Letters to the Editor, Dec. 5
Killer police policy
While relaxing in a hot bath on Sunday morning I heard two loud gunshots outside of my home on Bush Street in Ashland. I looked out the window and saw several police officers and a female deer (doe) lying face down in the grass next to the gutter.
Later that day I had the opportunity to talk to an officer of the Ashland Police Department regarding the incident.
He told me that a doe got caught in wire at a chain link fence. She was frightened and frantically trying to get loose. Rather then call the fire department to help free the terrified animal the officer shot her twice.
When I asked the officer why it was necessary for a police officer to shoot the animal, he told me that this is police policy and then added, “there are too many deer in Ashland anyway.” He said that the deer was injured. I am a physician and when I looked at the doe I did not see any external injuries.
The doe was left lying by the side of the road for the rest of the day. Needless to say Sunday was one of the worst days I have spent during my five years in Ashland.
On Tuesday I spoke with a neighbor who said that the doe had two fawns that ran away when they heard the gunshots. She also said that her exchange student was petrified as she thought that there was a drive by shooting or a deranged individual who was going to try to kill her.
Everyone knows that there are too many deer in town. Does that justify shooting a terrified animal who has fawns that are dependent on her? What difference can one less deer possibly make in our town? Have we become so used to violence that nothing matters anymore? What has happened to our humanity?
If we want to find a solution to the deer problem let us work together to find answers that are both humane and that work. Police shooting mothers with children (regardless of the species) is not the answer.
Is climate change real?
You may have read statements like, "Global warming/climate change is a hoax." This sentiment is echoed by many, including some prominent radio commentators and even a number of politicians.
It is easy to discredit something by labeling it as a fraud or a hoax, but it is an entirely different matter to prove the existence of such a hoax. If global warming/climate change is a fraud, what is the evidence for such a hoax?
Such a massive hoax would have had to start with a small group of conspirators. Then, these few individuals would have needed to convince others to participate in the hoax. Over a period of 60-plus years, on an international basis, there have been tens of thousands of scientists, assistants, graduate students and government personnel, all of whom would have had to be involved in perpetuating this fraud. How could so many people in at least 183 nations (the number of nations which have pledged, prior to the Paris Climate Summit, to reduce their carbon footprint) be convinced to participate in this hoax?
Controlling this lie would require a massive organization, which would have to have an enormous reach to coordinate all of the data in thousands of research projects over more than 60 years to all show the same desired fraudulent outcome. In addition to coordinating all elements of this fantastic lie, this same organization would need some means of enforcing its ongoing control over all these tens of thousands of individuals — some carrot/stick which would be so powerful that not a single person would let the secret out.
However, if there were such a massive hoax, there certainly would be some individuals who would have a crisis of conscience and would go to the news media to tell their story. There would be large amounts of data smuggled out of the organization to be released, WikiLeaks style, to corroborate the accusations. But none of that exists. There is not a single individual in the whole world who has presented any credible evidence of the existence of such a massive hoax.
Sherlock Holmes said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." With absolutely no evidence of a massive hoax, or even a small hoax, regarding global warming/climate change, we must label such fraud as impossible. If the hoax is impossible, then what remains — the enormous amount of data collected over 60-plus years by tens of thousands of researchers — must be the truth.