Lots of negligence to go around

This is in response to Larry Simoneaux’s columns and several letters to the editor:

First, the Legislature is negligent by letting a hunting safety law fall off the books in the mid-1990s.

Second, the Department of Fish and Wildlife would share negligence if there were no outward means to know that it was a hunting area.

Third, if the hiker knew it was a hunting area, she would share negligence for wearing light blue instead of the visibility colors recommended to hunters. In foggy weather, bent over rummaging through her pack, she could appear to be an animal with four legs.

Fourth, the youth is obviously negligent for shooting without being absolutely sure his target was a bear.

It should be remembered that judgment is a product of mental attitude and experience. However, reckless and stupid acts are more a product of lax self-discipline than of time served on the planet.

The first reaction might be to think, “Somebody must pay for this tradegy.” The fact is, regardless of how the courts charge this young man, a dark cloud will follow him every day of his life for his direct part in this tragedy. To my mind, to have the boy cooped up in a juvenile facility with other youths that have gone wrong only adds to the tragedy. In this specific case, I feel the simple act of writing a separate heartfelt letter of apology specifically to each member of the family would be more appropriate.

I have to ask, though, why are hunters and hikers sharing the same space? It doesn’t seem logical.

James R. Wheeler

Snohomish