Letters To The Editor

FIREARMS

Weapons ban or no, killers will kill

I am responding to a well-intentioned letter (“Nethercutt fatally wrong on guns,” June 10) regarding Rep. George Nethercutt’s vote on repealing the assault weapons ban.

I agree that the Fairchild Air Force Base bloodbath was a travesty and that it was perpetrated with one of the guns covered by the assault weapons bill. Dean Mellberg did choose to kill people with this weapon, as opposed to shooting them with a pistol or shotgun.

Does one really think Mellberg would not have found another weapon if he had been unable to own or possess an assault weapon? His volition killed and maimed those innocent civilians, not his firearm.

I voted for Nethercutt for several reasons, one being his promise to do his best to repeal the assault weapons ban. This vote of his shows me he is a man of his word.

We are not in the same frame of mind as someone who has already committed murder in his own heart and now is going to go through with the action of murder. One cannot be arrested for merely thinking of murder; one has to commit the crime.

A criminal is not going to legally purchase a firearm from a gun store. He will acquire the firearm by theft or from a source who doesn’t know him nor care what use he has in mind for it. Therefore, the ban is only designed to limit the already law-abiding citizen and has no effect on the criminals who abuse this right guaranteed by our Constitution.

I would rather stand in a room knowing that every person was armed and not afraid to defend his life than in a room where only the criminal is armed and I have no choice in defending my life. Bill Sahlberg Spokane

‘We are a scared society’

Who runs our government? Is it the National Rifle Association? How much does this control cost them? For an individual the word would be “bribery.”

What are assault weapons made for? Not game hunting. Who does that leave? Humans, no less. Now the looneys out there can make a real killing - 10, 20 or 30 at once.

We are a scared society of people hiding behind locked doors. We are indeed in big trouble, America. Lillian Flemming Spokane

Killers unaffected by weapons ban

Margaret A. Rolfe (“Nethercutt fatally wrong on guns,” Letters, June 10) wants us to believe that by banning assault weapons the Dean Mellbergs of the world won’t be able to hurt anyone ever again. The fact is that in his case, as in most cases of this nature, it probably would not have made a bit of difference.

First, had the Air Force recommended that Mellberg be committed to an institution, where he belonged, his shooting spree would not have taken place. Even if there had been an assault weapons ban while he was on the loose the chances are he would have bought one illegally. Failing that, he could have converted a weapon not banned into an assault weapon, which is easy to do and often is done.

Banning certain weapons puts our nation on a slippery slope that could eventually end up with confiscation of all guns from honest gun owners. Doing so would not stop crime, only put the innocent at risk of criminals who would still get whatever guns they want.

So, yes, we do want to send Nethercutt back to Congress to fight for the rights of law-abiding citizens, and to put criminals behind bars where they belong. Justin Childers Spokane

IN APPRECIATION

Thanks for helping a great cause

I was fortunate enough to celebrate my second “birthday” during the weekend of June 1 by participating in the American Cancer Society’s 24-Hour Relay for Life as a team member of ENCORE Plus, YWCA.

Although 53 years old, I celebrated life as a two-year breast cancer survivor - one who has walked the walk of thousands of other women experiencing mastectomy, chemotherapy, baldness and anemia.

After completing the Survivors’ Lap and later that night viewing the hundreds of glowing luminaries dedicated to cancer survivors and victims, I realized that here were the true heroes of our community. Children, women and men of all ages gave their time, energy and financial support to honor both cancer victims and cancer survivors. Through their efforts, thousands of dollars were raised to support awareness, education, research, new treatments and patient services.

As one who proudly wore a purple survivor’s shirt and a Relay for Life team shirt, I hope this thank you reaches out to everyone who donated a luminary for life, sponsored a team or team member, or who volunteered services, food or prizes. It is your heroic efforts that made my second “birthday” a truly memorable celebration of life. Marilyn A. Watson Spokane

OIL PRICES

Talk likely influenced price drop

It’s nice to see gasoline prices dropping a few pennies. Opinion Editor John Webster, who furnished us with an Economics 101 lecture in supply and demand (“No mileage in high-octane talk,” Opinion, June 12) thinks he knows why.

Now, I have a question for Professor Webster: What turnip truck did you fall off of? The law of supply and demand has never worked as economists would have us believe. And it certainly has little basis in the real world of huge and powerful transnational oil companies.

The energy crises of 1973 and 1979 pointed to the difficulty that capitalism, a marvelous system of production, was never designed to accommodate: shortage. For demand to exceed supply is supposed to be good for capitalism, leading to increased production and often lower costs.

Oil, however, is not really produced; it’s extracted. It’s rationed by the oil companies and OPEC from a pool of unknown but finite quantity. As part of the rationing process, OPEC members meet regularly to set oil prices. There’s no conspiracy; they do it openly.

By artificially elevating the price for just a few weeks, as they did recently, while feeding a gullible media the standard supply-and-demand publicity spin, a huge windfall profit accrues.

Politicians, as is their nature, responded to the public outcry with their usual crowd-pleasing theatrics. The media dutifully lapped it up, and the show went on.

But, funny thing - the price of gasoline started to drop. Although the laws of economics are largely just wishful, turnip-truck fantasies, sometimes political rhetoric and government pressure do benefit the public. Russ Moritz Sandpoint

Editorial rightly lauded free market

Congratulations to Opinion Editor John Webster and the editorial staff for bringing to light the facts of the recent spike in gasoline prices and now the falling prices.

The June 12 editorial, “No mileage in high-octane talk,” gives credit where credit is due: the free marketplace.

I especially appreciated the bottom line that while the market was solving the problem the government (President Clinton) was still flapping its gums.

Only one problem - it should have been on the front page. Jack Pattullo Spokane

ENVIRONMENT

Forest fire not our friend but bill is

The Spokesman-Review’s endorsement of Sen. Larry Craig’s forest health bill (“Forest health bill a good prescription,” Our View, May 22) was timely and necessary, especially given the attacks from opponents who view excessive amounts of dead and dying trees as a necessary part of nature’s cycle.

As you say, the bill is needed to overcome years of fire suppression that have left the national forests overstocked with trees and ripe for disease and insect infestation. The millions of acres of dead trees provide the fuel for a repeat of the disastrous fires of 1994.

Those who discount this scenario should look to the Southwest, where fires raged just weeks ago.

Today’s wildfires are larger and more intense than those of earlier years. The high heat saturates soils to deeper levels, so that replanting is very difficult and, in some cases, will not prove successful for decades.

Those opposed to reducing fuel loads in our federal forests, or to salvage logging, say wildfires are a normal occurrence and that it is more “natural” to let the forests burn, as if nature prefers an inferno. That’s as mindless as saying heart disease should not be treated because it, too, is “natural.”

Sen. Craig’s bill will help identify and prioritize health problem areas and will require aggressive action to restore those forests to health. In addition, the bill will save the government millions of dollars in firefighting costs at the same time that it helps revitalize the economies of nearby communities. W. Henson Moore, president and CEO American Forest & Paper Association, Washington, D.C.

Responsible mining described well

I applaud The Spokesman-Review June 13 article (“Echo Bay strives for balance,” Business) regarding Echo Bay’s mining operations in the Republic area. I believe this to be an accurate representation of the approach mining companies take today with respect to environmental impact and reclamation.

In fact, mining is an environmentally disruptive process but an absolutely necessary one for today’s society. However, the mining industry is held accountable to environmental standards that we all want and companies such as Echo Bay show good faith and responsible actions toward minimal environmental impact while at the same time providing employment and resources to our local and federal economy.

My understanding, gained through many field trips to area mines with my geology classes, is that this operation in Republic is not the industry exception, but rather the industry rule.

Articles such as the one cited provide the public with an accurate, unbiased understanding of how mining practices work today, not erroneous, emotional rhetoric.

I hope local environmental groups take notice of this and acknowledge the advances the industry is taking for our future, because cooperation between environmentalists and industry is what’s needed to achieve the goals of all interested parties. Andrew M. Buddington, geology instructor Spokane Community College

Government undervalues mining

Civilization owes its very existence to mining. Without the metals and other products of mining (fuel minerals, fertilizer constituents, construction materials, etc.) civilization as we know it would cease to exist, post haste.

It is a sad commentary on the American public that very few are aware of this fact. Most simply take mineral products for granted.

It is even sadder commentary that the president of the United States and most members of Congress are equally ignorant. But it is inexcusable that neither the president nor Congress are willing to concede that the nation needs to keep track of its vital mineral resources. Moreover, neither seem willing nor obliged to address taxpaying voters’ legitimate concerns about the state of the nation’s mineral endowment.

Recently, I write a letter to President Clinton expressing my concern with respect to the recent abolishment of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the entity charged with the inventory and evaluation of national mineral resources.

The president’s reply (received after a three-day turnaround) clearly demonstrates that either no knowledgeable person read the letter or that no one was in the least concerned.

Why should anyone bother to communicate with the White House when the most one could expect is some nonsubstantive form letter? How many naive individuals (like myself) think that their letters, other than their name and address, are actually read? And how many of these think there will be any response to their letter? Russell G. Raney Cheney

WILDLIFEAND HUNTING

Goats fan doesn’t understand

Jessica Parks (“Goats, yes; Hunting, no,” Letters, June 6) misses the point.

First, mountain goats, sheep, etc., are far from endangered. Secondly, hunting has not accounted for animals being placed on the Endangered Species List. Market hunting and poaching 100 years ago perhaps, but not since we have had fish and game laws and wildlife departments enforcing them. Bag limits, season length and such are set by wildlife professionals to keep populations in balance.

Revenue from hunters helps sustain wildlife through tough winters, helps increase habitat and sometimes introduction of a species to an area.

If you like the goats donate to the Fish and Game Department to help preserve the animals’ habitat. Clamp down on poaching, by all means. Stopping legal hunting is not the answer. Michael Greene Coolin, Idaho

Maybe bears feel pain of loss, too

In response to a recent letter by Sharon Gerlach (“Bears OK but society is hurting,” May 31).

The human is far from endangered, but actually closer to overpopulation. What if a human was murdered for sport? Wouldn’t your heart ache for them? Why is it so different for a bear? Is it that you just can’t relate to an animal that seems so different but could be very similar to us?

I suggest you be a little more open-minded. Why couldn’t animals also feel pain and sadness for the death of someone close? Megan Beck, age 11 Cheney

Initiative just assures decent rules

Roxanne Carrick’s June 6 letter about the problems of bear-human interactions in Colorado (“Imported speaker did snow job”), and the message Colorado bear researcher Tom Beck brought to Idaho, was way off the mark. I attended Beck’s presentation and he clearly stated that indeed, bear-human problems had increased over the last decade, but not as a result of the passage of the initiative in 1992.

The problem was increasing human encroachment into bear habitat, and several dry years that significantly cut the bears’ fall food supply of acorns and berries.

Beck and the Colorado Division of Wildlife agree that passage of the initiative (which is identical to the proposed Idaho initiative) had nothing to do with the rise in the number of bear problems.

There has been no explosion of bears in Colorado after that initiative eliminated spring hunts, dog hunts and bait hunts for black bear. Colorado hunters have, since the initiative passed in 1992, learned to hunt in a sportsmanlike way (without dogs or bait, and in the fall). In 1995, with just the fall hunt, Colorado hunters killed 540 bears. In 1992, the last year before the initiative passed, Colorado hunters (using spring, dog, and bait hunts, as well as the sportsmanlike fall hunt) killed 520. The difference is that legal unethical hunting for black bear has stopped. It’s time for Idaho citizens to stop unsportsmanlike hunting for black bears in our state, too. Bill London Moscow, Idaho

IN THE PAPER

Story on provost narrow, ill drawn

Eric Sorensen’s article on Tom George’s tenure as a WSU Provost (“WSU provost leaves behind tarnished dream,” News, June 2) was neither fair nor balanced. Citing anonymous individuals to malign someone is not the hallmark of good journalism.

Readers of this newspaper would have been better served if Sorensen had done his homework by providing a more complete review of George’s tenure, including his strengths and weaknesses, and obtaining responses from a broader segment of the faculty.

On many issues, our position was quite different from George’s; diversity of opinions is the strength of an academic institution. Irrespective of our views regarding George’s administrative decisions, we hold him in high regard for his hard work, dedication and collegiality. We wish him the best in his new position. Yogi Gupta and Jim Short Pullman