On September 6, 2007 , Paul Setliff referenced an “opinion” submitted by Arlene Sweeten where he quotes her as stating that hunters are “barbaric and beneath contempt.” First, Mr. Setliff, you need to actually read Ms. Sweeten’s letter. These were not her words; rather she was addressing a quote from a prior editorial written by a hunter in regards to Michael Vick’s horrific acts of cruelty. Ms. Sweeten did question, and I strongly agree, how it is that it’s considered so horrible to kill and abuse dogs but it’s okay to go out and kill other defenseless animals as if they do not matter. You state that you support wildlife conservation yet you turn around and kill this same wildlife. Do you support it so there is more to kill? If this were not so sad, it’d be laughable. You seem to proudly state that you spend time with friends and family hunting. You actually call it pleasurable time with friends and family when you are out killing innocent animals you claim to support with your wildlife conservation efforts? I can think of many ways to spend “quality” time with people other than going on a killing spree against something that cannot defend itself. Mr. Setliff, you cannot teach me anything about “outdoors” because I enjoy nature, appreciate it and respect it. You either conserve it in the truest sense of the word or you kill it, but not both. Again, Ms. Sweeten’s words were quotes from someone else but I will easily use the adjective “barbaric” to describe anyone who kills innocent wildlife and also claims to work tirelesslessly for the “benefit” of wildlife. Nature is quite capable of taking care of itself if people would stop destroying the world as it was intended. Opinions should be considered, Mr. Setliff, especially when it relates to killing something just because you have the power to do so. Hunters and dogfighters may not be exactly the same, but the "sport" of killing something defenseless certainly is the same.