Letters for November 7, 2013

We all pay the bills

Re “Hunters pay the bills” (Letters to the Editor, Oct. 24):

Now it’s personal. I thought the name calling was over, but I guess I was wrong. I was raised in a hunting family and learned to hunt as a kid. I understand the mind of hunters. I took my dad hunting a few years ago because all of his other friends are too old to go. We had a good time, and I understand his point of view, and I think he understands mine.

There are hunters I respect and there are yahoos that I don’t want anything to do with. Anybody who tells me they should be able to hunt because they pay the bills, I put in the yahoo category. First of all, I pay the bills too. I’ve spent more hours tearing down fences, etc. in the name of wildlife than most of these yahoos have spent hunting, so don’t tell me “hunters pay the bills.” I can spout statistics, too. I’m not the only one out there. There are a lot of people like me. I’ve worked with the Department of Wildlife, and there are people in that organization I respect and people I despise. (By the way, I’ve worked in southern Nevada a lot and with various groups, and I’ve never seen the letter writer’s group out there.) Bottom line—like most agencies, the DOW is financially driven. They go where the money is. Hunters are like lobbyists. They fork over the money and then want a seat at the table, which they have. I don’t blame the DOW, but I still think they should call themselves the “Department of Killing Wildlife.” Ever seen their website?

It’s not the “I pay the bills therefore, I’m allowed it kill them” that is the argument. Nor is it the “they need to be managed, because they’re dumb animals” that is the argument. We both, hunters and animal support groups, want the same thing. A healthy, thriving wildlife population. The difference is how we get there. Hunters argue that wildlife needs to be managed, I argue that hunters/trappers need to be managed. Meanwhile, while we’re arguing, animals are dying. Or as the hunters say, they’re being harvested.

I would suggest that both sides refrain from ignoring the other side’s point of view and start by reading a book titled Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s So Hard to Think Straight About Animals by Hal Herzog. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it asks the right questions. It’s time we faced up to our obligations and stop pointing the finger. Or is the problem going to solve itself like the grizzly, wolf and others did?

One last thing that’s a bit off the subject that I would like explained. Where are hunters on the issue of wild horses? The wild horses are destroying the habitat of other wild animals, yet there is no hunting season on horses. Shouldn’t we be managing these animals? Instead, the DOW “manages” a wildlife wetlands, like the one south of Washoe Lake, closed during the spring mating season to humans, dogs and such, but open in the fall to hunters (and other humans stupid enough to be out there among the yahoos). Where’s the logic here?

Barry Morgan

Carson City

Trainor’s got it goin’ on

Re “Trainor needs practice” (Letters to the Editor, Oct. 24):

Thank you very much for adding Brendan Trainor to your editorial staff. Trainor is well-educated when it comes to politics, the Constitution, banking, the Federal Reserve, and other topical subjects. He also does not just “talk.” Trainor has thrown his hat in the ring on many occasions, running as a Libertarian candidate.

That brings me to Robert Leavitt’s criticisms of Trainor. Leavitt takes issue with Trainor’s use of “Joe the Plumber” in his column, “War and Other Nonessential Functions” (Let Freedom Ring, Oct. 17). He doesn’t know which “Joe the Plumber” Trainor has in mind. I was able to easily deduce that Trainor was trying to explain the frustration people (Joe the Plumbers, bakers, construction workers, mechanics) feel when they labor under high taxes, spending half a year’s wages just to pay “their fair share,” only to see government employees at low levels earning six-figure salaries/benefits. Mid-level and high-level government servants routinely have stratospheric salaries/benefits and often with no accountability of job performance, or repercussions for poor performance. Leavitt hopes that Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control, is paid just a tad more than “Joe the Plumber.” What Leavitt doesn’t seem to understand is that Trainor would prefer that Leavitt not be paid at all!

Why do we even need a federal Centers for Disease Control? What good has it done? How much is it controlled by the major pharmaceutical companies and food producers who would like to keep us sick, or addicted so we’ll consume their products?

Leavitt mentions the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: “Two fatally flawed policies from the past—one of which the current president got us out of, while he is actively working to get us out of the second.”

We’re out of Iraq? Hello! Excuse me! We have billions of military infrastructure in Iraq, and we’re not leaving any time soon. Same for Afghanistan, and our POTUS is itching to get us on the ground in Syria and Iran.

I’m positive Trainor doesn’t see a lick of foreign policy difference between Bush and Obama, so don’t try to get him to play, “Who are the peace-niks? Democrats or Republicans?” Leavitt goes on, “Large government vs. small government? Wrong question! The correct question? A government primarily focused on assisting and protecting the mass of the people vs. one primarily focused on the problems of the top 1 percent.” Again, this comment would be moot with Trainor, as we agree that the best government is the one that stays out of the way of all people. Let everyone have the best crack at success with free markets and little to no government interference. Leavitt also takes issue with business licenses. Didn’t he read Trainor’s column? Business licenses are just methods to collect revenue. They have nothing to do with quality or reputation of any business. Leavitt concludes by remarking that Trainor “will probably require much supervision to insure that he avoids becoming simply a ’yes-man’ for the extreme right.”

Leavitt’s letter leads me to believe he is a yes-man for a government of babysitters that meddles in every form of free-enterprise, and believes that no one can take care of themselves. These are ideas totally controversial to what our Founding Fathers intended when this country was formed. I’m glad there are people like Brendan Trainor, whose writing embodies Ben Franklin’s astute quote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Cynthia Kennedy

Virginia City

Be right at the light

A new law in regard to Nevada’s traffic laws, AB117 took effect on Oct. 1, 2013. This law has a component that is ambiguous, and the law should be clarified because of the problems of adjudicating the law.

The laws states that “a motorcycle, moped or trimobile or … a bicycle or an electric bicycle” can pass through a red light, treating it like a stop sign, if the traffic sensor doesn’t sense the vehicle there, only if the rider waits through two consecutive red light cycles.

It’s worth noting here that there are 12 other states that have similar laws, including Tennessee. That law, TCA 55-8-110, is better because it adds that it’s unlawful for a cyclist to go through a red light with the belief that the light sensor isn’t sensing them when the light was actually functioning. There is no such part in the Nevada law.

In case an officer approaches an intersection and sees a cyclist go through a red light, he could believe the cyclist was acting unlawfully and issues her a citation. If she contests the citation, and it’s proved the light was functioning, then it’s unclear if the act was unlawful.

Daniel R. Sanchez

via email

Correction

Re: “Ad lib hazards (Upfront, Oct. 31): We attributed a comment, that patriotism can be used by government “to advance its control,” to Tara Bowlby at the Governor’s Banquet. That comment was made by a different speaker. We apologize for the error.