Dye has positive side

After reading about the Huggy Dye situation the last couple of days, frustration levels are high for a certain number of people that were lucky enough to befriend Mr. Dye.

It seems like every time Huggy’s name was in the paper, there was never a positive comment about the man. It was either about his legal dilemma or his poor shooting performance. Where were the articles about his charity work? Where were the pictures of him talking to my ninth-grade basketball team about the importance of grades and teamwork? In typical journalist fashion these points are surely missed, but you are quick to pull the trigger on the negative points.

In closing, we must all remember that this will go to court, and the truth will come out; keep your head up Huggy, you’ve got some people in your corner.

Sean Smith

Bangor

Hunters are ethical

This is in response to an article on the front page of the Bangor Daily News (Oct. 6-7). The article was entitled “Moose hunters bolster the odds.” Concerning permit-holder Calvin Curtis, I feel the need to correct a statement saying he was a shooter for the past three years. He was a shooter twice out of the three times hunting. One of those permits was his own, another was mine (his wife). The third permit was his brother’s and his brother was the shooter of that moose, not Calvin Curtis.

It takes at least two to three people to take care of the animal after the kill. If not taken care of soon, and properly, it will spoil.

As for the statement “[The] way Curtis is able to participate is because family and friends list him as a subpermittee” – that might be half true. He has never been on a friend’s permit. As for family, I listed him as my subpermittee as most wives do.

I want the public to know I went on this hunt. Our children put their names in because they enjoy hunting. They will be the shooter if the time comes and they are drawn. Calvin will be their subpermittee. He has taught them to hunt. Our son has already successfully shot a partridge last year. So going on a moose hunt would be an exciting event for him. Our daughter was on the hunt that I stated previously with her father and an uncle. That permit belonged to Calvin Curtis. She enjoyed this experience and she took the pictures.

On a hunt both the permit holder and the subpermittee have to be in the district specified and in voice range of one another. The article that was printed made many look like unethical moose hunters.

The writer asked questions in a sly yet intelligent manner using lottery guidelines and hunting laws to get the answers wanted for this article.

Melissa J. Curtis

Enfield

Holyoke on target

John’s column in Saturday’s BDN gave voice to an issue that has caused me considerable frustration – the inaccurate and inappropriate labeling of criminals as “hunters.”

Both the print and broadcast media routinely characterize crimes as “hunting accidents,” the weapons used as “hunting rifles” and the individuals involved as “hunters.” I would suggest that before an individual is deemed a “hunter,” reporters apply a simple test: does the person have a hunting license, and at the time of the incident, are they actively and legally involved in the pursuit of wild game? If these conditions do not exist, then the individual is a criminal and more specifically a poacher!

As for the weapon involved, the term “hunting rifle” is a clich? like “shark-infested waters.” All rifles can be used for hunting – all ocean waters contain sharks. Clich?s are a poor substitute for accurate, informative reporting. If the nature of the weapon used is important, then reporters should do their homework and describe make, model and caliber of the gun. When I read “hunting rifle,” I think “lazy, uninformative reporting.” As for the man involved in the Peru shooting, I suggest we find some truly shark-infested waters and see how fast he can swim!

Randy Poulton

Winterport