank goodness, most North Dakotans are open and fair.