I want to express my support for James Oden ("The Quality of Mercy," June), the unfortunate man who is being prosecuted by New Mexico Game and Fish for killing a coatimundi that was suffering terrible pain caught in a leghold trap recently. Like many people who live in Grant County, I enjoy hiking and birding often in the many beautiful national forest areas we are blessed with here. I completely sympathize with Mr. Oden and would probably have done what he did in that situation. I think it is very unfair for Game and Fish to fine a citizen $500 for being a Good Samaritan in our national forests, which by the way belong to ALL of us and not just to the 300-400 trappers who choose to make money by inflicting pain and death on the wildlife that the rest of us enjoy watching. It is my deep wish that New Mexico may soon join Florida, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Washington and Arizona in protecting wildlife, pets and even people from these diabolical leghold traps as a result of this case.
Kudos to editor David Fryxell for presenting all sides of this emotional and complicated case fairly and dispassionately.
Mr. Oden, please add my name to your petition against trapping on public land.
Jan McCreary
Silver City
I find the story of Mr. Oden more than a little amusing. It would seem that we have an out-of-work fireman with mental problems, from another state. His "fire-fighting partner" dies and, to try to invoke some sort of sympathy for his crimes, he tells the press this death was after 9/11. He wanders around in the Gila and stumbles upon a trapped coatimundi. Not knowing what sort of animal it is, he stands back 10 or 15 feet and stones it to death. Then he wanders farther down the trail and does the same thing to a squirrel. He calls these stoning deaths "mercy killings." When he is caught he tries to say that the trapper whose trap he tampered with, the state patrolman and the Game and Fish officer were all mean to him when they did their job of enforcing the law. I might add here Mr. Oden was only written a single ticket and I can see at least four more game law violations.
Then, to defend himself he gets a retired self-professed "animal rights lawyer" from "Kalifomia" who is not licensed to practice in New Mexico to defend him. Then to further try to pollute the jury pool, they bring the whole matter to a church to get more press.
To further his cause and stretch his 15 minutes of fame, Mr. Oden dances about on Bullard Street while trying to collect signatures for a petition to stop trapping in New Mexico, where he does not even live. His supporters and his lawyer are either known enviro-zealots or are from "The Peoples' Republik of Kalifomia," New York or are all of the above. This is obviously a desperate attempt of a very guilty person reveling in his temporary fame. He considers himself a poster boy but he is simply being used by the enviro-zealots who do not want to learn and only want to further their own hidden agenda. All of Mr. Oden's antics and those of his lawyer are an attempt to try to throw the spotlight on trapping instead of Mr. Oden's obvious and admitted guilt. Trapping is not guilty of anything. Mr. Oden is.
Kenneth Hough
Silver City
Regarding the article, "The Quality of Mercy" about the James Oden case, I find it extremely interesting that Larry and Colleen Britton drove all the way from New York State to trap in New Mexico. Why? Are New York's trapping laws too strict? Have New Yorkers banned trapping altogether? Whatever the reason, clearly, New Mexico with its antiquated, obsolete trapping laws was a bonanza for these people.
While they were here, they trapped all the bobcats, coyotes, foxes, badgers, etc. that they wished. They shot, stomped or bludgeoned the animals, skinned them, sold the pelts and pocketed thousands of dollars. After that, they probably returned to New York with a huge profit—at the expense of OUR wildlife.
Somehow, all of this is just fine with the New Mexico Deptartment of Game and Fish, a typically dysfunctional state bureaucracy. I, for one, have had numerous unpleasant encounters with traps, several of which were set on my private land. The Department of Game and Fish has been unresponsive to my concerns and those of other hikers who have dealt with these barbaric devices.
I applaud James Oden's courage and Desert Exposure for bringing this problem to light. It's time to pressure the governor, state legislature and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish to end this brutal and dangerous practice before more angry encounters between hikers and trappers take place.
Jene Moseley
Silver City
I read your article "The Quality of Mercy" with great interest and was favorably impressed with its balance and journalistic quality. I'd like to respond to a couple of points in the article.
First, when Colleen Britton bemoans James Oden's request for a jury trial as a "shame to spend taxpayer money on" I would point out that over 80 percent of the cases in our legal system today relate to corporate law and the resolution of corporation-to-corporation business disputes. I wonder if Ms. Britton would consider these cases as a waste of taxpayer money (that, in effect operates as a form of corporate subsidy by taxpayers)?
Second, it seems to me that what the trapping advocates resent the most about this case is the attention it brings to their activities.
Just as we no longer tolerate slavery, child labor and despotic monarchies as elements of civil society, it is inevitable that society will eventually come to abhor trapping as a cruel practice that should pass into history. A case like this does bring valuable attention to issues that are generally ignored by our superficial, sensationalistic media system. Knowledge and understanding of both sides of an issue is essential to our ability to exercise our responsibilities as citizens of a democratic society.
Thank you for helping bring this issue to greater public scrutiny. I look forward to further coverage as this case moves forward.
Curt Smith
Tyrone
Your recent article on the trapping controversy got me thinking. It is my personal opinion that trapping is an undefensible, barbaric practice. To my way of thinking, trappers peddle a product to thoughtless, vain and selfish people. I think their cruel trade puts them in the same class as dope dealers and kiddie-porn peddlers.
Why are a few hundred trappers still allowed to ply their gruesome trade, when many of the 40,000 New Mexico hikers are where tourism dollars come from? Why should a few hundred trappers spoil and endanger the outings of thousands of Nw Mexico residents? How dare out-of-towners come here and murder our animals? (Animals the rest of us would be thrilled to see.)
My bottom line: James Oden broke the law. The CRIME was committed by the Brittons and others of their ilk.
Deirdre Wolf
Silver City
Thank you for telling the story of James Oden and the trapped coati. This story exemplifies again that it doesn't matter how far off the trail or road a trap is required to be, leghold traps have no place anywhere on public land where the rest of us have every right to recreate. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the State Game Commission have, to date, refused any changes to the trapping "regulations," inconsiderate, injurious and irresponsible as they are to the public. The Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club continues to press this point and can be reached at notraps@gilanet.com.
Mary Katherine Ray
Winston
I have long been perplexed by the apparent contradiction that is New Mexico. In some ways it seems more civilized and enlightened than Arizona, which was my home for 28 years. On the other hand, it exemplifies the worst of the worst, being almost alone among the 50 states to still allow cockfighting, and refusing to come out of the dark ages and join the growing number of states to ban leghold traps. (Of lesser importance, but along the same lines, the legality of fireworks in such a drought-ridden, flammable state seems ill-advised, to say the least.)
This mystery was finally cleared up for me while reading the Desert Exposure's June 2005 article, "The Quality of Mercy" by David Fryxell. To my shock, I learned that New Mexico does not have a ballot initiative, which allows citizens, by gathering enough signatures, to place a proposition on the ballot. At last I had an explanation as to why even usually backwards Arizona (which has the ballot initiative) was able to ban leghold traps and cockfighting, while New Mexico still sanctions them.
This means that here in New Mexico, citizens are not even allowed to attempt to change things for the better. In Arizona, I have seen many initiatives fall by the wayside after running into the vast money and power resources of developers and other special interest groups. But at least the people are allowed to try—and sometimes they succeed.
New Mexico's bad laws, which endorse cruelty, looked at in the light of New Mexico's lack of a ballot initiative option, are a clear illustration (among many these dark days) of the cold hard fact that our representatives do not represent us, the people, the majority, though they are mandated to do so. They represent the minority special interests, and the bloodthirsty inclinations of the worst among us. Ballot initiatives are the only way to make progress in the face of unresponsive government.
A 1996 Caravan Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that 74 percent of Americans want leghold traps outlawed. The citizens of other states have spoken. I know the citizens of New Mexico are not more cruel, barbaric and ignorant than those in Arizona or Colorado. The difference between them is that the only voice by which citizens elsewhere are allowed to speak has here been silenced.
Joanne Cockerill
Silver City
Let's use our cynicism skills and apply them to your Continental Divide apprehensions ("Tough to Swallow," June) in the DUI and Terrorism articles. I appreciated the updated cynicism in the Desert Diary, so I thought it might be fun to mix them all into a blender to see what happens.
Implicit in both our terrorism and DUI laws is an assumption that everyone is a threat. We are all random terrorists and therefore are to be deprived of our Constitutional rights in order to protect our country. Likewise anyone who drinks any alcoholic beverage is a savage with no regard for others' lives and therefore not to enjoy teetotaler rights.
So let's apply our cynicism skills. These are very unkind assumptions, so let's make assumptions in kind about the folks who promote these laws. How about assuming that a number of our government leaders did know that the 9/11 activities were planned and let it happen to change the public's resistance to government intrusion into their lives? How about our leaders knew that the reasons for invading Iraq were lies and still did so to double the price of oil? How about our leaders using an emotional issue, such as the death of a loved one, to justify random roadblocks, then collect fines from people who had not hurt anyone? How about a concern about firearms being in the hands of some private citizens who are just as mean as those who promote unjust laws, and therefore are a threat to tyrants?
Perhaps these assumptions are not so, but then maybe they are. Something to consider?
Charles Clements
Las Cruces
July 2005
