LETTERS: Trappers aid wildlife management

To the editor:

In response to John L. Smith’s commentary complaining that activists such as himself haven’t yet targeted trappers, Mr. Smith is wrong on all counts (“Activists have yet to target trappers,” March 6 Review-Journal). Activists have been targeting trappers — and hunters and fisherman and ranchers and research labs — forever in this country. Activists long on emotion but short on facts or the truth have been showing up at state and county wildlife board meetings for the last 40 years.

The activists claim, as you do, that dogs are caught and maimed, yet no veterinarians can be found who have ever treated such an injury. They claim, as you do, that trapping is self-regulated, yet there are reams of regulations pertaining to trapping and an entire force of wardens hired to enforce these laws. They claim, as you do, that the number of nontarget animals reportedly caught is extremely conservative. The opposite is true.

If you had bothered to check with the biologist who manages this program, you would have learned the numbers are actually skewed drastically in the opposite direction. The biologists readily admit that they get survey returns from a minority of very active and successful trappers, but modeling requires them to adjust survey results upward for those who do not report, meaning those who did not trap at all in a given year or trap very little. The results Mr. Smith quoted as fact may be off by as much as 90 percent.

And why does a journalist as experienced as Mr. Smith provide space to quote an activist (and neighbor), Stephanie Meyers, yet not allow one word from a trapping or conservation organization for an opposing viewpoint? A little bias maybe? Since you didn’t ask, Mr. Smith, and didn’t bother to look it up, I will give you a few reasons why trapping is alive and well in Nevada and every other state in the union.

— “Trapping is an effective method for managing or studying furbearers, controlling damages caused by furbearers, and reducing the spread of harmful diseases,” according to the Wildlife Society.

— “The professional wildlife conservation community universally endorses traps and trapping as critical and essential wildlife management tools,” according to the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

— And concerning your activist friends: “Some special interest groups oppose trapping of animals in general, but this can actually compromise animal welfare,” according to the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Wildlife in Nevada today is abundant, healthy and on the increase in almost every area and species, so much so that we have seen a rash of pets being killed and eaten by wildlife in recent years and school shutdowns because of menacing predators. Our wildlife is managed carefully by professionals in our state wildlife department, who note that hunting and trapping are critical and essential wildlife management tools that are used to maintain this healthy balance.

MARY MAGUIRE

LAS VEGAS

Pot hypocrites

To the editor:

How hypocritical is Nevada? People are against marijuana because this is such a moral state. We have constant gambling on every corner, and prostitutes soliciting sex in every motel and hotel, but that’s OK. The reason some people are against marijuana is probably because they won’t make money off it.

JOAN CALDEIRA

LAS VEGAS

Independent judiciary

To the editor:

Regarding Steve Sebelius’ March 9 column in the Review-Journal (“How much is enough?”), let me cite Alexander Hamilton from the Federalist Papers: “The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or the wealth of the society and can take no active resolution whatever.”

The founders of this country were absolutely determined to create an independent judiciary, and you will never find a more brilliant defense of that concept than Mr. Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78. However, the judiciary had to pay a very high price for its independence, and that price — no power of the purse or the sword — sits as the foundation of Mr. Hamilton’s essay.

But what happens when we find ourselves living with a restless, power-hungry judiciary that can’t stand that price? What happens when the judiciary realizes it is dealing with legislatures and governors who are, in general, nice people but are clueless about the limitations on judicial authority and are defenseless when it comes to protecting their most important authority, the power of the purse and the executive veto?

Here’s what happens: You wind up with 26 states where runaway judiciaries have literally stolen education funding from the legislative branch and gotten away with it. Is Nevada next? Based on Mr. Sebelius’ column, we may find out relatively soon.

KNIGHT ALLEN

LAS VEGAS