Bleeding heart, closed mind combine to misunderstand hunting

To the Editor:

At the risk of dragging out such a worn topic of the pros and cons of hunting, I would like to respond to James Peden's response to Brent Shrum's editorial.

It is so futile to try and convince someone who falls into the categories of both "bleeding heart" and "closed mind" of the importance of a hunting season to the management and control of game population. I sincerely doubt if Mr. Peden has ever seen a species of animal (such as deer) in the throngs of starvation primarily due to overpopulation in any given area because of not enough feed to support it.

I could go on and on (as I often do) because there are in fact so many "pros" to justify the controlled taking of wildlife to keep a healthy population that it would take up more room in your newspaper than you could allow in one letter. Besides, I'm sure in Mr. Peden's case, it would only fall on deaf ears.

I am truly sorry for his brother who is in failing health, but I'm sure there is more to it than the poor man dying from ingesting meat. It is statements like that that erode the credibility for the rest of any information given, no matter who else he "quotes."

As a Vietnam vet, I think I am more than qualified to say that it will take a whole lot more than doing away with hunting to prevent a war of any kind. So Jim, take a deep breath, relax, and the next time you see healthy and well-fed wildlife of any kind, thank a hunter.

Mike McCaffrey