Fired up over prairie dogs.

I wanted to commend you on the fairness and accuracy of your cover story on the plight of prairie dogs (Open Season on Varmints," July/August 2004). I also wanted to thank you for putting the prairie dog message out there to a public who thinks they are "cute" in zoos, but has no idea the dangers these wonderful animals face every day. It was a privilege and an honor to participate in my first prairie dog relocation this year in Texas.

Tracy A. Schnell

Mount Clemens, MI

Thank you for the two articles on prairie dogs entitled "Open Season n Varmints and Operation Prairie Storm" (E Word, July/August 2004). Unfortunately, there's worse news in store for the future of this wonderful and misunderstood species. The Bush administration, with support from the governor of South Dakota, pushed to de-list the black tailed prairie dog. Bush has concluded that there are more prairie dogs than reported in a year-long Fish and Wildlife Service study. So, starting October 1, the feds will begin poisoning prairie dogs in and around the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, which is one of the largest and healthiest prairie dog colonies remaining. It's also the only successful reintroduction of the black-footed ferret.

Jean Williams

Auburn, WA

It's great to see your magazine address hunting's questionable conservation value. Perhaps your next subject should be an expose of the many well-known environmental organizations that still quietly embrace this so-called sport.

Many hunters claim they hunt to enjoy nature. I enjoy nature too. I have spent many thousands of hours watching dolphins, eagles, beavers and hundreds of other species as they go about their lives. Yet I never found my enjoyment dependent on watching the object of my fascination die. Unfortunately, I have also witnessed the suffering of many victims of hunting. I have seen how habitat is manipulated to increase deer and goose numbers and therefore create the excuse that hunting is needed to control overpopulation. Meanwhile non game species receive inadequate funding.

Hunting is a barbaric remnant from our primitive past. It should not be confused with either conservation or sport.

Bill Knapp

Lititz, PA

I found Doug Moss's opinion piece on hunting ("Operation Prairie Storm") full of myths and outdated "facts." He does just what he accuses the hunters of doing. As both a hunter and someone who considers himself an environmentalist, I think Moss misses the mark entirely by saying the categories are mutually exclusive. Hunters and environmentalists both "need" undeveloped or wild land. Hunters and hunting groups have preserved/restored millions of acres of land that benefits numerous species. Moss's contention that these lands have been manipulated for producing more game to shoot is historically correct, but that is changing too.

I would suggest Moss review the controversial changes the Pennsylvania Game Commission has made to its deer management program in recent years. The new strategy is an acknowledgement that the old ways of maximizing deer populations literally ruined the forest for everything, including deer. Deer populations are now low in these areas because there is no food left, while populations are soaring in other areas where there is ample food and hunting is difficult.

I currently hunt deer in an area that is badly overpopulated. If Moss thinks there is no such thing as overpopulation, he hasn't spent enough time in the woods. The only thing that grows in the understory are things the deer won't eat. Does are underweight. While hunters may dream of shooting a big buck, regulations increasingly push hunters into taking does in order to reduce the population. That doesn't sound like "maximizing the number of deer" to me. If Moss doesn't like hunting, that's ok with me. It's not pretty, and things can go badly even for the most conscientious hunter. And there are always some slobs and idiots who make it look bad. But he wishes to make enemies of two groups who share many goals and values, and his notion that hunting is always unnecessary is naive.

J. Hamon

via e-mail