Letters to the editor for January 11, 2013
Giving recognition to ODFW
To the Editor:
If I were a member of the Humane Society of the United States, Sierra Club and the Audubon Society of Oregon, I would take this opportunity to thank the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department for their fine work and infinite wisdom.
You were able to do more to help us eliminate that “sport” of bowhunting than even we could have ever thought of, much less ask for. By making them have a very limited elk tag before they can hunt for deer, you were able to keep potentially thousands of those bowhunters out of our forests. Absolutely brilliant. Many kudos to you. We’ll keep doing the best on our end, and you keep up the good work on yours. Who knows? We may not be able to eliminate all guns, but maybe we can eliminate the lead out of their bullets,
or even much of their
As a bowhunter who lives in Northeast Oregon, I have been fortunate to draw a branch bull tag once in the last 11 years, but at least I could bow hunt for deer almost in my own backyard.
Now, a bowhunter here has to have a very limited elk tag (054 Mt. Emily, 22 Walla Walla, 25 Wenaha) to even bow hunt period in these units. That is 101 tags total (2012).
Oh, you say, we also offered spike tags for those units. Just how many branch bulls have been taken illegally with a bow out of these units? Forty? Fifty? One hundred? (Less than 10.) Yes, any is too many. Wow.
Let’s eliminate potentially thousands of bow-hunting opportunities and the revenue that comes with it. For what?
Yes, bowhunters, go ahead and put in for one of those limited elk tags, by all means, but if you don’t get it, don’t buy a tag.
At this point, and I’m sure it could never happen, but I’d be in favor of boycotting buying a hunting tag for the next two years if ODFW is going to keep on this same path.
This way, possibly, ODFW could be eliminated entirely. It would dismantle a government agency that no longer is serving the people they are supposed to represent.
We could then, at least, have a ballot put up each year and let the west side of Oregon decide whether we could hunt the next year. We might have a better opportunity to bow hunt that way as opposed to this new agenda.
I hope you don’t think I’m just some disgruntled bowhunter from Northeastern Oregon. I’m way past that.
Gun control won’t save lives
To the Editor:
The recent school shooting was a tragedy. However, incidents like this always provide fodder for gun control advocates to advance their agenda.
You don’t like guns. Fine, that’s your prerogative. I own guns. That’s my right. Where does that leave us? Nowhere!
Guns kill people, so let’s get rid of them.
• People have invested a lot of money in guns, and they aren’t going to be willing to give them up without compensation. There may be as much as $10 trillion to $20 trillion invested in guns in this country. Who is going to pay?
• This country tried to ban alcohol once. It backfired badly, and resulted in the growth of organized crime. Gun control would be worse. If this country can’t or won’t protect our southern border, how does any rational person think that gun running can be prevented?
• Statistics: Gun-related deaths are not even in the top 15 in causes of death. Abortion and car wrecks are. The government cannot be everything to everybody. If you want to save life, eliminate government funding of abortion and lower the speed limit to 45 mph with permanent loss of license for violations. It wouldn’t be popular, but it would work. There are three times as many people killed in vehicles as with guns.
• Most people who kill with guns are addicted to violent games, movies, alcohol and drugs. According to the State Police, people with gun permits rarely, if ever, commit crimes with guns.
• The police cannot respond quickly enough to prevent killings; only an armed citizen close by can.
Conclusions: Provide tighter control of people with violent tendencies or those on drugs. Encourage more law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed gun permits. To save lives, do something that works.