I am writing in response to Tim Frerking’s opinion column in the Sept. 24 Iowa State Daily.

In this column Mr. Frerking discusses animal population control from an anti-hunting perspective.

Although I am an avid hunter and shooter and disagree with his opinions, I respect his right to have and express these views.

This is, after all, the basis of a free society, and open good faith debate leads to enlightenment and advancement.

Thus, his column angered me not because it expressed opinions different from my own, but rather because it was written in such a mean-spirited and amateur way.

In his writing, Mr. Frerking refers to “..thousands of drunk hunters..,” a macho “man-against-nature attitude” and letting hunters have open season on each other so there would not be so many “stupid humans beings.”

Imagine the public uproar if these prejudiced cliches were of a racial variety.

As a graduate student in economics, preparing to graduate next year with a Ph.D., I do not feel I fit these descriptions, nor do the people I hunt with.

I view this as a personal insult that has moved beyond the scope of expressing an opinion.

I find it unfortunate that in today’s journalism an opinion can only be expressed in combination with name-calling and insults.

This causes division and hatred rather than compromise and solutions.

My hope would be that students of journalism would recognize this and take steps to change it rather than perpetuating this style.

In the case of Mr. Frerking, it appears I am to be disappointed.

I challenge Mr. Frerking and all other columnists in the future to write opinions that are truly thought-out and well-argued without resorting to this type of shabby, lazy writing that I have witnessed.

Dan Phaneuf

Graduate Student

Department of Economics