A cougar removed while dangerous pit bulls are ignored

Did any one else see the dichotomy of these situations: A cougar living in its natural habitat, which happens to be near an urban area is hunted down, captured and moved to a more remote area because of the potential of the danger its presence presents ["Discovery Park cat gets treed and freed," page one, Sept. 7]. I am glad this happened, both for the people nearby and for the cougar itself.

Meanwhile, in another case in a different locale, five dogs who people reported and complained about ["Neighbors warned agency of dogs," NWWednesday, Sept. 9] and who had in the past threatened and intimidated people were basically ignored. Left until "real" injury was imposed.

Saying a response is made within 10 minutes of a reported attack is no comfort; in 10 minutes much of the damage is done. Walking our neighborhoods has become more and more dangerous thanks to dog owners who, I believe, acquire some dogs only to intimidate others.

-- Jan Broz, Redmond

In cougar relocation, a shining example for other states

Seattle and the communities surrounding Discovery Park should take pride in their calm, cautious and reasonable response to the cougar recently discovered in their vicinity. They did not panic nor did they demonize the danger the cougar presented.

We are very fortunate in Washington state to have a number of extremely experienced and well-trained biologists. As a nature and science writer, I have worked with these scientists and have written a number of articles so the rest of the country might become aware of their innovative work and findings.

They have studied the mountain lions in Washington state for many years, and their expertise was evident in their handling of this recent event. We are so fortunate to have a healthy population of these amazing cats. Very few states can claim this.

By agreeing to relocate rather than kill this cougar, Seattle has shown how humans can coexist with wildlife. Washington state must set the example for the nation by making every effort to preserve its wildlife treasures by supporting the work of these biologists.

-- Laura Bowers Foreman, Issaquah

Lay on fines for negligent pet ownership

Your story about the dogs' brutal attack on the two mares ["Mares killed after dogs attack," NWMonday, Sept. 7] turned my blood cold.

However, I disagree with the euthanizing of the dogs. I think they should have been split up for adoption to responsible pet owners.

Now, I'm waiting for the happy ending: I want to hear about this negligent knucklehead of a neighbor getting a massive fine for the lives of the mares, another hefty fine for the injuries to the colts and their heartbreaking loss and another huge fine for the pain and suffering of Patricia Clark. The court should demand that Negligent Knucklehead build a eight-feet-tall fence between Clark's property and his.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about these things happen because our courts don't crack down and make the fines and punishment stiff enough. Throw the book at 'em!

-- Lee Ryan, Des Moines

In energy bill, include funding to save pika, other species at risk

The pika is but one of many animals that may become endangered due to changes brought about by global warming ["High-country icon in peril?" page one, Aug. 21]. Rising temperatures, changing rainfall and disrupted snowfall patterns are also impacting the Northwest's salmon and native birds.

The same issues driving pika to possible extinction are also threatening wildlife in national parks across the country. The National Parks Conservation Association recently issued a report suggesting management strategies to alleviate the stress on animals in parks.

Strategies include protecting critical habitat, developing corridors to allow wildlife access to new habitat as their current ranges become unsuitable and reducing additional stresses from pollution, invasive plants and disease.

We urge Congress to support setting aside modest funding in the energy bill for projects on our public lands that will help animals adapt to climate change. We need to preserve our national park heritage and animals, including the pika, so our children and grandchildren can also enjoy those "brave squeaks."

-- Sean Smith, National Parks Conservation Association policy director, Seattle

Boy's big catch nothing to celebrate

I was disheartened to read the celebratory tone used in your story and accompanying "Good day, bad day" photographs about the 150-pound sixgill shark caught near Burien ["Boy's 150-pound fish tale is true," NWTuesday, Aug. 11].

Celebrating this catch does a huge disservice to the efforts to restore and recover a rapidly declining Puget Sound ecosystem, a nationally significant issue The Times has covered frequently.

It also does a disservice to shark-conservation efforts under way around the globe. Although the shark was released, and The Times included information about the decline of the sixgill shark in Puget Sound, the celebratory tone was unmistakable.

I am saddened to think this article will inspire young boys throughout the region to go shark hunting in hopes of getting a spread in your paper. It will be a very good day when the sixgill shark and other species in decline in Puget Sound are recovered.

But I remain highly skeptical about this outcome if the media remains steeped in outdated and harmful modes of thinking.

-- Hilary Culverwell, Bellingham

Cognitive dissonance

Editor, The Times:

I was impressed that the Times chose to run a feature about animal slaughter as the lead feature ["Slaughterhouse on wheels," page one, Aug. 11]. Notwithstanding the upbeat tone, questions came to mind:

I could not help but wonder what kind of communication, if any, transpires between the "Pig Lady" and the pigs, lambs and cows before their final dispatch. For example, pigs are known to be at least as smart and sensitive as German shepherds.

Does the Pig Lady hold their gaze as the animals take in what must be confusing surroundings and apologize for the taking of their short lives? Or do they blend in as commodities -- "livestock" with the machinery of the abattoir. Does the Pig Lady wrestle with what she has done when she dreams?

Of course the Pig Lady, our collective scapegoat, is only one player in a collaboration to satisfy a multitude of taste buds. Does her service (while purportedly more humane than transport and feedlot confinement) really ease our cognitive dissonance associated with the trade of life for a succulent morsel prepared by our best local chefs? Can't pleasures of the palate be garnered in other ways?

-- Valerie Bitter, Kenmore

Seagulls, like the Needle, a Seattle landmark

I wonder what Ivar Haglund, founder of Ivar's restaurant, would think about the new War on Seagulls ["The war on seagulls," front page, August 4].

Can't speak for him, but I'm pretty sure if someone had called Ivar's Acres of Clams while he was still alive and asked for comments on his "feed the seagulls" sign, they'd have gotten quite an earful.

Especially if they had told him people were gassing baby seagulls and others were trying to blame the "seagull problem" on his restaurant.

His sign has been there since the early '70s; seagulls have been munching there for even longer than that without hurting anyone, and they're every bit a Seattle landmark as the Space Needle.

-- Andre Duval, Seattle

Aggressive seagulls only defending their young

All respectable parents, of any species, become aggressive if they have to defend their young ones.

I have seen crows divebomb our cats if they come too near a nest. If only we could see ourselves as the nuisance animals we are and learn to live in harmony with the wild critters who were here first, long before people were riding ferries and long before Ivar put his "Seagulls welcome here" sign up outside his restaurant.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife should be aggressive in educating people to not feed wildlife. Children love the ritual of feeding seabirds, but they are also the first, if appropriately explained at home and in school, to understand that it hurts the animals and, as in the case of the seagulls, may lead to their brutal death.

-- Ruth Kildall, Seattle

Seagull problem? Eat it away

If an endangered, threatened or protected species becomes an inconvenience, well then get rid of it. That's just human nature.

But don't waste those seagulls. Eat them. Having feasted on leftover fries and such from Ivar's, they should be fat and plump. If cooked properly they ought to taste pretty good -- a little bit like bald eagle and a little bit like barred owl.

-- Marshall Sanborn, Friday Harbor

No excuse for troopers who killed seagulls

Editor, The Times:

There is no excuse for the two state troopers killing young seagulls in their nest at the Seattle ferry dock ["Troopers: Trying to clear gulls from area," NWWednesday, July 22]. The article describes a violent episode of beating these young birds to death with batons. If the gulls were a nuisance as it was alleged, these law-enforcement officers should have let the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife handle the problem.

Fish and Wildlife officials would have come up with a better solution, since they protect wildlife from harm. Protected species or not, this method of killing was far from humane. It is rewarding to have laws in place to ensure this incident will not go unpunished.

It is wrong that some animals also seem victims of "racial profiling" -- people thinking it's OK to get rid of them in such a way just because they are only birds.

If this incident helps educate anyone on humane killing methods and on protecting species, then these baby gulls will not have died in vain.

-- Claudine Erlandson, Shoreline

Could the troopers exterminate in my neighborhood?

I invite the troopers and their batons to Lake Washington to try to clear the hundreds of geese from the area. Please.

-- Diane Dambacher, Seattle

Beating obnoxious birds is not the answer

Regardless of the fact that seagulls are considered protected wildlife under Washington state law or whether these birds were in fact a nuisance, the bottom line is that one doesn't resolve the problem by beating the animals to death with a baton.

Consequently, it should be deemed a crime punishable by law. It bothers me greatly that the troopers did what they did, and it sure makes me wonder what was going through their minds when they did it.

-- Barbara Gust, Lynnwood

Time, money being wasted because of tattling

One of the first things children learn about developing social awareness and trust is not to tattle.

The supervisor of the two State Patrol troopers, who inadvertently may have killed two immature seagulls while destroying a nest, tattled on them. And as a result, the Department of Fish and Wildlife is obligated to engage the prosecuting attorney who is now obligated to attempt to file criminal charges. Meanwhile, maybe the FBI will have to get into it, and the two officers are on paid leave.

All of this is wasting our taxpayer dollars because we have a supervisor incapable of standing up for their men and instead tattled on the officers.

This supervisor needs to be advanced to where his or her decisions cannot cause all of this grief and wastefulness. Two immature seagulls are not worth all of this, endangered or not.

The troopers should be commended for being proactive and effectively getting rid of a disturbance hampering ferry safety and security operations.

-- Norman Brueske, Bellevue

Punish the supervisor, not the troopers

Give these State Patrol troopers $5 each for coffee, and put them back to work.
Then, when state and federal government have a spare minute or two, cancel the protected species designation on all seagulls, including the young.

Talk about a situation that has been completely blown out of proportion. This is insane. Fire the trooper's supervisor, who has a propensity to see a red flag and a falling sky from the vantage point of a bird's nest, and anyone else who doesn't have anything more productive to do.

-- Hal Edwards, Edmonds

Imported animals are slaves bred for a profit

It is so unfortunate that people continue to breed animals for profit. It is even more disturbing when it concerns exotic animals. There should be a law against it.

The article "Spokane-area couple raise baby giraffe at home" [NWTuesday, June 30] denotes that it is a way of life for this couple to breed and produce expensive giraffes and other exotic animals, too. Indeed, they are pretty safe with a "gentle giraffe," as they describe Karson, their new expensive menagerie addition.

I admit that giraffes are not as dangerous as chimpanzees or pet pythons. But it is still wrong and arrogant to bring up these animals that belong in the wild -- and instead raise them in a ranch in a country that is not theirs.

We used to bring slaves from Africa. The new slaves are these exotic animals uprooted from their birthplace and bred here in the name of profit.

-- Claudine Erlandson, Shoreline

Laws needed to stop global animal trade

How many more deaths of innocent children and adults ["Pet python escapes, strangles girl, 2," News, July 2] -- and untold animal suffering -- is it going to take before we get effective legislation that bans ownership of wild animals?

Wild animals are treated as a novelty, apparently to satisfy a sick need of some eccentric people who can't be satisfied with an already domesticated type of pet. There's always the potential of danger to people, especially children. There's seldom anything but misery for the animals. Deprived of companionship with mates, they stay in an unnatural environment in a private home -- and that's only part of the story.

As long as there's demand there will be unscrupulous dealers who operate globally. Animals are captured in the wild, shipped around the world in deplorable conditions to avoid tracing from the countries of origin, which may have some nominal laws against the trade.

A high percentage of animals die during transport, which, like in so many other animal enterprises, is considered only a normal cost of doing business.

The U.S. could make a significant dent in the sordid trade by enacting laws that prohibits private ownership of wild animals.

-- Ruth Kildall, Seattle

Let's require a license for pet ownership

Editor, The Times:

In response to your guest column ["Breed bans won't solve problem of 'dangerous dogs,'." Opinion, June 23] here's a radical suggestion: Rather than a breed ban on allegedly dangerous dogs, how about requiring people be tested and licensed before they can own a pet?

Before I am allowed to operate a vehicle, I must be trained and take two tests for my learner's permit and then the driver's license. Restaurant employees must be tested in their knowledge of basic health issues in order to receive a food-handler's permit.

So it doesn't seem unreasonable to require citizens to prove they are knowledgeable and capable of proper care, feeding and handling of an animal before they can own one. It is clear from the most recent case ["4 kids sicced pit bull on women, cops say," NWTuesday, June 23] that the dog was mistreated and that its owners were not equipped to raise it humanely.

Now that I think about it, perhaps people should be licensed before they can become parents, too.

-- Gary D. Tucker, Seattle

Future attacks won't be solved with breed bans

The tragic attack on two women in SeaTac is another example of how education and prevention could have made a dramatic difference.

This attack was not the fault of the dog or breed of dog but a failure of society to provide these children with a safe environment to become good citizens who care for animals and for their neighbors.

Something is very wrong when children are capable of such senseless violence and turn man's best friend into a weapon. All dogs want to do is love and please us; twisting that love into violence is a violation of the special relationship between pets and people.

Unfortunately, this incident is likely to incite anger against this dog and this breed of dog. It is the position of the Seattle Humane Society that breed bans will never solve the problem of major dog bites. We know from the work done by the Canine Research Council that breed bans do not lead to a decrease in reported dog bites.

We must find a way to do better -- through enforcing our existing laws, educating our community and working to assure that every child grows up in an environment that teaches and practices compassion.

-- Brenda F. Barnette, CEO, Seattle Humane Society

Dogs should be tested for aggressiveness

Brenda Barnette's guest column in The Times, "Breed bans won't solve problem of 'dangerous dogs,'." was a godsend to read.

My daughters each have a neutered-male pit bull. They have worked with their dogs in training classes to ensure they do not end up with an aggressive dog. Two to three years ago when my daughters adopted these dogs, I was concerned about the breed because of what I had heard and tried to find someone to test the dogs for aggressiveness but could not find an agency that performs a service like this.

This kind of a service could be a way to prevent dog attacks by giving the owner a heads-up to either rehabilitate or lose the dog.

-- Sandra Humble, Issaquah

This time, don't punish the dog

I am so saddened by the story of the kids using a dog to attack two women. This poor dog will be put down after being abused himself, after being used as a weapon against strangers. Where is the justice in this? I'm even saddened by my own reaction -- that I'm glad the dog bit its tormentor, too.

When I have heard about dog attacks in the news, I usually agree with the decisions made. I am just so upset this dog will be put down due to the evil of others.

These children never should have been released to their parents. They should have been detained. Their parents should also be evaluated, as it is my feeling any decent parent would not have raised such horrible children.

I hope these two women will be OK, though I believe the emotional scars will last forever. They are obviously dog lovers.

I firmly believe King County Animal Control should revisit their policies regarding euthanization in this particular case. I adamantly feel this dog should not be put down. I'm sure there is a loving home for him out there.

-- Chris Greene, Central Point, Ore.

Mourning Obama's 'wanton disregard' for life

I was shocked and dismayed by President Obama's unprovoked and brutal attack on a fly the other day ["Want to be a fly on the wall in White House? Think again," News, June 17]. This fly, who was minding its own business, had its life senselessly taken. This assault is clear evidence of the president's wanton disregard for insect life.

Even more disturbing is the fact that PETA is doing absolutely nothing about this public display of cruelty ["PETA wishes Obama hadn't swatted that fly," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, June 18].

-- David Archer, Seattle

Animal-rights activists deserve some respect

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is the best thing that has ever happened to help animals.

Your editorial ["PETA's protest so silly there must be a catch," June 12] plus letters to the editor ["Another publicity stunt," Northwest Voices, June 12] show how biased and unaware you are about PETA's invaluable work. To what you qualify as "ridiculous ... silly" and with even worse comments by your readers, I respond "Oh, please." If it were not for PETA, or other organizations like In Defense of Animals, the Human Society of the United States and Brigitte Bardot's in Europe, animals would be way worse off.

I agree this dead-fish-tossing issue is not as grave as dragging a live, tied-up dog behind a truck or baking a live cat in an oven or Michael Vick's dogfighting and abuse.

This page would not be long enough to list all the great things these organizations have done to help animals for decades.

Give PETA a chance. Veterinarians should be the last ones involved in throwing dead animals in the air at our marketplace, fish or otherwise. If it happens, even if I stand alone, I'll be there with my sign protesting their disrespect!

-- Claudine Erlandson, Shoreline

Fish-throwing protest just another publicity stunt

PETA seeks headlines to achieve its real goal: more members.

They advocated college students drinking beer instead of milk to avoid the exploitation of cows and attract interest and members to their cause.

Attacking Pike Street Market fish vendors for disrespecting dead fish? ["PETA targets fish toss at Pike Place Market," local news, June 9] More of the same. Hopefully the public will wake up about this organization.

-- Bill Jessberger, Edmonds

Sometimes you feel like a nut

Editor, The Times:

Just curious -- intentional or coincidence?

An article in the paper regarding the increase in unwanted out-of-state nuts ["Out-of-state nuts touch raw nerve," NWWednesday, June 10], was followed by a piece about PETA's deep concern that vendors at the Pike Place Market are not treating dead fish with the proper amount of respect ["Peta targets fish toss at Pike Place Market"].

-- Rick Mauser, Kent

Protect bears in their natural habitat

My oh my, there is a black bear at the Girl Scouts' Camp River Ranch in Carnation ["Bear captured; another still out there," NWSaturday, May 23]. Quick, call the State Department of Fish and Wildlife to scare it off. And if it returns, Capt. Bill Hebner will destroy it.

Just where do you expect these bears to live? It's probably the same black bear that has passed through my yard across the river twice this year, along with a cougar and bobcat. Here in Carnation, we live in the woods and like it that way. If the animals that live in the same woods bother you so much, move to the city. Maybe Camp River Ranch should relocate to Seattle Center.

Secure your trash and calm down; there's no reason to kill the bear. Protect the nature you purport to respect.

-- Michael Fisette, Carnation

Courtney Blethen / The Seattle Times

Sergeant Kim Chandler, of Washington State Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Police, prepares a Dan-Inject dart gun, filled with the tranquilizer telazol, while on a hunt for a bear around Shoreline at Twin Ponds Park.

Editor, The Times:

Regarding the black bear that no one seems to be able to find, the one someone named "Urban Phantom" ["Elusive bear out there ... somewhere," Local News, May 21] --don't you think it should have been named "Waldo"? That seems more appropriate to me.

-- Jeff Wedgwood, Issaquah

Help whales assimilate in the wild

It was with great sadness when I read Wednesday's article about Keiko's life and death ["The $20M lessons of 'freeing' Keiko," page one, May 13].

I visited Keiko when he was at the aquarium in Newport, Ore., and I got the overwhelming feeling that he was very happy there. You could just tell he enjoyed his much-improved conditions and it felt like he enjoyed watching the people as much as they enjoyed watching him.

Even though I was thrilled to have seen Keiko up close and personal, I was depressed because it felt like he was finally happy, but that would come to an end since we humans thought it would be better for him to be alone in the wild.

I totally agree that he was a bad example and that Corky and Lolita would have a really good chance of making it back in the wild since their families are still around. I've heard that the plan for Lolita would be to have her in a pen near her family and watch closely to see what happens. They wouldn't just let her go without making sure she would fully assimilate back into her family unit. And wouldn't it be a way better life to be living in a large pen in her native waters than having to perform ridiculous tricks in chlorinated water every day?

The argument that she'd never survive is based solely on the fact that she brings in revenue.

-- Gayle Janzen, Seattle

Don't resume gruesome slaughters

Two years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Illinois' decision to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption, closing the last two remaining horse-slaughtering plants. This decision was hailed by the Humane Society, the ASPCA, veterinarians and a majority of Americans (polls say about 85 percent) who agree that slaughtering horses is grossly inhumane.

This spring, Montana's state Legislature passed House Bill 418, which paves the way for the state to build new horse slaughterhouses. Others have joined in this attempt to restart this grisly practice -- including the Northwest Tribal Horse Coalition, who in the May 3 article "Too many horses" [page one] said they wanted a slaughtering plant built on the Warm Springs Reservation.

Proponents of horse slaughter argue they need slaughterhouses to deal with old and infirm horses. But according to the Washington, D.C.-based Animal Welfare Institute, the USDA's own statistics show that 92 percent of horses sent to slaughter are in good health, including pregnant mares and foals.

Proponents also blame the economy for the glut of horses on the market. While the economic slowdown is a temporary condition, building costly slaughterhouses is a permanent venture that would create an industry around horse meat, for pet food or human consumption abroad. This would lead to a dramatic increase in the number of horses sent to slaughter or being raised specifically for slaughter.

Commercializing horse meat is not a viable answer to wildlife management, whether it involves horses on tribal lands or land the Bureau of Land Management controls. Systemic solutions must be devised to humanely deal with herd populations rather restarting this gruesome practice that will encourage the breeding of more unwanted horses.

-- Melissa Alvis, Issaquah