Mountain lion problem fault of human ignorance

I am deeply disturbed by the recent decision by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to destroy the mountain lions in Sabino Canyon. This is its response to the growing concern by hikers that the mountain lions are becoming more aggressive toward humans hiking the trails. I wonder why. Maybe because some dumb human started a fire on the Aspen Trail last summer that burned down almost the entire habitat that these cats live in. I think humans should have to face the consequences for one of our own species igniting the fire, and ban humans from the area until it has a chance to regrow and the animals again have a place to live. We as a species should be compassionate to the plight of the lions that are just trying to survive and find food in an area that was completely devastated by one of us humans. I personally enjoy hiking in the Catalinas, but not at the expense of the animals in the environment I am hiking in. I ask the Arizona Game and Fish Department, "What's next?" Shall we tear out all the cactuses because they have spines? Pave all the trails so no one sprains their ankle? Going out into nature has its dangers, and one should accept that before one does. If the Arizona Game and Fish Department thinks the danger is too high, then it should close the park to visitors, not kill the lions. In other words, they should just use some common sense!

Jerrod Harris
computer science senior

Mountain lions should be removed for safety

I am writing in support of the removal of dangerous and aggressive mountain lions in Sabino Canyon. I believe the animals being removed pose a risk to public safety and are rightfully being killed in an attempt to save humans from harm.

I consider myself an avid outdoorsman, having many years' experience hiking, camping and hunting in Arizona and neighboring states. I have seen many mountain lions during my outdoor excursions, and all of them would run at the first sign of human presence. The simple fact that the Sabino Canyon lions are stalking humans instead of attempting to hide from them should lead a person to the obvious conclusion that the animals are a potential risk to people. A lion is genetically programmed to obtain food by killing, and I do not think we should allow humans to become this

animal's food source.

Some have argued that no lion attack has yet happened, but this is not indicative of what the future holds. Officials cannot sit idle, waiting for an attack, before they decide to take control of the situation. A park official, an expert in such matters, has said that he believes an attack is "imminent" (Arizona Daily Star, March 10), which to me is more than enough reason to take preventive action.

It may be true that mountain lions were occupants of this area long before us; yet this is no reason to allow them to kill humans when we can prevent the loss of human life by removing a small number of the animals, making Sabino Canyon safe once again.

Michael Anspach
renewable natural resources sophomore

Violence of Israeli army considered terrorism

ASUA votes to support terrorism. Yep, you heard right, support terrorism. Regardless of what you think terrorism is, the dictionary states that terrorism is "violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands." This would include violence by the Israeli army, ranging from destroying 20 families' homes to breaking little kids' arms and legs and leaving them for dead for throwing rocks.

Zionism is just another version of Manifest Destiny. If you think it was OK for European settlers to wage a genocidal war against the Native Americans and take their land because "God said so," then Zionism is for you.

Israel is not waging this war on its own, either. The U.S. sent a billion dollars of your money to go toward this racist oppression.

Now, I'm not saying that the Palestinians are innocent either, but contrary to what Zionists would have you believe, it's a two-way street.

Just because certain forms of terrorism have been institutionalized, doesn't mean that they are no longer terrorism. Keep in mind the United States is the only country ever to be convicted of supporting terrorism in a world court.

Mike Sousa
art education senior

Abortion, child abuse separate but important

Sara Warzecka's "Brain Decay: Stop praying and actually do something" attempts to make a valid and important point, but gets lost in the midst of personal attacks against religious and moral pro-life supporters.

There is no doubt in any good person's mind that child abuse is intolerable. However, to argue that pro-lifers are "wasting their time" on Roe v. Wade is a ridiculous argument. OK ... let's ignore abortion because it isn't an issue when compared to child abuse. That makes sense.

What's the difference between a fetus and the Pampers baby? A few months. That's all. Because a fetus may not feel pain for 13 weeks, it's OK to kill it? So, if someone lost the ability to feel pain, it'd be OK to kill him? The fact that they may not be able to feel pain for a few weeks hardly justifies an awful procedure.

Finally, as far as attention to the child abuse issue goes, there is a strong force of governmental intervention into cases of child abuse. The system is not perfect, not by any means, but there is a huge movement to stop child abuse. I agree with Warzecka that child abuse and negligence are awful things and need to be stopped. What I don't agree with are the unfounded, unwarranted personal attacks on religion and morality as a waste of time and the idea that abortion should be ignored when it comes to "living" children. Absolutely shameful.

Ryan McBride
political science sophomore

Sex column 'unoriginal;' lacks evidence, insight

Each week this semester, Caitlin Hall has subjected Wildcat readers to her nonsensical "Under Covers" column. The Wildcats' attempt to offer sex advice to readers should end. Hall's column is utterly unoriginal. The only way Hall's "Under Covers" differentiates itself from an advice column in a preteen magazine is through the use of sophomoric double entendres and unnecessary vulgarity. Not only is Hall's column banal, it contains rash generalizations unsupported by empirical evidence. Hall also has a propensity to pass off worthless quotes from her friends as original and insightful. Furthermore, Hall pretentiously hides her clichŽ subject matter with unneeded verbosity. In closing, the Wildcat should replace "Under Covers" with an original column that would actually benefit student readers. The trite subject matter in "Under Covers" should be left where it belongs - in the pages of a magazine marketed to 14-year-old girls.

Brad Hauert
business administration and finance senior