The Portland television stations have outdone themselves this year, raking in all that easy cash for such wild and absurd political ads with no attempt at assuring truth or common sense.
Probably the most annoying one, for me, is the bear referendum. Both the “yes” and “no” camps are using ridiculous scare tactics and piling up absurdities.
I was leaning toward voting “yes” until seeing the recent television “debate.” I wanted to hear what the biologist had to offer, but some big-mouthed slicker from away wouldn’t let her say anything without interrupting and rudely talking over her. By the last segment, when Bill Green still had not gagged the guy, I changed the channel and became undecided on the issue.
Voters should consider how the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife budget (hence jobs) is funded: primarily by selling wildlife licenses to hunters and fishermen.
Regardless of the outcome, I’m sure this won’t be the end of the fight.
It would seem that bears may be superior to the hunter in intelligence and sensory skills, meaning that the hunter may need some help if a cull is to be successful.
I think the Legislature should pass a compromise, whereby traps would be gone, doughnuts, etc., would be restricted to the hunter’s diet, but the hunter would be allowed to use dogs for tracking the bears while actually hunting.
If the hunter hasn’t gone overboard with the doughnuts, he might benefit from the extra exercise involved in really hunting.
Dwight Mills, Greenwood
Send questions/comments to the editors.
