Wolf management in the Western states; cellphone use behind the wheel; Donald Trump’s presidential debate

West’s wolf trap

Re “The new war on wolves,” Opinion, Dec. 8

Why are humans the only animals that kill other animals for sport? Why can’t we let the other creatures be and just enjoy their wonderful diversity, which enriches our lives?

Wolves are beautiful animals with complex social lives that occupied this land long before we did. They are an integral part of the ecosystem. To me there is something offensive about wanting to eliminate a predator because it is killing the game it needs for food, just so we can kill the same game for sport.

Our large brains may have put us at the top of the heap, but sometimes I wonder if evolution left out a few genes with instructions on how to use those brains in ways that benefit all of nature’s creations.

Ruth Stern

Shadow Hills

The fact that Western cultures demonized wolves must be balanced with the rise of professional wildlife management.

Wolves, mountain lions and grizzly bears help balance game animal populations. When their numbers put game animals at risk, professional wildlife managers combine hunters with predators.

Not told in J. William Gibson‘s piece is the slaughter of 77 horses, 111 sheep, two dogs and two horses in Montana by 497 wolves in a single year, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Readers may recall a Times story from October 2009 telling us of the “carcasses of 122 purebred adult sheep strewn in bloody heaps … an example of the ability of wolves to kill for the pure pleasure of it.”

Wolves have recovered in the Northern Rocky Mountains and are now game animals managed by wildlife professionals, but they will remain the iconic

animal of wildlife special interests.

Gordon Morris Bakken

Santa Ana

The writer, a professor of history at Cal State Fullerton, is the author of 23 books on the American West.

Calling for common sense

Re “Smartphones, dumb drivers,” Editorial, Dec. 8

In supporting a total ban on cellphone use in vehicles, you state, “Drivers are distracted by their conversations.” If that’s true, then let’s ban all conversations in cars.

Let’s ban passengers so you can’t talk to them. Let’s ban radios so you can’t get distracted by a song. Knowing how distracting a screaming child can be, let’s ban all children from cars.

The problem isn’t the cellphones; it’s the drivers. Ban cellphones and something else will distract these people.

Car cellphones are an easy target, but they’re not the problem. Unfortunately, you can’t legislate away carelessness.

Ken Kurtis

Los Angeles

On my car’s steering column there are controls for 15 functions; the dash and over-the-windshield console have an additional 15; the in-dash touchscreen controls 36 functions, not counting GPS, and absolutely requires one hand, both eyes and a large chunk of attention to utilize. Throw in a hands-free phone system and I’m afraid we’ve gotten to the point where you should not be allowed to operate a vehicle while operating a vehicle.

Errol Miller

Chino

The government can curb the use of cellphones (including smartphones) while driving by giving law enforcement the authority to confiscate a phone for 48 hours. The fines California has established surely aren’t doing the job.

Dave Perez

Placentia

There’s plenty to debate

Re “Debating Trump’s debate,” Editorial, Dec. 8

“Does being a self-promoting blowhard disqualify you from hosting a presidential debate?” Of course not, and the Constitution guarantees Donald Trump’s right to make stupid statements.

The question is, should candidates grant Trump any legitimacy by agreeing to participate in his debate and run the risk of turning their campaigns into jokes?

You would think Republicans would have learned their lesson when Rick Perry’s poll numbers dropped after mentioning he had dinner with Trump and indicating he had questions regarding the president’s birth certificate.

Bravo Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman Jr. for having declined Trump’s invitation.

Michael Solomon

Canoga Park

I can’t verify this, but I was talking to a guy I know from New York, and he said that the theme music for The Donald’s debate will be “Send in the Clowns.”

Al Brill

Arroyo Grande, Calif.

Faith and science

Re “Spreading the global warming gospel,” Dec. 7

It’s heartening to read that there are Christians who accept the indisputable science on climate.

I’ve always thought the “drill, baby, drill” mantra is anathema to evangelical politicians, who believe that God made man to have dominion over the Earth (Genesis 1:26) and that God so loved the world that he gave his only son (John 3:16).

Hopefully, professor Katharine Hayhoe’s Christian background will assist her in spreading the word to those who should be the most passionate about fighting man-made global warming.

David Olmstead

Ventura

Indefensible

Re “ ‘The 21st century form of war,’ ” Dec. 5

Whatever caused the recent explosion at a suspected nuclear weapons plant in Iran, the U.S. should prepare itself for a nuclear-armed Iran. But Congress is on the verge of abandoning preparations long in the works.

Unless Congress acts, the failure of the “super committee” to cut a budget deal means U.S. defense spending will be slashed by about $1 trillion over the next decade. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was right to warn that such cuts would “hollow out” our armed forces.

Among the programs threatened are modernization of fighter jets, Navy ships, surveillance and reconnaissance gear and drone aircraft. The cuts would slash further development of a missile defense program that has finally become effective and operational.

With Iran and North Korea on the verge of developing nuclear-armed missiles, this is no time to drop preparations for combating an attack against America’s cities and our vital interests.

Richard M. Cooke

Vista, Calif.

The writer is a retired Marine Corps major general.

Data points

Re “Jobless and hopeless,” Opinion, Dec. 7

Peter Dreier cherry-picks data that support his call for extending unemployment insurance.

Dreier cites a Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco study from 2010 concluding that extending unemployment benefits does not inhibit the unemployed from seeking employment. This study also states that the unemployment rate would have been 0.4 percentage point lower (600,000 workers) at the end of 2009 with reduced long-term unemployment benefits.

Dreier also fails to mention several other studies that show the unemployment rate would be 0.5 to 1 percentage point lower with more limited long-term jobless benefits.

Kevin Dretzka

Los Angeles

FDA, ignored

Re “White House rejects wider access to morning-after pill,” Dec. 8

Thank you, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. You’re giving America just what we need — more pregnant teens and more unwanted, un-nurtured babies.

A career politician with no background in science has once again done what American politicians with no backgrounds in science do: She has discounted the recommendations of scientific experts.

It is impossible to believe that Sebelius discounted the recommendations of the Food and Drug Administration physicians and scientists without the consent and direction of her boss, that master of the rhetoric of hope and change.

Janet Weaver

Huntington Beach