Patrick Hogle's letter (Readers' Forum, Aug. 18) supporting Proposition 5, the proposed constitutional amendment that would require any initiative on hunting regulations to have a two-thirds majority to become law, was a lesson in fuzzy logic. Hogle noted he is a recent graduate of Utah State University. I, too, graduated from USU's College of Natural Resources in 1973 when it was still fashionable to support one person, one vote, even on wildlife issues.

Hogle offers a couple of arguments why he will be voting for Proposition 5 to restrict access to a fundamental tool of democracy, the right to voter initiatives. He argues hunters and anglers are the most influential conservationists. Even if that is the case, and considerable research and contemporary thinking suggests that it is not quite so black and white, why restrict everybody else from attempting to influence wildlife management?Ironically, if the system Hogle is referring to is so good and has served so many people so effectively, why worry about further restricting folks with a different viewpoint who also want to participate in wildlife management issues? Just continue the good work without stooping to restrict other views or management models.

And the truth is, the present system has not served wildlife well. Wolves, wolverines and grizzly bears are no longer welcome in their native homeland here in Utah. Lynx and pine marten are severely diminished. Native trout are clinging to a few remote streams.

It is this broadening view of wildlife that Hogle fears. Instead of engaging in debate, he has fallen prey to a mischievous proposal not to manage wildlife, but to shut off the debate surrounding wildlife management issues.

Patrick, I urge you to rethink your support of Proposition 5.

Dick Carter

High Uintas Preservation Council