Letters to the editor

Control the wolf population

When I attended the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks meeting this January, John Fraley immediately told the crowd, "We are not discussing wolves today — that will be done at a later date."

Well, in my opinion, we can't put wolves "on the back burner" any longer as the wolves are decimating the deer herds in our area right now. Their management should be the No. 1 priority of the agency.

I am a 70-year-old man and have hunted all of my life. While teaching in Bush Alaska for 13 years, I hunted and trapped wolves, so I know their habits well. I saw, first hand, what a devastating predator the wolf is to caribou and moose.

This spring, my dog Ginny and I started looking for sheds in the Weed Lake area near my home on Swan Lake.

To my amazement, I discovered that a wolf pack has moved into that region — every deer trail has wolf tracks on it.

To date, after about six hikes in a month's time, I have found nine wolf kills in approximately one square mile of area.

It's unbelievable that an old man, leisurely walking on a hillside with his dog, can find this many wolf kills. This makes me question: "Just how many elk, moose, and deer is it taking to feed all of the wolves in the entire Swan Valley — my hunting area?! I have seen wolves on Porcupine Road so there's obviously a pack established there too.

Here's a suggestion: Why don't you FWP wolf specialists quit studying charts and data sent to you from some guy in Washington, D.C., take some hikes in the woods, and actually see what's happening for yourselves?

You will realize quickly that the need to control the wolf population is now, not later, before the wonderful hunting in Northwest Montana is over!

Jack Wilfong

Bigfork

Channel anger in

positive way

I have just heard reports that members of Congress who voted for the just-signed-into-law health care reform bill are being targeted in violent ways. Such behavior is terribly wrong. House Minority Leader John Boehner, has urged people to take their anger at the new law and "channel it into positive change."

Others are comparing this anger with the anger we saw regarding the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. This incorrect comparison points out precisely the problem about this mess. People opposed to the new health care law are not, for the most part, motivated by mindless bigotry.

They are genuinely concerned citizens who fear they are seeing the demise of our grand country, founded solidly on the integrity of each individual. Their concerns have been summarily disregarded by the people in the majority in Washington, D.C. This fact was clearly seen in the ridiculous "Healthcare Summit" at the White House on Feb. 25. While Civil Rights is a moral imperative, health care reform is a matter of opinion.

Quick story: I know a family in the over $300K income bracket. The dad works indefatigably, actually world-known in his field. The mom works equally hard doing volunteer work at three different schools and in many community activities. Their money is used mostly to give advantages to their four children. One child, for instance, was accepted into an expensive summer camp at Duke University. Will they have to cut back on providing these advantages for their kids to pay the salaries of new bureaucrats in the Health Choices Administration? Is that fair? Not in my opinion.

This letter is an attempt to channel my anger in a positive way. Another obvious step has to do with voting next November. Unfortunately, neither of our senators is up for re-election in 2010.

Our representative, Denny Rehberg, who voted against the new law, deserves our support in his bid for another term.

There are probably other positive steps also. I hope everyone will consider these things.

Carol Cummings

Polson

Take a closer look at positives of reform

Before we get all fired up about the bad things that ultra-conservative naysayers would have us believe the recently passed health care legislation will do, wouldn't it make sense to examine some of the good things it will do for Montana citizens? Here are just a few to consider.

¥ It provides tax credits for Montana small businesses to help make coverage more affordable. [HealthReform.gov, accessed 3/20/10]

¥ It prohibits insurance companies from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children in Montana, starting this year. [U.S. Census Bureau, 1/7/10]

¥ It will close the "donut hole" and improve other Medicare benefits for Montana seniors. [HealthReform.gov, accessed 3/20/10]

¥ It will reduce Medicare premiums for Montana seniors who are not enrolled in Medicare Advantage and will no longer subsidize these private insurance plans. [Senate Finance Committee]

¥ It will ensure affordable coverage options for Montanans who are uninsured and Montanans who purchase health insurance through the individual market. [HealthReform.gov, accessed 3/20/10]

¥ It will create jobs by reducing health care costs for employers. [U.S. Public Interest Research Group, 1/20/10]

¥ It will provide more federal funding for Community Health Centers in Montana. [National Association of Community Health Centers, 2009]

These features are but a few of the positive results of the historic legislation. Let's allow time for the reform action to take effect before we attempt to find ways to make it better.

Edd Blackler

Bigfork