Document text
October 07. 2014 2:00AM Letters to the Editor, Oct. 7 Bear shooting was wrong I find the story about the killing of a black bear in the Washington School neighborhood outrageous on more than one level. Oregon Fish and Wildlife refused to come tranquilize the hapless bear when that is the department’s job. The excuse that it was too far into an urban area doesn’t hold water as the agency should be prepared to go wherever an animal happens to be. The bear was frightened or it wouldn’t have climbed the tree. Apparently it had come to scavenge for food and was surprised by someone’s approach. Expecting it to come down with people surrounding it, calling out, with spotlights in play, is pure fantasy. The excuse that daylight was coming and children and others would soon be passing by doesn’t pass the smell test. Who is walking around at daybreak and how long does it take to tranquilize a creature? Worst-case scenario? The bear might have fallen on someone after it was tranquilized. I recently returned to Oregon from Arizona where Fish and Wildlife is known to shoot first and ask no questions later. Longtime residents have learned to just observe and never call Fish and Wildlife. That could happen here. Kathy Svendsen, Grants Pass Peace can't be imposed Au contraire, I say to a letter (Sept. 26) by Robert Warren with the title "Ammo for all." Yes, yet another quagmire, this time in Syria; however, the path to peace (if, in fact, this is what we strive for) cannot be superimposed on the warpath with any expectations of success. Quoting Mr. Warren: "I would advise President Obama that our only effective option would be to supply plentiful amounts of ammunition to all factions involved." The prescription for this advice has the potential for an apocalyptic result. (Remember, World War I was supposed to be the war to end all wars.) Alas, time and tide cannot be reversed; however, what is there to lose if our present-day warriors suddenly exhaust their supply of bullets? The only loss I can think of is the loot being made by arms and armament moguls who condone war, thus enhancing their profit margins. Raymond Steinbroner, Talent The elephant in the room The eye-catching brochure arrived yesterday, and so it continues: the well-financed, corporate assault ensuring the best democracy money can buy. That is, assuming you, Citizen, believe the food we eat and the representatives we elect should be courtesy of who spends the most on elections. The fancy glossy was from “No on 92 Coalition” which raised $690,000 from major food companies including: PepsiCo, the Hershey Co., J.M. Smucker Co., McCormick Co., Ocean Spray Cranberries, Bumble Bee Foods and Knouse Foods. If “we the people” want to keep our sovereignty, we should support a constitutional amendment overturning the 2010 Citizens United decision which allows elephantine, artificial entities (including foreign trade associations) to influence elections, national and local. House Joint Resolution 29 (Nolan/Pocan) deserves bipartisan support. Until the Constitution is amended, each of us will continue to play whack-a-mole on our favorite cause du jour. Andrew Seles, Ashland http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20141007/OPINION/141009780 © 2015 Copyright © 1995-2011 Crain Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement -->