Selected Articles from our
The C.A.S.H. Courier
ARTICLE from the Spring 2009 Issue
Ask Uncle Joe
BY JOE MIELE
GOT A QUESTION FOR UNCLE JOE?
YOU CAN E-MAIL IT TO ASKUNCLEJOE@HOTMAIL.COM .
WOULD YOU RATHER SNAIL MAIL YOUR QUESTION? SEND IT TO: ASK UNCLE JOE,
C/O WILDLIFE WATCH, BOX 562, NEW PALTZ, NY 12561.
UNCLE JOE GETS A LOT OF MAIL SO DON’T BE OFFENDED IF HE CANNOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IN THE COURIER. HECK, HE’S GOTTA WORK A DAY JOB, TOO.
Letters are printed as received. They are unedited.
Ladies and Gentlemen
We Have a Winner!
As you may recall, in the last issue of the Courier we
ran a contest asking our readers to reply to some hate mail
“Uncle Joe style.” After reviewing the submissions, one in
particular stood out for its realistic solution to the
problem posed, and its brilliant use of sarcasm (Uncle Joe
loves sarcasm). Congratulations to Michelle Marcus, our
“Uncle Joe” – or perhaps “Auntie Michelle” – for the day!
Below the letter is Michelle’s reply.
Dear Uncle Joe:
Your group is nothing but a bunch of Idiots. Abolishing
sport hunting is an extremely done. You say it destroys the
ecosystem people have been doing it for thousands of years
and it has worked out great.Many picutres that are drawn for
the Audobon Society were done by killing the animals.
We do try to keep people from killing off the protective
species - seals, whales, etc. what makes you so smart? What
should I do about the bears that run through my property and
kill my goats and chiskens? Without hunting those damn bears
I’d lose more chikens all the time. They smashed out the
fence and came in so how am I supposed to stop them. ? wioth
a camera like your dumb site says to?
We commend you for taking the time to voice your opinion,
especially when your argument does more to support our cause
than hurt it. While we do not wish to engage in the puerile
tactic of name-calling, a quick perusal of your letter
suggests that we are not the idiots in this debate.
Instead of letting your chickens run free all day and night,
build an enclosure for them and a shed where they can be
brought in for the night. Clean your property of what might
be attracting the bears, and consider installing some
electric fencing to keep them away from the chicken
enclosure. Sure, it might cost you a few dollars to build,
but when you have animals it is your responsibility to
Our stance against sport-hunting has been clearly presented
and supported by facts, while your rebuttal is neither.
Please feel free to research this topic during the time you
are not slaughtering chickens or shooting at bears, and
write to us again. We can certainly use your help to further
Dear Uncle Joe:
It appears that affiliates of your organization are attacking time tested
American values. We are asking you politely to cease and desist your
I have copied this email and sent to the president of New Mexico State
University as they receive Federal funding and the president needs to be
aware of student and alumni activity that could be classified as “enemy
Dear “Chief” Sartor:
I’m calling your bluff. You’re not really a “Chief,” are you? Salafi is an
Islamic movement that sees the Salaf of the patristic period of early Islam
as role models to be emulated, and the movement does not have a Chief. Also,
I don’t quite understand why you believe that C.A.S.H. is affiliated with
NMSU in any way. Since you’re a fraud I am denying your request for us
to discontinue speaking out against the violence of hunting, but thank you
for sending us one of the more bizarre letters we’ve gotten in a while.
Dear Uncle Joe:
I was reading “Hunting by Humans, Too Efficient-Nature has
Solutions” on the C.A.S.H. website. And found the article very interesting,
the author had done his homework on the ability for nature to stablilize its
own population. But he did leave out one key factor in the reproductive
process of nature. He used white tailed deer as his example, so I will use
the same. The author wrote “If deer are hungry (not starving, but not well
fed) the sexual drive of the male deer declines.” Which is completely true,
But, the key element he left out is agriculture. Due to the sufficient
supply of food at any given time of year provided by humans such as
Soybeans,Corn during summer Alfalfa, Clovers in the fall anI understandd
Legumes,Winter Wheat etc. in the winter. The deer population would fail to
self regulate, and overpopulation would occur until some form of natural
predator was introduced. Be it humans, coyotes, wolves, bears.... whichever.
The author also states that Wildlife Agencies should institute doe seasons
to bring the sex ratio to 50/50. Every state that permits deer hunting has
doe seasons already, and states like Pennsylvania offer up to 4 doe tags per
license year. And you are only allowed to take 1 buck per year. If you look
at field reports and/or harvest listings you will see that the average
harvest for any given state is between 1.7 and 2.2 does for every buck
taken. I’m sure you can tell by now that I hunt, I did’nt write this email
to argue or belittle anybody. Just putting in my 2 cents.
Thanks for your time,
Your observation about agriculture creating a never ending food supply for
deer is astute, but it does not apply to suburban areas, where many new
hunts are conducted. Your comments also shoot down the “starvation”
argument that is often used as a reason for continuing hunting programs ad
infinitum. And the entire population argument goes out the window when
we speak of the plethora of Quality Deer Management programs that seek to
increase the number of older bucks to allow hunters a better chance of
killing a trophy.
If hunting programs were truly designed to reduce populations, there would
be little restrictions on the number of deer a hunter could kill in a given
area, and there would be no restriction on the age of the deer being shot.
If it is all about reducing the numbers, killing young fawns and killing
only females would seem to be the way to go. On the rare occasion when
hunters are allowed to kill fawns, many within the hunting community raise
their voices in objection. So reducing deer populations is not a claim that
can be taken very seriously by those who understand what motivates state
fish and game agencies.
Dear Uncle Joe:
I JUST PASSED 4 BEAVER THAT WERE KILLED AND SMASHED ON THE ROAD. IF
THAT IS HUMANE YOU HAD BETTER GET AN EDUCATION OR LIFE. IF IT WERE NOT
FOR THE TRAPPERS THE ANIMALS WOULD CAUSE MILLIONS MORE IN DAMAGE TO YOUR
PRECIOUS HOMES. YOU HAVE MOVED IN AND DESTROYED THEIR HABITAT. SO GET
A SMALLER HOUSE SO THE BEAVER AND OTHER ANIMALS HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.
I’m sorry that you came across dead beavers in the road, but think for a
moment about this: since beaver trapping is legal in New York State, the
trappers in the area did not prevent these animals from being hit and
killed. What does prevent these kinds of things from happening has little to
do with wildlife management and a lot to do with driving more safely. Stick
to the speed limit, be extra cautious when driving through areas where
wildlife are known to cross roads, and petition your local government to
install street lighting if there is none. Additionally, special wildlife
corridors and crossing points that enable animals to get from one side of a
busy road to another without putting themselves in jeopardy have been
constructed and are being used in areas as diverse as heavily populated
states like New Jersey and areas as remote as Banff National Park in
Alberta, Canada. Ramps and bridges have been built to allow animals to pass
over roads and tunnels allow safe passage beneath them. Wildlife learn to
use these passages in a short time and the amount of vehicle collisions
drops significantly when they do. Like I have said a thousand times before –
humane solutions to problems that occur from living in close proximity to
wildlife are superior to pseudo-solutions based on violence.
Go on to Next Article
Back to Spring 2009 Issue
Back to C.A.S.H. Courier Article Archive