School safety
The loss of Sparks School to fire has been devastating to many people. Everyone who attended Sparks since 1909 has lost "their" school. My four children attended Sparks School together in the early 1960s.
After reading in the paper that this school was not equipped with smoke detectors, a sprinkler system or an automatic fire alarm, I urge every man, woman and child to check out the school that their loved ones attend to make sure our schools are as safe as possible.
Sandra M. Ness
Towson
Cost of clean air
Americans are being bombarded with a plethora of administrative regulations.
Things we once took for granted, like driving, are becoming associated with regulatory compliance and personal frustration.
And now there's a debate raging over enhancing the Vehicle Emission Inspection Program (VEIP).
Critics of VEIP enhancement have attempted to polarize the situation. They've hypothesized horrific tales of what will happen when new VEIP standards are implemented -- damage or theft of cars being tested, hours wasted waiting in lines.
This is the rhetoric of war, and it gets us riled up and righteous. After all, we're only running a car, not some soot-producing bus, truck or industrial smokestack.
But emotions aside, cars are the single greatest contributor to ozone depletion.
Cars alone account for nearly 40 percent of the ozone-producing hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. That is 10 times the amount contributed by industry.
Buses and trucks (also subject to the new guidelines) have diesel engines, which do not produce the same types of hydrocarbons associated with ozone problems.
There are responsibilities inherent in automobile ownership. The "I only own one car" argument doesn't work in a society of car owners who collectively produce thousands of pounds of automotive air pollution every day -- especially when Baltimore's air has been rated sixth worst in the country and Washington's is 10th worst.
And especially when asthma and other potentially lethal diseases linked to air pollution are on the rise.
The new regulations will undoubtedly inconvenience car owners. However, it has been estimated that the new program will reduce automobile air pollution by 39 tons per day.
The cost of compliance is virtually zero considering the benefits of cleaning up our air.
T. L. Lozinger
Baltimore
Recycle it right
The holiday season has seen a tremendous turnout of recyclers at one of Baltimore's busiest drop-off centers.
As the public education specialist there, I have noticed that many people still seem to be doubtful about whether recycling is worth their time.
Do materials collected at drop-off centers really get recycled? Yes, everything goes to respective markets.
There is, however, one catch. Recycling bins cannot contain material other than what they are designed to hold. In other words, put only brown glass in the brown glass bin.
This may sound silly, but often simple recycling procedures are not followed properly. If enough people failed to follow the rules, a load of recyclables mixed with too many contaminants could have to be landfilled. That would be a waste -- literally.
I encourage folks to participate and help resolve the solid waste problem that faces today's society.
Each American generates over 3.5 pounds of trash daily. Landfill space is too valuable for us to be throwing everything away. However, if you recycle, do it correctly. Become more aware and better educated. Remember, recycling is your choice.
John Sloan
Baltimore
Do it now
Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke says that Claude Edward Hitchcock, whom he designated head of Baltimore's empowerment zone, is "a manager and an implementer" who is skilled in "getting things done, keeping people on task, making sure they get the job done."
This sounds like the job description for mayor of Baltimore.
At the very least, Mr. Schmoke should give Mr. Hitchcock a shot at heading the Department of Public Works. Or the Housing Department. Or the Baltimore City public schools. Or . . .
Townes C. Coates
Baltimore
Starvation is less humane than trapping
My Dec. 21 letter on the economic and wildlife management benefits of trapping and hunting certainly evoked some hot professional and lay responses from the animal rights lobby. . . .
If only they would go about living their beliefs by not hunting, not wearing fur, not eating meat, etc. without trying to impose their peculiar ethical standards on the rest of us.
Dale Bartlett, a spokesman for the powerful animal rights lobby, cited the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences do not believe that massive government-sponsored trapping campaigns are a cost-effective way to control a rabies epidemic. That is true.
It is also totally irrelevant to the issue. Neither trapping nor any other means of which I am aware will eliminate endemic diseases such as rabies or sarcoptic mange from a large, widespread population of animals.
My point simply was that removing surplus animals can be a major tool for ameliorating the spread of these diseases and preventing starvation.
The point with respect to starvation seems self-evident.
Too many animals overgraze the habitat or overkill prey species. The result is starvation.
This has been graphically demonstrated in several areas where the animal rights people were successful in stopping deer hunting. The result was massive starvation of the deer herd.
In such cases, starvation kills many more deer than would have been harvested as humanely as possibly by hunters.
Other species also suffer from habitat and crop destruction. And, of course, all that delicious venison wound up rotting in the woods.
The impact of hunting and trapping on animal disease is almost equally straightforward. Animal disease typically spreads through contacts between members of the same species (just like humans giving each other colds).
It follows that the more contacts there are, the greater the likelihood of transmission.
In an overpopulation situation such contacts tend to multiply exponentially as territories diminish and animals vie for limited resources. . . .
Mr. Bartlett claims that wildlife managers manage game and fur species to produce a surplus for human consumption. Not a bad idea.
However, the reproductive capacities of many of our furry friends are legendary. They are perfectly capable of creating a surplus themselves with no help from anyone, thank you very much.
No manner of death is pleasant. As to the cruelty of trapping vs. the "natural" death by disease, starvation or being torn apart by a predator, Mr. Bartlett chooses to ignore the misery, pain and trauma of the good "natural" death.
He implies that being killed by a swift blow to the head is a particularly cruel way to go. On the contrary, it is a relatively swift and painless death, not substantially different from one of the methods commonly used to dispatch domestic animals.
As to his claim that animals' chests are crushed, I can assure you that attempting chest compression on a conscious animal would put one in jeopardy. I wouldn't attempt it.
As for animals being "terrorized" and "wounded" in traps for extended periods of time, the facts are otherwise. A proper size trap set properly eliminates or minimizes damage to the animal's foot.
Are there exceptions? Of course. Equipment function and animal behavior can never be 100 percent certain, but in the main the foothold trap is a humane instrument for live trapping animals.
Being a live trap, it permits release of non-target animals. It also is the only live trap that is effective for trapping foxes and certain other predators, not only for fur but for relocation.
Do trapped animals experience "terror"? It is difficult for anyone to form a conclusive judgment.
I can only say that when the trapper arrives on the scene, most animals appear to be docile and unconcerned, and occasionally one is found asleep.
Anthropomorphism -- the attribution of human qualities to animals -- is at once the gravest error of the animal rights movement and its most powerful propaganda device.
The fact is that animals lack some fundamental human qualities. They are unaware of their own mortality.
They have minimal or no ability to reason. Even the wily fox operates on a finely honed instinct alone. . . .
Robert L. Dunker, Jr.
Catonsville