Opinion
,7 i
Stoke the engines
US. should seek a self-reliant Amtrak
Some members of Congress used to see Amtrak, the
nation’s passenger train, as a socialist experiment
going nowhere fast.
Now, lawmakers are changing their minds as more and
more people opt to ride the government-subsidized trains.
Congested airports, delayed and overbooked flights,
and roads clogged with traffic are making Amtrak an
attractive alternative for travelers. Americans increasingly
are choosing right-of-way
scenery over the friendly
skies.
As a result of this
rail service revival, law
makers are pressing Am
trak executives to bring the’
trains to their districts and
states.
“People have been
discovering passenger rail
service again,” Rep. A1
Swift, D-Wash, said.
Swift proposes using
1 cent or the 2.5 cent
gasoline tax for Amtrak’s
capital fund. Surprisingly,
Swift’s proposal was
received well in a prelimi
nary hearing in Congress.
Although Amtrak is gaining speed in the popularity
race, the federal government may be applying the brakes.
President Bush included an operating subsidy for the
rail service in his budget proposal, ^ he did not propose
any money for Amtrak’s capital projects.
Last week, Amtrak Chairman W. Graham Clay tor Jr.
outlined an $18 billion capital improvement program that
will span 15 years.
Without these capital projects, Amtrak's trains may
come to a screeching halt.
Amtrak says it must replace its aging locomotives and
cars that carry 22 million passengers a year over 24,(XX)
miles of track. The rail service also is looking at new
routes that would increase profit — along with political
support — and is preparing to test new trains that would
cut travel time by more than 25 percent.
Amtrak’s federal subsidy now covers about 80 percent
of its operating costs, but that number excludes the funds
needed to modernize and replace its trains.
The federal government could save money in the long
run by financing Amtrak’s capital projects and allowing it
to rebuild its fleet.
Then, by 2000, the rail service can reach its destination
— operation without the push of money from the folks on
Capitol Hill.
Endowment for arts vital
For a law student, I would have
expected Mark Fahleson to have done
more thorough research before at
tempting to present a case for the
abolition of the NEA (“Federal fund
ing for the arts lunacy,” DN, Feb. 28).
The actual amount of funding going
to artists such as Mapplethorpe and
Serrano is piddly and insignificant
compared to the cash flow from the
NEA that goes into valuable programs
for art in our schools and programs to
preserve folk arts. Here’s your re
search, Mr. Fahleson. It’s all there in
the stacks at Love Library.
The NEA funds the following:
design, including interior and archi
tectural; dance programs ($13,000 to
Lincoln for the 90-91 season); educa
tion programs that include artists in
schools; literature, including poetry,
novels, essays and playwriting; mu
seums, for training in areas such as
preservation among others; music of
all kinds, jazz, ethnic, opera, orches
tra, soloists (Lincoln Symphony Or
chcstra 1990 $6,000 — Young People’s
Concert Scries, Nebraska Chamber
Orchestra $3,000, Omaha Symphony
Association $50,000); public media,
including public television and video
and film artists; theater, including
playwrights (Sheldon’s film theater
1990 $10,000); and finally, visual
arts (UNL — $25,000 to artists’ fees
and administrative costs). The list
goes on and on. Fahleson has no concept
of what we as a country would stand
to lose if the NEA were abolished.
UNL’s art staff alone includes many
nationally known artists who may
someday (if not now) need to turn to
the NEA for funding. My suggestion
is that he get the record straight be
fore he gets carried away with sweep
ing generalizations, and that he apply
for an NEA grant himself. Some
where out there is a fiction writers’
workshop with his name on it.
Sharon Elbract-Ohmbcrger
senior
art
-LETTER POLICY
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief letters to the editor from all read
ers and interested others.
Anonymous submissions will not
be considered for publication. Let
ters should include the author's
name, year in school, major and
Submit material to the Daily Ne
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R
St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
V'
BRIAN ALLEN
Hunters preserve, not destroy
For the first time in recent
memory, the Nebraska Legis
lature actually is considering
a bill that makes sense and receives
my total support.
LB919, sponsored by Sen. Jerry
Chizek of Omaha and others, would
make it a crime to intentionally har
ass hunters, fishers and trappers who
lawfully arc engaged in their respec
tive pursuits.
Larry' Morris of the Nebraska Game
and Parks said Nebraska was one of
only five states that did not protect
the right of their law-abiding sports
men/women to pursue their activities
in peace.
Hunter harassment has not been a
large problem in Nebraska, Morris
said, but it is common on both coasts
and appears to be moving toward the
Midwest from both directions.
It is unfortunate that we need such
a law in this state, but we do.
In other slates, hunters have been
followed by screaming mobs of pro
testers, access roads to hunting areas
have been littered with tire spikes,
dog food has been mixed with broken
glass and rat poison and left in areas
where hunting with dogs is common,
and in one ease, hunters actually were
jabbed and hit with ski poles by anti
hunting demonstrators.
Someone who would pul out poi
soned dog food laced with glass can
not have much concern for animal
rights.
Anti-hunting groups are out to save
Bambi and Thumper from the evil,
satanic hunters. Someone must tell
these people about the difference
between the World of Disney and the
real world we live in.
In the real world, deer don’t fall in
love with each other, and rabbits don’t
hang with skunks named Flower. All
the beautiful little animals wouldn’t
live in peace and happiness forever if
only the wicked hunters were ban
ished from the utopian woods.
In the real world, which I must
describe to the anti-hunters because
they never spend any lime here, life is
cruel.
Things here don’t exist in the minds
of the Disney Disciples: diseases such
as blue tongue, rabies and distemper
that spread like the black plague in
overpopulated wildlife habitats, star
vation caused by too many animals
and not enough food and the ever
present danger from our nation’s
highways.
Population control of deer herds is
necessary if we don’t want the entire
herd to starve. Anyone who ever has
seen a serious browse line knows so.
A browse line occurs when all the
small branches and twigs hanging
within the lower five to six feet of
Someone who would
pul am poisoned dag
food laced with glass
cannot him, much
concern for animal
rights.
trees and bushes have been clipped by
starving deer.
We cither can control the popula
tion of deer on a yearly basis by
hunting, or we can let the population
grow to a point at which winter star
vation will kill not only a few deer but
the entire herd.
The same holds true for most other
animal species. Hunters and trappers
cither can keep animal populations in
check and derive some benefit in the
process, or motor vehicles, disease
and starvation will do it for us in a
much more cruel and much less effi
cient manner.
uevciopment ana agriculture, not
hunters, have driven away the tradi
tional large predators such as wolves,
mountain lions and bears. The role of
population control in the remaining
wildlife habitat now falls to humans.
If anti-hunters ever succeed in
obtaining their stated goal of the ille
galization of all hunting, game and
non-game species will not benefit.
They will instead be the biggest los
ers.
While some anti-hunting groups
have made a few commendable con
tributions to wildlife management and
habitat protection, the vast majority
of these projects are financed by
hunters.
Larry Witt, also of Nebraska Game
and Parks, said all money derived
from the sale of hunting and fishing
licenses and permits in Nebraska was
used to finance wildlife management,
the development and maintenance of
state wildlife areas, fish hatcheries
and wildlife law enforcement (game
wardens).
Proceeds from the sale of habitat
stamps, which are required to vali
date every Nebraska hunting license,
go toward the acquisition and dcvcl
opmenl of wildlife habitat areas.
Proceeds from waterfowl stamps or
“duck stamps,” required by the fed
eral government for the hunting of
migratory waterfowl, go to federal
wildlife and wetland conservation
programs.
With the exception of the Schramm
State Aquarium and a small percent
age of the law enforcement budget, |
no tax dollars go into wildlife man
agement or habitat acquisition. It all
comes from hunters, fishers and trap
pers.
While this money is targeted for
game species, such as deer, ducks,
pheasants and rabbits, any habitat
acquired or improved for their use
will benefit thousands of non-game
species as well.
And licenses are not the only way
sportsmen contribute to the benefit of
wildlife.
At the federal level, the Pittman
Robcrtson Act imposes an 11-percent
user excise tax on all sporting arms
and ammunition and a 10-pcrccnt tax
on all pistols, revolvers and archery
equipment. This money goes to fi
nance federal habitat purchase and
wildlife management programs as well
as safely programs, such as hunters’
safely courses.
Pitlman-Robertson funds are not
marked specifically for games spe
cies, but arc used to benefit all wild
life species.
similarly, inc Dingcn-Jonnson aci
imposes a 10-pcrccnt lax on all fish
ing equipment, a 3-pcrcent lax on all
trolling motors and depth finders, and
import duties on boats and yachts.
These funds are used for game-fish
management and Aquatic Education
programs.
Additionally, private hunting or
ganizations, such as Ducks Unlim
ited and Pheasants Forever, raise
millions of dollars annually for habi
tat and wetland preservation.
Regardless oi whether they agree
with hunting, anti-hunters must real
ize that hunters provide for the con
trol and management of what wildlife
habitat we still have, and more im
portantly, the funds for the preserva
tion and acquisition of additional
wildlife habitat.
Anti-hunters believe that hunters,
fi shers and trappers are the bane of al I
animals, when, in fact, they arc the
largest force standing up for wildlife
against roller-coaster population
explosions, mass starvation and the
continued development and destruc
tion of habitat.
Don’t go hunting or fishing if you
don’t want to, but if you really want to
help wildlife, buy a hunting license.
Allen is a senior mechanical engineering
major and a Dally Nebraskan columnist.