Cry­ing wolf? Photo stirs up de­bate

The Glengarry News - - Front Page - Editor’s Note: The News con­tacted Com­m­mon­well and at press time, no­body was avail­able for com­ment.

The Editor, I was sad to see your “Be­ware of Wolves” ar­ti­cle/photo posted smack on the front page last week.

It’s ex­actly this sort of thing that leads to ir­ra­tional fear of these beau­ti­ful an­i­mals, an­i­mals that will do any­thing in their power to stay as far away from hu­mans as phys­i­cally pos­si­ble.

Yes, there are wolves in Glen­garry, there al­ways have been. What’s shock­ing is that a wolf has ac­tu­ally man­aged to sur­vive here!

They have been hunted mer­ci­lessly, mostly for sport. It is al­ways open sea­son for our lo­cal coy­otes and wolves, they are no longer even granted the re­spect of be­ing left alone while rais­ing their ba­bies any­more. They’re deemed noth­ing more than ver­min, and have lost their right to live here. What a shame.

Lori Cote, Wil­liamstown

Na­ture fools the un­in­formed

The Editor, The March 18, 2015 front page pic­ture and story pur­port­ing that there are “wolves” in the area, de­spite the Min­istry of Nat­u­ral Re­sources, and knowl­edge­able wildlife en­thu­si­asts, say­ing there are not, may not be a hoax but a trick is be­ing played on any­one who saw the foot­prints and be­lieved them. And the trick was played by Mother Na­ture her­self! This time of year, and even de­spite the day­time tem­per­a­ture, the sun’s rays are warm and melt the edges of any snow print no mat­ter what left it. Even in the photo, one can see the wet bot­tom of the print! To get the true size one has to come across the print very soon af­ter it is left or the melt­ing edges leave a much large than re­al­ity print in an hour or so. Try it your­self. Walk in the snow on a sunny day and af­ter a cou­ple of hours it will look as if a 10-foot man trod there!

Now, af­ter this “big, bad wolf” scam, our area has been pin­pointed as next win­ter’s prime “wolf”‘ hunt­ing tar­get by ev­ery hound own­ing, gun tot­ing “wolf” hunter out there. These are the guys who man­age to legally set hounds loose on pri­vate prop­erty to spook live­stock and mag­i­cally are able to shoot coy­otes with­out fir­ing from road right of ways or, again, pri­vate prop­er­ties.

Next time some­thing doesn’t seem pos­si­ble, use your head, be­lieve the ex­perts and think be­fore run­ning to the pa­pers and set­ting off the vi­cious cir­cle again.

An­gela Dorie, Wil­liamstown

More guns, lower taxes

The Editor, Stephen Harper re­cently ex­pressed the belief that ru­ral res­i­dents needed firearms to pro­tect them­selves from in­trud­ers dur­ing the ex­tended time it would take the po­lice, once called, to ar­rive at the scene.

Car­ry­ing this ar­gu­ment to its log­i­cal con­clu­sion, if ru­ral res­i­dents were to have a va­ri­ety of weapons at their dis­posal there would be no need for the po­lice to be called in the first place.

Un­der the cir­cum­stances, any po­ten­tial in­truder would be well ad­vised to go nowhere near an iso­lated home; more­over, the com­fort de­rived from such se­cu­rity would in time lead to its be­ing adopted in more pop­u­lated ar­eas.

As a re­sult, the role of the po­lice in our so­ci­ety would be grad­u­ally di­min­ished, with a cor­re­spond­ing re­duc­tion in prop­erty taxes.

Ac­com­pa­nied by an in­crease in jobs in both the ar­ma­ments and fu­neral in­dus­tries, this process could prove to be a size­able eco­nomic ben­e­fit for ev­ery­one, ex­cept, of course, the in­trud­ers. Suf­fice it to say at this stage that life has sud­denly be­come filled with many un­knowns, many dan­gers.

Not least of which, for Mr Harper, at any rate, is the dis­tinct pos­si­bil­ity that his party will not be re­turned to power later this year.

The ques­tion thus be­comes: will he be able to shoot his way to safety?

Gavin Scott, Dalkeith

Let me de­cide how to spend my money

The Editor, Be­ing in­sured by the Commonwell Mu­tual In­sur­ance Group, prior to the merger, the Glen­garry Mu­tual In­sur­ance Com­pany, for many years, I re­ceived a no­tice of the an­nual gen­eral meet­ing which was held March 23.

While the Glen­garry Mu­tual In­sur­ance Com­pany has been con­sis­tently prof­itable from year to year, I never re­ceived any div­i­dend. I never got an ex­pla­na­tion for the rea­son.

To quote the no­tice I re­ceived, “when you buy a pol­icy, you be­come an own­ing mem­ber. Last year, our C.A.R.E. (Cre­ate a Rip­ple Ef­fect) Com­mit­tee gave over $400,000 to lo­cal char­i­ties.”

That is very nice. How­ever, as an own­ing mem­ber I still have no voice in any de­ci­sion-mak­ing process. If I want to con­trib­ute to char­ity, it should be my de­ci­sion and not some­one else’s mak­ing use of my money.

To con­clude, in my opin­ion the grand­stand­ing of $400,000 does not ben­e­fit own­ing mem­bers in any way.

Louis Loczy, Dalkeith

Melt leaves false im­pres­sions

Role of po­lice will be greatly di­min­ished

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.