Letters To The Editor
IDAHO VIEWPOINTS
Fairer bear hunting still the goal
Idaho Coalition United for Bears campaigned vigorously against spring hunt and hound hunting, basically, to bring decency and fairness to bear hunting.
Proposition 2 lost at the polls because I-CUB could not match the money needed to eradicate the alarming false argument the opposition was able to buy: “A few out-of-state animal rights activists came to Idaho to ban hunting!”
I-CUB represents a great number of Idahoans, hunters and nonhunters, who for years have tried to negotiate a reform to bring bear hunting under the same standards of rules and regulations as apply to other big game.
We see that there is room for reform, and our commitment to achieve this goal remains unshaken. The new initiative has been modified to meet all the criteria for an unbeatable initiative:
Use of dogs: permitted, except from May 1 through Aug. 31 when female bears are raising their young and should not be subject to pursuit by dogs. The chase results in tremendous stress on the animals. When a pack of hounds encounters a cub, the dogs commonly kill it before the hunters can catch up with the pack and intervene.
Use of bait: prohibited. Bait stations habituate bears to humans’ scent and food, risking the safety of humans in campgrounds and summer cabins. Bears that are not shot at bait stations become nuisance bears and must be shot or relocated at a great expense. Cecilia Nolthenius Coeur d’Alene
Important information omitted
We recently received a clipping from your June 2 “Huckleberries” column about our press packet on Men’s Health Week, June 9-15. We had sent a copy of the packet to your newspaper because many of your readers reside in Idaho. Unfortunately, your Huckleberry Hound chose to complain that our public health district list of information sources contained women’s names, adding that “most middle-aged men … would rather die than talk to a woman about delicate matters like prostate cancer.”
There are obvious fallacies in that statement, which is a definite disservice to your readers, both male and female. Health district personnel - who have full names, not just first ones, as printed - are listed in any information we send out to news directors and news editors as information sources for features, talk show guest referrals and background information. Evidently, The Spokesman-Review did not choose to find the Men’s Health Week packet helpful in printing or obtaining further information about men’s health issues.
It is unfortunate that the “Huckleberries” column writer, while being sarcastic about the fact that some public health district employees are women, did not choose to convey the useful information that, as part of National Men’s Health Week this year, any interested person may receive a fee “Men’s Maintenance Manual” addressing the key health challenges facing men and including a directory of health resources. Copies are available by calling the toll-free hotline at (800) 955-2002. The manual also may be requested on the Internet at www.menshealth.com. Jocelyn S. Fannin Idaho state Department of Health and Welfare, Boise
LAW AND JUSTICE
Deck stacked against caregivers
I read with interest and compassion about the noble efforts made by many grandparents in taking responsibility for the nurturing and upbringing of grandchildren. Whether grandparents, aunts and uncles or other nonparents, Washington law can create a deep and dark chasm, not only for caregivers, but ultimately, also for the children.
My experience as a family law practitioner has been that caregivers can provide for a child over a term of years. Meanwhile, the biological parent, after recognizing the rewards and blessings of commitment and sacrifice, becomes interested in providing care again. Very often, the welfare of the child dictates that he or she remain in the stable environment where the child has been raised.
However, due to constitutional considerations, the nonparent must prove that the natural parent is unfit or that there has been actual detriment experienced by the child from contact with the parent, one which is likely to recur.
With treatment, anyone can be deemed fit. If little meaningful time has been spent with the child by the parent, actual detriment could be impossible to prove. Thus, the child can be in great distress when the natural parent says, “I’m now fit; return the child to me.”
I’ve had judges say thanks to the nonparent, “but the child goes back to mother” (or father).
Perhaps that’s the way it should be. A guardianship action can indeed be a hard row to hoe in the attempt to protect and care for a child when the legal standard is so difficult for unwary caregivers who have a child abandoned to them. Herbert J. Landis Spokane
Amendment protects individuals
Walter Becker (letters, July 16) states that the Second Amendment applies only to state militias, not individuals.
The facts are that Supreme Court decisions and many studies by constitutional scholars and others have repeatedly supported the individual’s right to possess firearms.
In United States vs. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court stated the word “people” means the same thing in the Second Amendment as it does elsewhere in the Bill of Rights: individuals.
In the Dred Scott decision, the court stated that the liberty “to keep and carry arms wherever they went” was part of the “privileges and immunities of citizens.”
In United States vs. Cruikshank, the court stated the First and Second amendments limited only Congress, not individual citizens.
The authors of the Constitution, and other Founding Fathers, could not have meant anything other than individuals when they stated, “The great object is that every man be armed” (Patrick Henry), or, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” (Thomas Jefferson).
James Madison stated in the Federalist Papers, “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of the countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
Tench Coxe kept a record concerning the ratification of the Second Amendment and noted the words “for the common defense only” were specifically rejected.
A 1982 report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, subcommittee on the Constitution, concluded the Second Amendment is an individual right. David H. Wordinger Medical Lake
Cited case part of mythology
Mike Scalera (letters, July 22) repeats the National Rifle Association myth that United States vs. Verdugo-Urquidez applies to the Second Amendment. The Verdugo case was not a Second Amendment case; it was a Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure case. In Quilici vs. Village of Morton Grove, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court said, “… We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment,” and was upheld by the Supreme Court (1983).
We should be concerned about our public safety. Who in Spokane wants drive-by shootings, stray bullets killing your wife or baby inside your home and guns in the schools threatening your children? Shouldn’t we be discussing how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, instead of discredited NRA myths? Walter A. Becker Pullman
OTHER TOPICS
Drummond contributions noteworthy
Doug Clark’s column and other recent press coverage of Eastern Washington University President Marshall Drummond’s resignation give the impression that Drummond leaves EWU without having made significant contributions to the institution.
His support, and that of former EWU Vice President Terry Novak, was instrumental in the listing of the EWU Campus Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places. At the time (1992), EWU became only the second campus west of the Mississippi River to achieve National Register historic district status.That status is being enhanced in the university’s master plan to maintain the architectural integrity of the historic campus core, with modernization occurring in historic building interiors while allowing new construction elsewhere.
Drummond also spearheaded Showalter Hall Auditorium’s restoration to its early 20th century splendor, with many notable, and appropriate, modern improvements. Previous EWU presidents were less supportive of such cultural enhancements.
While historic preservation seems insignificant in light of ongoing problems at the university, it has surely saved taxpayers construction costs for new buildings. Adapting existing structures to modern uses also has preserved a sense of stability and continuity during administrative transitions and financial hard times. Despite prevailing troubles, which won’t be long remembered, Drummond is leaving us, and our children, with a campus we can be proud of. Craig E. Holstine, program director Archaeological and Historical Services, EWU, Cheney
Cartoonist was doing satire; get it?
Regarding Margaret E. Koivula’s July 22 letter: Well, duh!
Why does Koivula even bother to read the comics? Did she read “Adam” before she’d had her morning coffee?
The very point Brian Bassett was trying to make was that even adult males can succumb to the violent lure of video games. He picked practically the most violent episode of recent history to conjure this image. I believe it’s called satire.
When such a cartoon can be presented to any society as entertainment and be totally misinterpreted by society, that society, or those members of society who misinterpret it, needs to get a clue. George X. Hale Greenacres