News & Articles

Weigh in on Wisconsin natural resource questions

Have you ever heard of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress (WCC)? Most Wisconsin residents don’t even know it exists. The WCC is set up in state law to collect citizen input. It serves as an advisory partner to the Natural Resource Board and works with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. In fact, it is the WCC’s vision to “gather and convey the wisdom and influence of Wisconsin citizens in the formation of natural resource policy, research, education and conservation.” Matters affecting wildlife, land, water and air need diverse, open-minded representation by all natural resource users.

But while the WCC is supposed to be a voice for ALL citizens, it remains the voice of less than one percent of the population. Last year a little more than 12,000 people voted on WCC resolutions. Wisconsin has a population of more than 5 million. Delegates elected to the WCC are mostly hunters, trappers and anglers.

Each spring, Wisconsin citizens have the opportunity to provide input by voting on questions that govern use and protection of our natural resources. We also have the opportunity to vote on resolutions submitted by citizens from our own county of residence. Some resolutions this year are, “Should Wisconsin ban wildlife killing contests? Should dogs be used to hunt wolves? Advisory questions range from testing drinking water for PFAS to requiring registration on canoes and kayaks.

Weigh in on natural resource questions and citizen resolutions in an online survey open from 7 pm April 11 until 7 pm April 14. The link to the survey will be found at dnr.wi.gov by searching “Conservation Congress, Spring Hearings.” We can all make our voices heard this year by voting in the WCC Spring Hearings.

Cindy Dillenschneider
Washburn, Wisconsin

Ukraine and Pearl Harbor  

Mr. A. Martin’s recent letter to The Reader makes a number of very good points about the need for the U.S. to look at itself in the mirror when criticizing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

One point I would take issue with, however, is the notion that “With Pearl Harbor, we were the innocent victim.” In fact, Pearl Harbor was the culmination of a long history of imperialist competition in East Asia and the Pacific, which began with U.S. Admiral Perry’s taking U.S. Navy ships into Tokyo Bay in 1853 with demands that Japan sign unequal trade agreements.  

The U.S. acquired colonies in the Philippines and Guam (along with Puerto Rico, etc.) after its 1898 war with Spain as Japanese power was expanding into Korea during the same time period. When the Philippines tried to assert its independence, it was brutally suppressed by the U.S. with the deaths of tens of thousands. Japan was equally oppressive in Korea and went on to invade Manchuria first in 1931 and then in 1937.  

The U.S. Pacific fleet was berthed on the West Coast during the early decades of the 20th century until it was moved to Pearl Harbor in 1940. The U.S. could claim that this move was defensive but it certainly looked different from the perspective of Japan. Hawaii too was a recent U.S. possession snatched from its indigenous leaders in 1898 through the cooperation of U.S. business interests and the U.S. military.  

In July of 1940 the U.S. placed restrictions on the sale of oil and scrap iron to Japan and froze all Japanese assets the following year. The Pearl Harbor bombing followed soon after.  
Wars don’t come out of the blue, even the “good” ones. They are products of history, which require two sides and are never inevitable. The expansion of NATO and the reaction to it are yet another example.  

Bob Kosuth
Duluth, Minnesota

Biblical prophecies contradict claims that we are nearing the end times

Jesus: “Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.”

But does God really intend to punish the world by destroying it? Consider these parallel verses in different versions of  the Bible, such as those in – John 3:17, NIV, which all say essentially the same things:

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
John 3:17, ESV: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”
John 3:17, KJV: “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
John 3:17, NASB: For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.
John 3:17, NLT: God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.
John 3:17, CSB: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Although many words have been used to minimize the importance of these contradictory verses, presumably because they contradict beliefs that the apocalypse will  happen in our time, as well as the implication that God wants to destroy the world because of its wickedness, (such as in the story of Noah and the ark). But John says something entirely different – that God did (not) send Christ to destroy the world but to save it through the teachings and examples provided by Jesus!

There are also many interpretive gymnastics used by theologians to provide alternate explanations for these words of Christ: “Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away”. (24-31 KJV)! Yet, if one takes his mention of (This generation) not passing until all the end time predictions are fulfilled, at face value – the end time would have taken place long ago during the lifetimes of Jesus’s disciples and those who followed him during his teachings.

As the author of this letter my intention is not to belittle other versions of the Gospels, for not saying exactly the same things, but I do intend to illustrate that according to  John, God did not send Jesus to punish unbelievers by destroying this earth. To me those kinds of interpretations characterize God as a fearful entity who intends to beat his children into submission, by destroying the lives of anyone who differs, and by destroying all that they too, might love and care for.

Therefore, to many fundamentalist Christians I ask, does your understanding alone give you the ultimate authority to decide what Jesus meant, and do you know exactly what God’s intentions are? All of the gospels are in general agreement, so to me, there is no need to hate, convert, or declare war on any people or Nations who think their ways too, are the only ways to believe, rather than admitting that their own values cannot dictate their right  to tell others what to believe and what not to believe!

Peter W. Johnson
Superior, Wisconsin