Letters: The burden of managing the wolf population in Colorado

Re: “Waking up to wolves,” Dec. 31 commentary This law is a one sided thing that should never have been passed by voters, but now requires some serious legislation to regulate or nullify it. I am not sure who decided on the subheadline (“Colorado Parks and Wildlife damaged any trust they had built with ranchers”), but I think it is misplaced and does a disservice to CPW.

I won’t argue with Fischer’s opinion; the concerns are real, and I appreciate his perspective, even if I may not entirely agree with it. However, it may help to remember it was Colorado voters who passed the law that brought the wolves back home, and CPW was tasked with carrying out the law. There are laws that some of us disagree with, but personally, I think following the law builds trust, not damages it.

Re: “Year of the Colorado judges also saw politicians falter,” Dec. 31 commentary Continuing the discussion concerning the Colorado Supreme Court’s efforts to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot, Krista Kafer’s commentary states, “…I’m proud Colorado’s court agreed with our legal arguments that Trump’s actions have disqualified him from office.” In the good old days, if someone had not been charged with a crime (such as insurrection) nor been convicted, rational people would not pretend that both of these prerequisites had been met.

But in 2023, an astonishing number of people on the political left don’t want to be confused by the facts. There is no vaccine for “Trump derangement syndrome.” Voting for the other guy is not enough for the radical left. There is also no proportionality on the left when using the word insurrection.

To compare the Civil War, where more than a half million Americans were slaughtered, to what Trump said on Jan. 6 would be laughable if it weren’t so scary. Trump did not encourage the protesters to take up arms and overthrow the federal government. I guess it was just implied that they could find enough sticks and stones around the Capitol to get the job done.

The only shooting that took place was the killing of an unarmed protester by a security guard. I believe Trump used the word “peaceful,” no? Brighter and more measured minds than the Colorado Supreme Court four and Kafer’s have predicted, after reading the Constitution, that the U.S. Supreme Court will probably vote 9 to 0 against Colorado.

These radical differences of opinion (and facts?) in this country are in themselves scary. Re: “Follow the money to the source of antisemitism on America’s campuses,” Dec. 24 commentary The rise of antisemitism on college campuses is egregious, and conversations on the matter should be welcome.

However, Doug Friednash makes several omissions and assumptions when he broaches the subject – decisions that I fear generate more suspicion and distraction in a contentious time. His argument is to link the rise of antisemitism on campus to the influence of “undocumented money,” primarily from Qatar.

This gesture to a shadowy foreign adversary does two things. First, Friednash bypasses more pressing homegrown issues, such as recently proposed budget cuts for the Department of Education. Specifically, Republicans are targeting DOE’s Office of Civil Rights, which is precisely the arm of the DOE that helps address and curtail antisemitic activity on campuses.

Readers should be paying attention to this. Second, Freidnash’s rhetorical strategy is to tie several actors together by mere proxy on the page without offering any evidence of their connection. A hurried reader will assume that the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, the critics of Zionism, college administrations, and Al Jazeera are all of a singular piece.

As if there were a direct line – “follow the money” – between these actors and one authoritarian regime. Friednash’s brush strokes border on the conspiratorial, and we need fewer, not more, conspiracies attached to discussions of antisemitism. As a counterpoint, let me suggest that our own government’s massive investment in Israel’s military – and the military in general – is a more tangible burden on America’s education system.

Couldn’t that money be used to bolster more inclusive, safe and rigorous institutions of higher learning? Re: “10 years of legalized marijuana: Colorado paved the way, and sky didn’t fall,” Dec. 31 No, the sky did not fall. All that happened was that we are breeding new generations of addicts hooked on the most powerful cannabis ever developed.

The economic and health consequences of this disastrous experiment will blight generations of Coloradans and Americans in other states that followed our foolish lead. This is late stage capitalism at its worst. Re: “Another shameful first,” Dec. 31 letter to the editor Colorado voters expressed their support for a woman’s right to choose.

They also supported the legalization of cannabis and psilocybin. The “drug war” declared by President Richard Nixon has done nothing but criminalize benign substances and the people’s struggles to obtain them. Our prisons are filled with non violent drug “offenders.” Coloradans also vote to retain the Supreme Court judges who exercise judicial review.

(Calling section 3 of the 14th Amendment “unused” is irrelevant; it’s still the law.) I’m proud to call my state the trailblazer in decriminalizing abortion, marijuana and “magic” mushrooms. The people’s will was expressed via their vote. This is representative democracy in a republic.

Now, veterans, as well as people with PTSD, can get relief. Women have the right to choose. Colorado’s prescient and exemplary voters should be celebrated, not condemned. Here are just three pronouncements that show Donald Trump’s manipulative plan: August 17, 2020: “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.” January 2, 2021: “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” January 6, 2021: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution.” Re: “To the anonymous letter writers,” Dec.

22 letter to the editor and “Bullying through anonymous mail,” Dec. 17 letter to the editor I, too, have received response letters to my Open Forum letters via snail mail. Some of those letters have been kind. I have been invited to join a like minded political action group. One lovely lady named Flor shared her deep religious beliefs with me.

All of the kind letters have been signed with return addresses. Not so much the others. An anonymous writer explained to me that guns are part and parcel of men’s identity, which is to fight and kill. Another person, in a letter addressed to me, told my husband he should shut me up. Freedom of speech implies that individuals don’t have to be sneaky about having their own beliefs.

It seems pretty cowardly to not attach one’s name to one’s opinion. I applaud those who read newspapers and take the time to react to what they read, including through snail mail. I think it’s important that we keep talking. But when I read an unsigned letter, I immediately get the impression that the writer feels like a naughty boy getting away with doing something wrong.

If you are not proud of your beliefs, you need to talk to yourself, not the rest of us..