Wolves a danger

To the editor:

Some years ago, so-called environmentalists convinced the electorate to vote into the state constitution a ban on hunting bears and cougars with dogs. They did this by continuously showing a wounded cougar being viciously attacked by a pack of hunting dogs on TV. This created great sympathy for the cougars and bears with the members of the public who live in and around the big cities. A very small percentage of these people have ever seen a cougar or a bear in the wild, and the ones on TV in the Disney movies seem big, but appear harmless as long as you are nice to them.

Now these same environmentalists are anxious to bring or allow the introduction of wolves into the state and protect them from all harm or retaliation by the ranchers and other people who will suffer the results of their predatory behavior. They are nature lovers who don't know nature. They are in love with a fantasy created by a bunch of others like them on TV.

Now reality is, it is criminal for a hunting dog to attack a ferocious mountain lion or bear that could stand their ground against half a dozen good dogs and win. But it is a natural and good thing for a six pack of 150- to 175-pound wolves to rip apart and eat alive a baby deer, elk, sheep, cat, dog or maybe a 12-year-old boy out for a walk in the woods. Don't tell me wolves don't kill humans. I read history, not Disney books. Historically, wolves will tear apart and eat anything made of meat and blood.

I'm from Oregon and my dad and his dad and his dad and so on before Oregon was a state. I have roamed the wilds of Oregon since I was a small child. I have been attacked by a bear and approached by a mountain lion. There is no domesticated dog even half as vicious or powerful as a wolf.

Liberalism is a true form of insanity. See

Jerry Huddleston

Baker City

Sorry to report we haven't learned

To the editor:

Mike Royko was a columnist who lived and worked in Chicago many years ago. Mike died suddenly in 1997, long before the Iraq War got started.

After President Nixon announced that we were finally getting out of Vietnam, Mike wrote a column that was published in the Chicago Sun Times of January 24, 1973. In this column Mike reflected on how we got into this particular mess in the first place.

Royko wrote, andquot;Maybe we finally have the painful knowledge that we can never again believe everything our leaders tell us. For years they told us one thing while they did another. They said we were winning while we were losing. They said we were getting out while we were going in. They said the end was near when it was far. Maybe the next time somebody says that our young men must fight and die somewhere we will not take their word that it is for a worthy cause. Maybe we will ask them to spell it out for us, nice and slow, nice and clear. And maybe the people in power will have learned that the people of this country are no longer willing to go marching off without having their questions answered first.andquot;

I'm sorry to report, Mike, since you've been gone, it doesn't look like we the people learned a thing.

Richard Nase

Baker City

Carter win was Reagan's fault

To the editor:

The lavish praise for Gerald Ford since his death is well deserved but does feature one omission which promises to become a part of history. Everyone now mentions voter backlash over the Nixon pardon as the cause for his defeat in his campaign to remain in office in 1976. This was not the main reason he lost.

In the 1975 primary Ford and Ronald Reagan were involved in a very bitter contest.

Reagan was so put off by his defeat that he flatly refused to help in Ford's campaign in the general election despite repeated entreaties by Republican leaders.

Reagan's petulant inactivity really amounted to opposition.

With only a modicum of Reagan help Ford would have easily won this extremely close election and we would have been spared four years of Jimmy Carter.

Carl Kostol

Baker City