Cheers & Jeers
Letters from our readers.
Killer Kitty Kontroversy Kontinues
A cat in its owner’s home is a pet. A cat away from its owner’s home is a pest. Cats dig up bulbs in my gardens and use them as rest-room facilities. Local ordinances keep me from using the 11/8-ounce of No. 6 shot solution to the problem.
Never underestimate the persistence of a hypocrite. George Reiger’s article (“Killer Kitties,” May) is absurd, irresponsible, and hypocritical. It is perfect fuel for antihunters. I doubt that Reiger would be so concerned about the kestrel’s plight if it hunted deer. Then the kestrel would simply be competition to be eradicated.
George Reiger’s “Killer Kitties” irritated every cell in my body. Mr. Reiger’s thesis appears to be that sportsmen are obligated to shoot all cats, whether the cat is feral or someone’s beloved pet. How many “sportsmen” are going to read this and begin doing what they never considered doing before-killing people’s pets?
Klamath Falls, Ore.
Tears for Deers?
In Rifles (June), David E. Petzal stated, “There is only one way to look at an animal you have just killed, and that is in sorrow.” Why is that? I understand that hunting is not just about killing, and I admire those who have the skill and knowledge to track their prey, but why would you continue if the end result causes sorrow? I’m not an animal-rights activist, just a curious nonhunter.
- David E. Petzal replies: The animal you just killed wanted to live as much as you do. Nature arranged things this way, but it does not hurt your standing as a human being or a hunter if you acknowledge that watching any life end is sad.
It looks like Eileen Clarke doesn’t know an inch from a centimeter (“Tender Mercies,” March). Nobody cuts deer steaks 2 to 3 inches thick. Cut your steaks 1/2 to 1 inch thick. Cooked with onions, they will be okay.
The Dalles, Ore.
- Eileen Clarke replies:_ I don’t cut deer steaks 2 to 3 inches thick, either. As I pointed out in the sidebar, I cut them 11/2 to 2 inches, so that they can be cooked hot: seared on the outside; moist and tender on the inside. And by the way, grilling is a great way to do that. _
Varying Vocab Views
Ted Leeson’s “Meandering” excerpt from Jerusalem Creek (June) is absolutely the most well-written and insightful example of philosophical musing that I have read in quite some time-not just in Field & Stream, but anywhere! Keep up the great work.
Kent S. Koptiuch
In your June 2002 article on the editor’s page you promoted Ted Leeson’s story “Meandering.” I kind of read it (in between drifting off to sleep in my Wisconsin jail cell). Until I came upon words like: “permutations,” “elongated,” “venue,” “piecemeal,” “idiosyncratic,” and “topography” (which I think has something to do with being a “by-air map view”?). I am not sure, but in the world I live in, people do not know or care what these words mean.
P.S. What does equivocal mean?
- Our most sincere gratitude for your correspondence, Mr. Birk. We are eternally penitent for employing lexicon incongruous with your own, and will make diligent future efforts to amend this corrigendum. Webster’s definition of equivocal, by the way, is “subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse.”-The Editors
And Hit or Miss- Worth the Risk?
I was fairly pleased when I sat down to read the May issue of Field & Stream, until I read about how to snap shoot a deer on the run in Sportsman’s Notebook. Where is the advice on tracking wound-ed animals? Most hunters do not possess the supperhuman speed to place a clean shot like Wayne van Zwoll. Young readers may try his techniques and hurt themselves or someone else. If there is any doubt that you can’t make a clean kill, don’t take the shot.
You only get one chance to write this kind of letter: when subscriptions expire. I don’t like your smart-assed answers in Cheers & Jeers, and I don’t like the socialist agenda of George Reiger.
John B. Nowman
Bring back the Finally¿¿¿ column. If I have to end one more issue with Hardbark, I’m going to blow my brains out.