<b>Stop wolf hunting</b>

EDITOR: Wolves are not doing OK, despite the recent story to the contrary ("Wolves doing OK despite hunting," April 5). Sure, if we only look at population numbers, as the government biologist who was quoted did, you might think they're fine. But you would be wrong, too. Here's why.

A wolf is a complex social being who lives in a family (or pack) in which each member contributes to the health of the whole. The strength of the wolf is in the pack, so when a hunter or trapper kills the mother or father, also known as the alpha female or male, the pack is fatally disrupted. Family members disperse, and many soon die because the lone wolf has a hard time making a living.

This damage to pack structure is never taken into account by the agencies that manage our wildlife. They want us to believe that one wolf is the same as another, but that is false. Predator species such as wolves generally don't need to be managed because they control their own populations naturally. When hunters break up their families, though, the effects are devastating.

There is no scientific justification for the recreational killing of wolves. It's just barbaric, inexcusable politics.



<b>Saving a tree</b>

EDITOR: I'm looking forward to the exciting day when the albino chimera coast redwood tree is resettled into its new location in Cotati ("Cotati moves to save rare tree," Thursday), and I can take my grandson to see it. He will not only get to hear about its unique characteristics but also about how the people of this area worked to continue the life of this tree, which was threatened by its proximity to the new SMART train tracks crossing East Cotati Avenue. He'll hear about the Cotati City Council's offer to care for the tree, SMART's legal stance, the offers from community members to fund the move and the ultimate triumph of people's love for this fascinating natural phenomenon. Love for a tree? Yes, the same love we all share.


Rohnert Park

<b>Having a say</b>

EDITOR: In response to Paul G. Olin ("Needless measure," Letters, Wednesday): The issue with GMOs is not consumption safety alone. It is also about the science safety of agriculture, including consequences. It's about allowing consumers a voice in the direction that agriculture takes (organic, conventional and/or GMO).

Consumers drive the market. Currently, without GMO labeling we are not given full disclosure of ingredients to make informed choices. FYI: the U.S. Department of Agriculture currently allows a "minimal" amount of non-organic materials in processed certified organic food.

Let's ask ourselves: What do we want to do with our global flora? Do we create new flora (i.e., chemical-resistant weeds) while destroying old (i.e., unintended cross pollination of GMO plants with milkweed, which kills butterflies)? Do we create GMO plants with known/unknown consequences and allow them directly into our environment? Do we stick with nature's tried-and-true status quo?

GMO labeling is a bigger picture than consumption safety. It includes consequences to our one and only world that we share with other people and species.

Food corporations should label GMO food and seeds. They should stop being afraid of giving full disclosure of ingredients so consumers can make informed decisions as to what they want to support.



<b>Missed one</b>

EDITOR: In his long list, Robert Shoptaw ("Leftist agenda," Letters, Thursday) overlooked communism at play right here in Sonoma County. There's talk of fluoride in our drinking water. Impeach Earl Warren.


Santa Rosa

<b>Unresponsive city</b>

EDITOR: I read with interest the story about the Santa Rosa open-government task force and would like to make a couple of comments concerning the time those meetings are held ("Divergent view on SR task force," April 4).

The point was made by two City Council members that there would be conflicts no matter when the meetings were held. Sorry, but that statement rings false considering that the majority of the city's citizens could make an evening meeting much easier than a morning meeting. Attending a meeting trumps reading a posting of the meeting.

It also was said that evenings were their times for parenting. I commend them for their dedication to parenting, but they chose to pursue council seats, and they work for the citizens of the city. Last I heard, sitters for children are still available.

Duane DeWitt's comment that the city's staff tends to be "a bit dismissive of the public" is spot on. My own experience, along with my neighbors of Fair Oaks Avenue, with non-response from city council members and city staff in regard to problems with Memorial Hospital can attest to his statement.

To me, it gets down to the same argument around the country — them that has gets and them that don't, forget 'em.


Santa Rosa