Crying Wolf, Round 2
Editor's note: Not surprisingly, Larry Lightner's February and March "Ramblin' Outdoors" columns about protection against wolves sparked a storm of controversy (even though, as he noted, he actually supports the wolf reintroduction program). We present here all the letters we've received to date, including several about the February column that we received after our early deadline for last issue. For more on this topic, see Siri Dharma's Into the Future column in this issue.
Larry Lightner needs to give up on his faux environmentalism. Larry! We don't believe you. You murder animals (many for no good reason). You drive your four-wheel destructo-machine in a riparian area, wreaking havoc and destroying the area for the next person. Now you pretend to be open-minded about wolves and then follow with a fictitious story about the danger to dogs from the "Big Bad Wolf."
Listen up, Larry. If you take your dog out to the wilderness, as owner you are responsible for the dog's safety. (You are the smart one, aren't you?) In Grant County, it is against the law to have a dog off leash if it is not "under control." I interpret this to mean said dog is reasonably close and obedient to your commands. If you let your dog run afar in the wilderness and it gets hurt by a wild animal, it's your fault. Just as letting a dog run loose in town and it gets hit by a car, it's your fault. Oh yeah, and calling the wolves "wild curs" is like using the "n" word.
Lastly, your anti-wolf prejudice has kept you from noticing two important facts. First, no humans have been hurt by a Mexican wolf and, second, when a wolf has gotten too close, throwing rocks is all it takes to scare them off. (Wish it were that easy to get rid of the human predators many of us face each day.)
Deirdre Wolf
Silver City
Editor's note: Deirdre Wolf operates Wolfsong Sanctuary for wolf hybrids. Interested readers can see our complete profile of her in the January 2005 issue, available on our Web site.
Well, once again Larry Lightner has demonstrated his arrogant ignorance with his imaginative column on "what if wolves attacked my dog . . . or children." I challenge Mr. Lightner to check any and all records for how many children—or adults for that matter—have been attacked by wild healthy wolves in the lower 48. He'll find the answer is . . . zero. And not even in the instance he cited in his latest article. These people complain because they move into "wilderness" and find there's wild critters there? How silly is that? As avid hikers, over the years we've protected and rescued our dogs from javelina attacks, coyotes and a couple of elk—all without lethal force. It's what you do when you choose to leave the pavement, and we would take the same precautions if wolves were in the area.
I will tell you what he, and any person, with or without dogs, needs to fear "out there," and that is leghold traps. They can be legally placed with no flags, signs or warnings during any of the 12 months of the year, anywhere on public lands in New Mexico. During this past fall, I had my five-month-old puppy with me on a road/trail when one of these abominations burst out of the sand like a rattlesnake and caught her front leg. As she was not six inches away from me, I was able to free her quickly, but both of us were severely traumatized. The dog could just as easily have been my granddaughter, as we were in a heavily recreated area within sight of the homes at Tyrone. We have run across two other trap lines within a 10-minute drive of Silver City, but this was the final straw. Gila Wilderness hikes? Forget it. Signal Peak? The new section of CD trail in the Burros? No way. Never again am I going to run the risk of myself or mine getting caught in one of these horrible traps.
So we have decided to move our family and prospective business (along with its potential employment, taxes and income) across the state line to where we can enjoy the open spaces without fear. Wolves? That's on my life list to observe them in the wild. But it will be in a state more enlightened than this one.
Incidentally, Mr. Lightner, the reason we're told to throw rocks at wolves who we feel are too close is because rocks are enough to frighten the "big bad wolf" away.
S. Gardner
via e-mail
I've never before responded to the inane "Ramblin' Outdoors" column. That page full of absurd balatronic blathering is beneath contempt and deserves neither the time nor effort it takes to READ, let alone rebut. But a friend wrung a promise out of me to respond to the February column.
Firstly, the line, "It is a predator's instinct. . . to chase down anything that flees," reminds me that there was a time I would have accepted that reasonable assumption on face value. That was before an even more tightly held assumption of mine was shattered: that of a cornered animal attacking as a last resort. The personal experience that changed that belief involved myself and two others in cornering, capturing and dragging to a car a near-wolf hybrid (for a vet appointment). She never showed any aggression, just terror. A letter is too short a format to relate the whole experience, but that was the day I realized that assumptions are not facts, and that if even a wolf in dire circumstances could not be induced to bite, then they are among the LEAST aggressive of creatures.
Secondly, yes, I do live with dogs. Yes, they are my family. I would suggest going to the Web site www.riogrande.sierraclub.org/campaigns/trapping/trap_stories.htm to read about a danger much more prevalent than the remote possibility of a wolf attack. Two friends of mine have had three pets suffer the horrific experience of an encounter with a trap. One resulted in a German Shorthaired Pointer losing all the toes on one paw. Another trap caught a four-month-old puppy being walked along a gravel road. The third involved a housecat who finally limped home (with her completely chewed-off limb stuck to her bloody fur) after she wandered—not far—from an APARTMENT on the edge of TUCSON. You don't even HAVE to be in a remote place for your pet to be caught, tortured, injured and maybe killed by a trap. The chances of your dogs being caught in a trap make their chances of being attacked by wolves comparable to being struck by lightning. In fact, Deirdre Wolf of Wolfsong Sanctuary, who LIVES with wolves, has been nearly struck by lightning TWICE, but never attacked by wolves. People concerned with the safety of their pets could more productively spend their time campaigning against the atrocity of trapping than by spreading fairy tales about wolves.
And I'm still trying to figure out why we, the latecomers, the usurpers, the ones whose forebears committed genocide on both wolves and Native Americans, have the utter audacity, the staggering arrogance, to expect our safety in our stolen land to be absolute, to be guaranteed, to be government-mandated yet! To expect the original and rightful inhabitants of this land to be exterminated AGAIN to placate our boundless selfishness and our unfounded fears. It's mind-boggling.
OK, I've fulfilled my promise and shall now resume ignoring Lightner's twisted nonsense.
Joanne Cockerill
Silver City
Editor's note: To read our extensive coverage on trapping, see the June 2005 issue, available on our Web site, and the September 2004 issue.
I think it's important to address the issues in Mr. Lightner's February column in a way that brings to light some underlying assumptions. Mr. Lightner asks, "Is the reintroduction of a large predator worth what some will ultimately pay? Is the possible attack on a person worth it?" To me, and other environmentalists, the answer is an unambiguous "yes." It is worth it to have a healthy ecosystem, especially given the minuscule incidence of such confrontations.
Mr. Lightner goes on to state at the end of his article, and this is an exact quote, "Having said all that, it is still my opinion to let those Mexican wolves roam free hereabouts with no restrictions. Give them the same rules as any predators hereabouts, and treat them the same as we would coyotes.
"If they survive, so be it; if not, that's OK too. (I told you I'm a centrist here.) And for goodness sake, allow humans to use deadly force to protect themselves and their critters. The way I figger it, my Ol' Barney-Dawg is worth 10,000 of those wild curs."
That last sentence exemplifies an assumption in the article, one with which I am familiar: My dog is worth 10,000 wolves. MY dog. It's my cattle, my ranch, my fence, my way of life, and damn the rest of the world. I respectfully disagree with this assumption.
Mr. Lightner has his question that frames the debate and I have mine. Here's mine: Do you, the reader, want a sustainable ecosystem (which includes predators and prey animals) or do you want the western US run for the benefit of a few via subsidized ranching?
Larry Weiss
White Signal
Each month I look forward to your publication. I find a wide variety of thoughts and opinions—some to agree with, some not to agree with.
Mr. Lightner's latest article is, in my opinion, a fair and balanced approach to a big problem for those who live in wolf territory. It is unfortunate that some of those who disagree with Larry, regardless of what he is writing about, respond with such venom. I read Larry's article several times during the month and I see he always does his research. Even though Larry is made out to be a extremist by some, that would be the furthest from the truth. Larry's articles are informative and balanced. Larry, keep up the good work.
Marshall Steele
Silver City
I've been reading Desert Exposure for years and have enjoyed Ramblin' Outdoors with Larry Lightner, but his February rant advocating shooting wolves who attack pets made me mad. I have lived in the West for 40 years. On two occasions I have been attacked while hiking alone. Both times I suffered multiple bites and felt lucky to escape serious injury. It wasn't wolves; it was packs of domestic dogs, complete with cute collars and well-groomed pelts. In New Mexico and Colorado people's pet dogs have torn many calves and horses to pieces in their pens and on at least one occasion a small child has been killed by packs of beloved pets.
Now let's talk numbers. There are at least 70 MILLION dogs in the USA (Google the numbers), but less than 4,300 grey wolves. That is about 17,000 dogs for every wolf. The wolves have been shot, poisoned, trapped and gassed, nearly to extinction while we develop nearly every bit of habitat left to them. Now Mr. Lightner thinks it should be OK to murder them if they hunt his pet for food IN THE WILDERNESS, their last refuge on this planet.
It is estimated that 4-6 million pets are euthanized in American shelters every year. That is 570 animals per hour, 24 hours a day. Nearly 10 PER MINUTE. Seems to me the real problem is not the wolves but the pets. And for someone who is so proud of his reputation as a manly outdoorsman, Mr. Lightner's claim that his ol' Barney dog is worth 10,000 wolves is the height of hypocrisy. Now he wants his wilderness SAFE? for PETS? Please sir, take your dog to the park and let the wild animals survive as best they can.
Geri Murphy
Las Cruces
I always enjoy the Desert Exposure with special interest in the Ramblin' Outdoors, David Fryxell's articles and the letters to the editor. However, it is troubling to me to read some of the extremely negative, and sometime demeaning views of Larry Lightner's column.
I know Larry, I have had considerable activities with Larry, I think Larry is a high-quality person. Do I always agree with his views? Of course not. We have had long talks around many campfires and been together on extended vehicle trips. I always have found him to be very considerate of other opinions, extremely knowledgeable about wildlife and nature, very appreciative of the rights of others and with extremely high ethics. In fact, I have had a long life (longer than Larry!) that has been filled with outdoor activities of hiking, backpacking, hunting, ATVing, horsebacking, camping, canoeing, etc. I have had many companions on these adventures. I would put Larry in my "top 10" of people I respect and enjoy being with. I have other friends that have the same opinion. I think he does a terrific job of speaking for thousands (maybe millions) of outdoor enthusiast.
Some of the Desert Exposure readers clearly do not like hunting or ATVs or his views of the human "balances of nature" or other similar topics. That is OK. There are a lot of articles and views in this paper that I don't agree with, but I read it to help me get a different perspective. I don't think it is useful to tear down or demean one person's views to present your views.
Wouldn't it be better if we tried to work together for a more common understanding and not try to make everything "black or white"?
Bob Gosney
Silver City
In the March issue, there appears a letter from a Gerry Storm, pontificating at great length as to the "non-lethal" efficacy of air guns in deterring wayward and/or aggressive wolves. Storm states quite correctly that air-powered arms can be had with muzzle velocities ranging from 200 fps to over 1,000 fps (the best having muzzle velocities of approximately 1,600 fps). These are all high-end pieces ranging in price from $100-$400. All are single-shot weapons, known in the industry as "spring piston" guns. They are hard hitting and accurate.
However, Storm neglects to inform readers as to range and the limitations of these arms. Those guns in the 200-800 fps category are generally accurate to about 20 yards, and wolves, by virtue of heavy coat and moderately thick hides, might shrug off or worse, take umbrage at a hit from one of these pea shooters. A bad thing, considering that one is 60 feet or less away, and wolves are known to run in packs, or so I am told.
The better guns, as stated earlier, are single shot and have an effective range of about 40 yards. Of course, one must be ever mindful that should a second shot be required, it will take three to five seconds to reload, aim and fire. Also keep in mind that the pellet is made of lead and will penetrate the skin of the four-footed foot pad, perhaps with resulting infection, and over time, possibly, lead poisoning. Additionally, should your shot be ill-delivered due to poor shooting, or the jitters that standing in close proximity to a large, dangerous predator(s) with a single-shot pellet gun might engender, you might shoot into the soft belly tissue of the wolf you are engaged in deterring.
Said pellet would most assuredly find its way through hide and hair, into the luckless lobo's vitals, causing a slow, painful, lingering death deep in the backwoods, far from aid and your location. Upon reflection, I must congratulate Storm on ballistic acumen! Further, this rural western bumpkin would humbly seek Storm's forgiveness for my initially, hastily drawn conclusions. Further yet, I would suggest, nay, urge, all of my fellow hicks to acquire one of these "non-lethal" wonder weapons post haste!
Frank Morris
via e-mail
Larry Lightner's non-lethal article (March) was a great solution to an argument that will live forever. The big dog approach is very sensible. Not only will this work, but for those who live in the wolf domain, this idea should be funded by the government. That's right, if Big Brother is going to force a miserably failed program on us, then they should pay for the dogs that will provide protection of these honest people and their animals.
Mr. Lightner's second idea was also very good. One could take this idea one step further and freeze the paint balls. Now we are talking some serious hurt. See if Mr. Wolf comes around again. Larry's third and fourth ideas are also very good. Those approaches are worth a try.
I have a fifth approach. How about democracy? Let's let the common folk of New Mexico vote on whether they think this so-called wolf re-introduction program is worth it.
Tim Matthews
Cliff
I must say that I totally disagree with Mr. Larry Lightner. There is only one way to take care of this wolf problem. Get rid of them. Move them out. Just get rid of a problem that has no co-habitation solution.
Matthew Jones
Silver City
In my humble opinion, "cowboy think" continues to be an interesting world view. They are right; we are wrong. They are God's anointed justified to kill wild animals, destroy the environment, do what they please to preserve the western lifestyle, grow cattle for slaughter (we can kill and eat them). Wild animal depredation is not OK, although built into these programs is compensation for stock loss. All this on public land. We pay taxes also and maybe there are other opinions.
Wilderness (with a capital "W") means just that. If you ranch there or recreate there, things can happen and do. There is a big difference between private land and public land ranching. Both go on in our area with differing ethics in regard to wild animals. There is a growing support for wild land to remain just that, to be able to see wild animals in those lands, to put back what we have trapped and killed out of there and to protect those programs.
Frances Land
Lake Roberts
I am writing in response to a written attack on Desert Exposure and David Fryxell regarding a recent column written by Larry Lightner. This attack was published in what's called the "community" email list, aka "Fridinger's" list.
Rebuttal to the attack was not allowed, even though one was sent. David Fryxell personally wrote a response that Fridinger refused to include in his email list; as well he refused to include an email written by Levi Hill of the Sun-News regarding the wolf controversy. Fair and unbiased? I would say not. Unfortunately, in my own personal experience, this has been the norm instead of the exception.
David Fryxell has done a very honorable job as publisher and editor of the Desert Exposure. The magazine has included quality and timely articles and editorials, advertisements and overall represents the community through outstanding journalism. He has run seven installments of a sustainability series including an impressive article on the First Peak Oil Conference which included John Fridinger. In January 2007, Donna Clayton Lawder of Desert Exposure did an honest portrayal of the Greenhouse Project, including coverage of the Second Peak Oil Conference, from which I've received many positive comments. The conference was well-attended by the community and I give credit to the Desert Exposure for their help in publishing information about the event. Other articles have been written in the Desert Exposure pertaining to progressive and environmental causes. David Fryxell has consistently been an advocate for this community.
The Desert Exposure and David Fryxell stand for integrity, professionalism and good journalism. John Fridinger and his list stand for power and control, censorship, personal attacks and character assassination. These actions are destructive and do not build community. David Fryxell, however, is a positive example of community building and should be commended for his contributions. The Desert Exposure and its staff should also be commended for their fair and unbiased reporting and for allowing differing opinions on various subjects to be addressed. I know who I stand behind as a leader in community building—David Fryxell.
William Joseph
Silver City
American Hero
I've been reading Desert Exposure for several years and it continues to be a great publication. The story, "In Harm's Way," in this month's issue (March) is a real eye opener. Everyone should read it to gain more information concerning our involvement in Iraq, specifically corporate America's insatiable quest for profit, at the risk of the lives of our citizens, both civilian and military. And the way "TCNs" (Third Country Nationals) are treated is disgraceful.
Private First Class Goodrich, the reservist who'd only been off base four times, is a hero, selflessly defending the truckers, before "taking a round in the chest." I and probably other readers are wondering what happened to him? No mention was made of his fate in the article. Did he survive his wounds? I'm inclined to think not, and in any case I hope his family will receive a copy of Desert Exposure so they can read of their son's valor.
If you have a moment, I really would like to know if Private Goodrich survived? Thank you and keep up the good writing!
Lorelei McMorrow
Las Cruces
Author Siri Dharma replies: PFC Goodrich died from that "round in the chest." I'm sorry that wasn't clearer. Edward Sanchez kept him alive until they got to the base, but by the time he was moved to a helicopter to be med-evac'd out, he had died.
The massive war profiteering is one of the most despicable things about this war. I heard on the news this weekend that Halliburton has moved its headquarters from Texas to Dubai. Since world oil control is one of their goals, it makes sense I suppose to keep a closer eye on any potential problems with that goal.
Roundhouse Send-Up
I sometimes ignore political stories, so when I saw the cover story on the second section of the March Desert Exposure, "Capitol Punishment," I thought I would just glance at it. By the second paragraph, I was laughing, and kept laughing through the entire story. If you're going to take politics seriously, it helps to have a sense of humor.
Jeff Berg is a wonderful writer, injecting just enough humor into his stories to make them entertaining as well as informative. Kudos, Jeff! Glad you're writing for this publication!
Pat Young
San Lorenzo
Masonic Mix-Up
Thanks for the nice article on the Masonic Cemetery ("A View to Eternity," March). The reference to the Masonic Lodge was also appreciated, and well done.
The only problem I had with the article was the contact phone number; it should have been 538-8561 not 9561.
Thanks for your support of the community,
Robert A. Baker
Master, Silver City Masonic Lodge #8
Just a Little While Longer
I enjoyed the article "The Nose Knows" in the February 2007 Desert Exposure. But it makes me sad to know that it is necessary to use dogs to sniff out drugs and explosives here in Las Cruces. Las Cruces seems like such a safe place, but the violence we see around the world even exists here.
However, I have a hope that some day I will see this promise from the Bible fulfilled: "And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace." (Psalms 37:10,11)
I hope someday, God will bring peace to our world.
L. Colley, age 12
Las Cruces
Let us hear from you! Write Desert Exposure Letters, PO Box 191, Silver City, NM 88062, email letters@desertexposure.com or fax 534-4134. Letters are subject to editing for style and length.