lefty, look on a map and find out for yourself. You must not know anything about shotguns.
Are hunters hurting their cause when they rant and rave about wolves? Here's letters in today's paper:
Letters to the Editor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edition Date: 07-20-2004
Wolves are majestic
Your article on hunters leading the anti-wolf movement outraged me (June 20). The hunters say that they want to lower the wolf population in order to save the elk population, when in reality they only want to save the elk so that they can kill them in their "cherished hunting experience."
Before we settled in Idaho, wolves and elk were living together just fine. Humans interfered and caused the elk population to drop. Now we're trying to kick out the species that was here first? I don't think so.
I may be only 14, but I do know this: Warren Johns says that wolves are no better than coyotes and should be treated accordingly. He's wrong. Wolves are majestic animals that care for their young as much as we do. They are only doing what comes naturally. Warren Johns is basically saying that we can kill animals, but animals can't kill other animals for the same purpose.
I finish with this: You often see bumper stickers that state "Save an elk, kill a wolf." Recently I saw one that made more sense. It said "Save a wolf, kill a hunter."
Jessie Swider, Meridian
A little weird
I just finished reading the article in the June 20 paper about the avid hunters who want to get rid of the wolves. It's very hard to be sympathetic to their cause. Am I right in understanding that they are upset because the wolves are killing the elk so they can't?
Anybody who can look so forward to killing something that they are mad when nature takes its course are more than a little weird as far as I'm concerned. It's kind of creepy.
Beccie Hackett, Boise