Letters to the Editor
We welcome your opinions and letters with name and address. We will edit when necessary. Include your name, address and phone number for verification. Mail them to Bay Weekly, P.O. Box 358, Deale, MD 20751 • E-mail them to firstname.lastname@example.org. or submit your letters on line, click here
Still Speaking up for the Animals
Dear Bay Weekly,
I thank Bill Burton for devoting his column (Debating The Bear Hunt, Vol. xiii, No. 49: December 8) to critiquing my recent commentary, What Bill Burton Omitted: The Other Side (Vol. xiii, No. 46: Nov. 17). However, I can’t do what he suggests: Stop telling the public the truth or resign as a commissioner on the Wildlife Advisory Commission. If I did, the animals would have no voice and the public would only learn the hunters’ side of the story.
Bill wants me to keep my arguments within the commission room. Does he want the commission’s work hidden? After all, we are appointed, and we serve as the public’s voice to DNR.
I stand by every word in my Bay Weekly commentary, and can cite data backing up my claims.
Finally, as a commissioner, I’ve never opposed hunting as a means of wildlife management when all else fails. Nevertheless, I will not abandon the animals to please Bill or any of the big-money interests supporting killing animals for fun and profit. Most of all, I have an obligation to the public, to continue telling the truth. Enough said from me.
E. Joseph Lamp:
Wildlife Advisory Commissioner
More Debating Bears
Dear Bay Weekly,
Here’s my side of the bear debate: There are not too many bears in the human habitat; there are too many humans in the bear habitat.
Our environment is a complex system. The entire system depends on biodiversity, and whether we like it or not, we are part of that system. So though we must kill to survive, we must be extremely careful what and why we kill.
I am not saying that there are not issues when people are living in bear habitat. Bears are big, powerful, scary predators that can easily overpower an adult. But as we encroach on their habitat, the bear’s ability to avoid us is diminished; issues will continue to increase until a real solution is arrived at.
Mr. Burton claims “scientific evidence … based on bear damages … bear sightings … highway kills … and nuisance claims.” Is scattering trash left out for collection an obvious reason for terminating these bears? I see; therefore I kill? Sounds more like a demented bumper sticker than a scientific justification.
Using such “scientific evidence” to justify killing bears seems a veiled attempt to cover the real motivation: maintaining a population so future hunters will have something to murder.
Far from “Enough said.”
R.D. Abbott, Deale