This is a special time of year for me and my sons. We are preparing for the upcoming hunting season with much excitement and anticipation.

It is a wonderful exercise in remaining close to adult children, and it creates memories that last a lifetime.

Additional Photos

Gun debate: A letter writer says that public outcry is against assault weapons and not the right to bear arms. "I still own the .22-caliber bolt-action rifle my father bought for me when I was a young boy," he says. 2007 Press Herald File/Derek Davis

We enjoy this sport, which requires great responsibility. We enjoy it together, outdoors, away from the cacophony of TV sports and talking head sportsmen that dominate the airwaves.

Imagine my surprise to be confronted with Don Kimball’s “Animal lover doesn’t miss absent deer ‘harvesters'” (Voice of the People, Sept. 11).

Kimball is a member of a small organization called the Society for Peace and Justice for Animals, a group composed of people scattered from Maine to New Mexico that aims to prevent animal cruelty.

I learned that Mr. Kimball’s opinion of my sons and me is that we are “killers,” take part in a “blood sport,” may be “drunk or hung over” and are “murdering marauders” and “knuckle-draggers.”

Kimball also implies that we are not emotionally stable and that we need to hunt down and shoot something to feel better about ourselves.

There are bad apples in every crowd, and, yes, there have been cases where irresponsible hunters have acted poorly.

This is not the way of the hunting sportsman in Maine, and certainly not the way I have taught my sons.

I could find little information about this group. Perhaps Kimball’s group is the bad apple of animal activism. Perhaps Kimball himself is a bad apple when, in the name of giving yourself some credentials, you simply make up an organization to appear to represent the masses of good people fighting for animal rights, then say anything you want.

Good riddance, indeed!

Stephan M. Thayer

Cape Elizabeth

Debating taxes requires knowing what they pay for

Debating taxes without considering what those taxes pay for makes about as much sense as preparing a meal before you know who is coming to dinner.

And yet loud arguments are often made for tax cuts — especially by and for the wealthy — as if drastically reducing revenue would have no effect on public goods and services or increase public debt.

It is high time we reconnected, in our minds and public pronouncements, taxes and the services they pay for.

Every family is affected by both taxes and public investment.

I am proud to say my family is filled with former and current teachers, and so public spending certainly affects our livelihood.

But we also count private-sector workers and small-business owners in our ranks. We all pay taxes, no matter our source of income.

We also all use public services, from roads, to libraries, to the Internet (originally developed by the federal government). My mother is able to be in an assisted living center thanks to Medicaid, which pays for 90 percent of the nation’s nursing-home care.

Yet facing growing debt and a painfully slow recovery, some politicians are claiming as a No. 1 priority that billionaires obtain yet another tax break. They are even willing to hold up middle-class tax relief unless the billionaires get their extra benefits.

Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins should buck their party and support middle-income tax cuts for those families making less than $250,000 a year, while also voting to allow tax breaks to expire for the top 2 percent — those taxpayers making over that amount, including billionaires.

Doing this would raise needed revenue to pay down debt and to maintain our important public investments — a healthy balance between the intertwined issues of taxes and spending.

Jeanne Brooks

Orrs Island

Beware of modern-day wind-power carpetbaggers

Three cheers for the spunk shown by informed members of Maine’s citizenry who seek to expose wind technology for the threat it represents.

Wind is not cutting edge, progressive and environmentally friendly. It’s antediluvian, uncivil and environmentally treacherous. Moreover, since it produces no modern power, it can’t be an alternative to conventional power, or even be functionally additive to the conventional power mix.

A thousand windscrapers could not “power” a dog pound with today’s expectations for reliable performance. Those who tout wind for the electricity sector should be asked to explain why they’re not cheering for gliders as a substantial part of the air transport sector.

Sacrificing the splendor of Maine’s landscape for hundreds of years to appease a weird combination of ignorance, greed and good intentions — orchestrated by such equity partners with wind as General Electric, BP, Shell and Goldman Sachs in order to secure income via tax avoidance — is nothing more than a ritual act of political madness.

Left to themselves, the good people of Maine would not submit to being fleeced by the modern-day carpetbaggers of wind, with their unaccountable promises and unconscionable swagger.

Here’s hoping they’ll have sufficient clout to save themselves and their state from the political tomfoolery of wind.

Jon Boone

Catonsville, Md.

Extreme views shouldn’t be given large headlines

By allowing Susan Feiner three inches of headline type and a 10-inch photo, you give her extreme views credence (“Going for the gold,” Sept. 9).

Instead of the more balanced arguments of Charles Lawton and Dan Demeritt, who get half-inch headlines, the Maine Sunday Telegram obviously espouses the far left of the political spectrum.

I’m not talking about her/your position on the GOP’s platform position on gold — I agree with her basic argument on that, though she does get carried away with her inflation predictions.

But her/your opening paragraph is childish, insulting and unnecessary. You and she denigrate the millions of women, blacks and Hispanics who will be supporting Romney this year.

A paper with a monopoly on the weekend print news should provide a more balanced, objective point of view. Makes us question the overall quality of your reporting.

Bill Thornton

Saco

Related Stories