Hunters, JFK's assassination

Disagreement over new hunters

How ironic that an LI Life cover story glorifies hunting and killing [“New aim for sport,” Nov. 26]. There are so many wonderful ways to connect with nature, but it is depressing to me that Hunters of Color promotes picking up a bow and arrow as the way to go.

Quick kills are rare, and many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when hunters severely injure but fail to kill them. I do not view hunting as a form of conservation. It can cause overpopulation by disrupting natural selection.

Let’s learn to step lightly on the land. Go hiking, bird-watching, do gardening, forage for mushrooms. Let’s stop pretending that increasing the number of hunters is a good thing for the environment.

— Kelley Wind, Merrick

As a 57-year-old white man who has been hunting since age 16, I was happy to read about diverse groups like Hunters of Color, The Nature Conservancy, the New York chapter of Back-country Hunters & Anglers and others in educating those unfamiliar with the sport as well as helping to introduce more women and people of diverse backgrounds to the tradition of hunting.

It was also wonderful to read an article portraying hunting in a positive light. The state Department of Environmental Conservation reported in 2020 that “New York’s hunters and anglers contribute an estimated $4.9 billion to the economy in spending, which supports more than 56,000 jobs and $623 million in state and local taxes.” It said the purchase of state sporting licenses alone helps “generate an estimated $75 million to help conserve fish and wildlife, enhance habitat, and protect natural resources.”

I hope the new diverse hunters mentioned in the article enjoyed learning about hunting, its roots in conservation and the camaraderie it brings, and they carry on this tradition well past their first day in the woods.

— Joseph W. Pignataro, Freeport

I feel nothing but outrage! While I do believe in conservation, there are other ways to control the population of deer or other animals. We do not need to have programs teaching anyone, including Hunters of Color, how to become sharpshooters and the best way to skin their catch.

For those who love animals and their beauty, this article was truly revolting. It teaches bad values: “Learning how to butcher a deer.”

I could not believe I was reading this in a newspaper I value. It was frightening to see young people with big smiles on their faces learning how to use a bow, proud of what they were doing.

If you are lucky, you get a meal of the game that unluckily got caught.

This repulsive article might get others inspired to sign up for the murder of innocent animals.

— Julie L. Newman, West Babylon

I am baffled why Newsday chose to promote the cruel “sport” of hunting in a four-page cover story under the cover of conservation and diversity. These goals would be better served by distributing cameras and binoculars rather than bows and arrows to the participants.

— Robert O’Leary, Sayville

Addressing theories over JFK’s death

Newsday’s editorial board offers a strange juxtaposition of President John F. Kennedy’s legacy with a broadside at the embrace of internet conspiracy theories and how they threaten that legacy [“Remembering JFK’s legacy,” Editorial, Nov. 22]. The preeminent threat to his legacy was that Kennedy was actually murdered.

A groundswell movement driven by a fact-based distrust of our government began within a year of JFK’s death, long before the internet was designed.

The editorial board appears distressed by wild chatter and unhinged theories about the assassination. A significant percentage of the assassination cottage industry that the editorial bemoans offers some groundless dissertations defending the official version of what took place in Dallas 60 years ago. Does the board find this equally unsavory?

To conclude with a flourish, the editorial quotes Kennedy regarding obligations to truth, to justice and to liberty. Citing this declaration, shouldn’t an effort be made to discover the source of internet disinformation regarding who killed Kennedy?

Who would disagree that the media’s obligation to the truth is to thoroughly explore and speak to the unassailable findings of dedicated academics who have authored voluminous peer-reviewed publications depicting the significant anomalies between the known facts and their depiction in the Warren Report?

— William Binnie, Lake Grove