Preservation lacking

There is a certain small group of sportsmen who have the audacity to try and convince the public that our tax dollars should be used to help support the department of fish and game because the department is responsible for preserving all the wildlife that everyone gets to enjoy. People should object to their tax dollars going toward allowing bear cubs to be dragged out of their dens during the winter months to be collared, in turn allowing bear hunters to bait their mothers with doughnuts and pastries about two months in advance of bear hunting season, only to shoot and kill them from tree stands.

Also, releasing wild turkeys to the wilderness – then as soon as the flock shows any sign of growth, increase the number of permits to hunt them. The increase in moose hunting permits is getting out of hand. In a few years there may not be a moose to be seen alive anywhere. Snaring coyotes is not exactly preservation, neither is allowing trapping with leg-hold traps. Many states have outlawed them because they are cruel and inhumane. In truth, there really isn’t much wildlife to be seen. No more rabbits, bobcats, very few partridge. No more decent fish to be caught. Where is all this wildlife that is being preserved?

Lisa Nadeau

Eddington

Smith’s ideas off base

I read with amusement in the NEWS that George Smith of the Sportsman’s Alliance [of Maine] is harping about wanting to see big game fish. Last spring and summer, George argued successfully to extend the fishing season into the fall. Biologists and common sense tell us that fishermen wading through spawning beds and catching more fish late in the fall will put much more pressure on a fragile resource. George Smith wants to see bigger fish to get people excited? Sure you do, George.

Bill Wilkins

Bridgewater

English’s impact

This morning I looked at the University of Northern Iowa game summary and noticed [UMaine’s Royston] English didn’t play against the Panthers. Then somebody referred me to your article.

It’s sporting that Maine’s players and coaches wouldn’t play the “what if” game, but I have no hesitation in saying that it darn sure could have made the difference between winning and losing. I watched the guy play in the first round and he’s an impact (and I mean impact) player who changes the game entirely. I’d say around half, if not more, of the 144 yards he got against McNeese were yards after contact. I’ve never seen anybody drag the Cowboys around like that.

If nothing else, after watching English play, I seriously doubt that UNI could have stopped the Black Bears on fourth-and-one late in the third quarter with the score tied 28-28. And that play was a huge turnaround in the game. Also, though I didn’t see the game and don’t know how they occurred, I’ve got to wonder if the Maine team that didn’t fumble at all against McNeese would’ve fumbled three times against UNI.

Some people refer to playing games with one hand tied behind the back. Maine played UNI with one hand cut off. I can’t see the Black Bears as being the same team, at all, without English. I know I’d have liked McNeese State’s chances a heck of a lot more if he hadn’t played in that one.

John Veazey

Prairieville, La.

Note to readers: The NEWS asks that letters be kept brief and reserves the right to edit submissions for libel, taste, clarity, and to fit available space. Letters should include a signature, full name, address, and daytime phone number. Letters may be mailed to: P.O. Box 1329, Bangor, ME 04402, or e-mailed: bdnsports@bangordailynews.net