<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.
<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.