Bear attack Hunter shouldn't have yelled
I am writing in response to the stories on the grizzly bear charge against Vic Workman (Nov. 27, Dec. 2). While I fully disagree with Workman's assertion that a firearm is a more effective deterrent than bear spray (I carry both when hunting), I am not ready to judge Workman for firing on the bear.What I do know, however, is that Workman's decision to start yelling as soon as he saw the bear was just about the worst thing he could have done. All bear experts, and all published materials on bear safety, agree: When a surprised grizzly charges, one should never yell or behave aggressively. (The case is different with black bears, and in the rare instance that a bear enters camp to prey on humans).
In addition, the assertion that Workman's shot was a “deterrent” probably isn't true. The vast majority of grizzly bear charges are bluffs and end with little or no injury. The odds are that the grizzly would have veered off as it did whether Workman had fired a gun or not. Again, I am not saying he should not have fired. I am just saying the hip shot probably had little to do with his survival.
As more people spend time in grizzly habitat, and as grizzlies continue to recover, it is important that the public is well informed of how to respond to a bear. John Cramer's (Dec. 2) cover story did a good job questioning Workman's beliefs about bear spray versus bullets, but missed his most egregious error.
Michael Hudson, Missoula
Grizzlies should be delisted, permitted
Vic Workman was on the mark in what he did and what he said on shooting at the charging grizzly (Nov. 27, Dec. 2).I have been hunting and backpacking in northwest Montana for more than 40 years and am here to tell you that if you are willing to give your life or possibly give up your physical and emotional well-being, and don't want the bear killed or injured, then go with the bear spray. If you want to protect yourself and those precious people who might be with you, then go with a bear gun.
Bear spray doesn't work well in the wind, in a tent situation, at night or at a very long range. A gun will work well in all of those scenarios and it'll make a loud noise, too, that will help drive off the bear. (Warning shots would be a good example of that).
Workman said the grizzly should be delisted and some permits put out on them. He's right. Some actual hunting pressure on them would push them further into the wild, where they should be, anyway. In July 1999, Patrick Graham, then director of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in an editorial titled “Our point of view,” said that basically the grizzlies are doing well in Montana and “federal listing may do more harm than good.” He was right, too. The endangers species listing of the grizzly is probably doing Montana's outdoor users, from loggers to recreationists, more harm than good.
It truly refreshing to hear someone like Vic Workman say what he actually thinks. Keep it up, Vic.
David S. Bennett, Thompson Falls
Homophobic attacks All assaults should be prosecuted
Caitlin Copple's well-written guest column (Nov. 30) made a very good case for the inclusion of gender in hate crime laws after a well-organized campaign started in Missoula to get the same special protection for sexual orientation and gender identity.Even though there is no independent proof that Jess Keith or a 22-year-old male student were attacked by people who hate gays, their claim has been used in newspaper articles, TV stories and even public meetings to start a campaign to get special protection in the hate crimes law.
Some media were a little cautious in their reports, however, because a good share of these attacks that are used to prepare for a campaign for special protection have been proven false, were exaggerated or were gay-on-gay attacks.
It really does not matter who attacked these people or for what reason. Whoever it is should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No one should have to live in fear of being attacked physically or having their property damaged for any reason. This certainly shouldn't happen because of hate. We should all have the same protection from hate no matter what category we fall into.
Now we can expect to see letters from: soldiers, foster parents, foster children, adoptive parents, adopted children, fat people, skinny people, special needs people. And the list could go on and on.
Why should anyone get special protection from hate? Every time homosexuals ask for special protection, we ask the Legislature to remove all classifications from the hate crimes law. Republicans generally agree but Democrats vote against it because they want to champion the homosexual agenda.
Let us make it an enhanced penalty if anyone attacks or damages the property of anyone else because of hate.
Dallas D. Erickson, Stevensville
Streamside setbacks We need sensible laws to protect river
The Bitterroot River runs north through the beautiful Bitterroot Valley and joins with the Clark Fork River to head west. This river, the fourth-most heavily fished in the state, is a valuable resource not only for fishermen, but for all Bitterrooters, developers, landowners, etc. Their property values are protected as long as the river remains clean and beautiful.Chuck Stranahan, the owner of a fly-fishing shop in Hamilton, has done a great service to those wishing to keep our river as a benefit to all. He has outlined a practical and simple plan for streamside setbacks. It would take the stream setback committee's recommendations, modify them to suit local needs and make them consistent with other Montana rivers.
Data on such rivers as the Big Hole and Madison is readily available. Including variance language in the setback plan would protect legitimate property rights. Public hearings for input from all quarters would open the way for the commissioners to pass a resolution, protecting this beautiful river and its tributaries for all to enjoy.
Let's encourage our Ravalli County commissioners to enact sensible, reasonable streamside setbacks which will protect and preserve this jewel of the Bitterroot Valley.
John Carbin, Stevensville
Affordable housing We can build ‘green' homes in Missoula
There are people in Missoula who are having a very hard time finding a home of their own to live in.In Missoula there are 15 low-income housing complexes. In most of them, there are no openings or a waiting list. For those who cannot get into those apartments, there is difficulty finding a place to live. Many are living with family or a group of friends.
It is very difficult for people to find affordable housing. For people who are low income all the way up to middle income, it is almost impossible to find a rental space they can afford let alone a place to buy. It has been found that for a family of four to afford a home they need to make more than $60,000 a year. Most people working in the service industry do not make the wages to afford to make house payments.
We would like to promote having more affordable housing that is environmentally friendly as well. There are many communities throughout the United States building “green” housing. In an article written in September 2005 in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the city of Minneapolis, working with the Enterprise Foundation's Green Communities Initiative, remodeled an old maternity hospital and built on the site of an old gas station homes which will include rain gardens, solar heat panels, energy efficient appliances and recycled building materials. This will offer more than 180 “green” homes for low-income families to own a condominium.
As a community, we have the resources to build and remodel homes and condominiums to have more environmentally friendly homes for our lower-income residents. The state of Montana also offers loans to get alternative power sources and tax credits for implementing those power sources. We need to try.
Alice Gloria, Katie Paine and Melinda Waggoner, Missoula
Media consolidation Free society needs independent news
Thanks to deregulation already in place, local radio stations have disappeared, gobbled up by corporations or merely fallen by the wayside. Ditto for many local newspapers. A nice homogenized mix of controlled media message is yet in store, when all information will be carefully predigested by the enzymes of corporate control, including the Internet. Giving corporations the right to control radio, television and printed media all in one convenient package will certainly make it easier for them to get their messages across. Free thinking, always a present danger in a free society, will have a simple and painless lobotomy. Perhaps all attempts to deliver any form of controversy can be replaced by soothing elevator music and we can sit back and contentedly chew our processed food while listening to processed news, then go out and commit endless acts of consumer spending instead of acting as responsible citizens aware of what is really going on in our immediate society and the world.Eunice Farmlant, Plains
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)