Cougar slaying is no surprise

Could someone please explain why the cougar they found in Chicago was shot and killed? Why didn't they just use a tranquilizer to put the animal out, then find a safer place for it and the community?

If there was a good reason, I would like to know it, and none of the articles I've read cover that. They do, however, mention that the recent sighting of a cougar in Wisconsin was the first confirmed sighting in 100 years. Then why did they kill it? Are humans really that ignorant?

Wait, I'll take that back. I should know by now, with a wolf hunting season in the works, that we really know how to appreciate our natural environment. Mankind is truly an arrogant bunch.

-- Laura Bower, Mineral Point

I see large, empty or nearly empty Metro Transit buses zipping about the city during non-rush hours. I understand that some people need transport during non-rush hours, but it's hard to see a few people on a bus with a capacity of 55 or 65.

As Metro Transit grapples with costs, why not consider running lighter, smaller equipment during non-peak periods? Lighter buses require less fuel; smaller ones require less capital investment.

-- Richard L. Wiringa, Middleton

Public absent at conservation hearing

Regarding letters to the editor crying over the slim chance of a wolf hunting season that may come in any number of years, where was the general public during the Conservation Congress spring hearings?

It was in the paper, you knew the hearings were coming -- you just didn't care enough to show up.

I'm a hunter with no desire to kill wolves, a natural predator, nor do the majority of hunters. In fact, the majority of the people who want to kill wolves -- the farmers, to protect their livestock -- did not show up either.

But I voted for the proposed hunting season in spite of the minority, the "antis" who want to ban everything except eating broccoli sandwiches. We sportsmen and women stick together when it comes to these issues, because if we don't we will lose everything, little by little.

The general public, which apparently doesn't care about what happens in Wisconsin regarding natural resources, does not show up at these meetings. Therefore, the decisions are made by those who care for, and pay for, these natural resources.

Those who take the time to show up and spend the money are welcome to these meetings and to vote. Until they start showing interest (or disinterest), we sportsmen and women of Wisconsin will make the decisions for them.

-- Nathan Weber, Madison

Inexperienced justice is bad for everyone

Like most shills for big business, Friday guest columnist Maureen Martin must resort to deception to try to prove the election of Michael Gableman was a victory for "the people." Just the opposite is true.

First, she claims that Louis Butler was involved in making "unprecedented" laws that harm big business. She failed to mention that rulings on the lead paint case alluded to were based on long-standing theories of liability that have been applied nationwide to asbestos cases.

Second, no business in Wisconsin has ever had to pay an extra penny for any of the so-called new liabilities Martin depends on. But she won't tell you that.

The real tragedy, which Martin applauds, is that our new justice-elect is wholly unqualified and has absolutely no experience with appellate law. That is why she failed to mention that over 200 judges from across Wisconsin supported Butler, and only 10 supported Gableman. Were all 200 judges wild-eyed liberals? I dare anybody to point out even one.

The last thing judges -- liberal or conservative -- want is a neophyte on the Supreme Court who has never filed a single appeal. Should we applaud placing a man of no experience on our highest court? Only a fool would think that, and that is what Martin takes us for.

-- Nick Zales, attorney, Milwaukee

Expose money trail to improve elections

I am disappointed that, instead of an objective examination of the recent Supreme Court election's fairness, the State Journal printed a guest column from The Heartland Institute, a far-right business "think tank" -- Maureen Martin's one-sided apologetic for the status quo. Like our Wisconsin legislators in both parties, she danced around the proverbial invisible elephant in the room.

We could stop the money corruption with only one new law. How? Simply make public, within 48 hours on the Internet and in the public record, the entire money trail for every single dollar used in any campaign, along with the donors' names.

This must include the peripheral issue ads and 527 groups now exempt from reporting. When we can follow all the money back to original sources and individual donors, then we can have a truly democratic election.

The McCain-Feingold reform law left open that huge hidden pipeline for corporate money to flow through. Both Sens. Russ Feingold and John McCain should have known better.

Congress and the Wisconsin Legislature could quickly plug that loophole. But they won't do it because almost everybody in those two bodies is feeding from the same trough. We must demand it.

-- Dave Steffenson, Madison

Prefers real solutions to 'messages of hope'

A Wednesday letter writer contrasts the "messages of hope" offered by Pope Benedict and the Dalai Lama with the message offered by presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. The writer states the Pope's message is "based in spirituality and the love bestowed upon us by a higher power." I'm not sure why he opines that Obama suggests that the "only power we should put our faith in is government."

Obama is running for president, the head of our national government. I'm glad he sees government as, at least potentially, a force for good in people's lives. If he didn't, I'd wonder why he wants to be president.

The writer, as well as anyone else, is free to put his "faith" wherever he wants to. If the "fact" that some invisible super-being loves us is enough for him, that's fine. He doesn't really need a president, or even a government.

But those of us who understand that the problems of this world call for solutions in this world will vote as we see fit. He can vote for the candidate who uses the word "faith" the most, or not vote. Ain't America great?

-- Kevin J. Mack, Madison