In so many ways I am glad that people are as vastly different as they are otherwise wouldn’t it be a boring life? You got to laugh at them and yourself or else go insane and I would be leading the pack.
I laughed and laughed until I about fell out my chair this morning as a read a letter to the editor in NewsTimesLive.com out of Danbury, Connecticut. The letter was in response to several of the debates that have taken place there lately concerning Lyme disease.
Lyme disease is carried by ticks that are carried by deer. In places where deer become densely populated, the threat of this disease goes up. I recently wrote an article about how controlling the deer herd’s size makes for a healthy situation.
When people hate hunting, they should just state it and move on because often when they decide to go public with their rants, they show the world their true colors as well as such things and hypocrisy and the desire to protect all animals.
This letter writer begins by referring to a previous article in that paper about how killing deer would eliminate Lyme disease.
Georgina Scholl uses non-factual concepts promoting her bizarre plan for killing deer.
The letter writer then goes on in an attempt to prove the opening statement by first stating that there is no scientific evidence to prove that killing deer eliminates Lyme disease. Then from out of who knows where, these numbers are thrown out stating what it would take to accomplish an eradication of Lyme disease.
There is no scientific evidence to support this hypothesis. It is a cruel hoax to give people false hope that hunting will cure the complex problem of Lyme disease.
The deer herd throughout an entire town would have to be reduced by 86 percent and maintained at that level for deer to be no longer a key host. If there were 30 deer in a one-square-mile tract of land, then 25 deer would have to be killed and no others allowed to take their place.
If there is no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that killing deer will eradicate Lyme disease, then why does the letter writer attempt to support their claim by stating what they want us to believe are scientific facts on how to effectively eliminate Lyme disease? Is this not a “non-factual concept”?
But it gets better. After three paragraphs where the writer accuses the State Department of Environmental Protection from “scamming” the people and how bow hunting is “hideously cruel” and that hunters are selfish, wanting nothing more than to “push for ever more ridiculous accommodations like extended seasons, Sunday hunting, hunting after sunset, and other insanities ad nauseam”, the hard cold facts are laid on us.
Let me remind you once again of the opening statement accusing the paper’s article writer of using “non-factual concepts promoting her bizarre plan for killing deer”. The letter writer states:
All Connecticut residents should insist that the DEP’s wildlife division be revamped to represent the interests of the 99 percent of the public who do not hunt. Our tax dollars should no longer be used to pay the salaries of hunter DEP employees, solely for the benefit of hunters.
I would have to say that the letter writer has taken upon themselves to use a non-factual concept in order to promote a bizarre plan of revamping wildlife management and to stop paying the salaries of DEP employees whose only purpose is to cater to hunters.
Unreal!!
Tom Remington
