I have enjoyed all of the positive articles in the Star Tribune this summer on monarch butterfly and pollinator rescue efforts. People of all persuasions listened to and accepted the data from scientists, then banded together to make sure these small but iconic species survive for future generations to enjoy. As I bike through Minneapolis, Lanesboro or Lindstrom, I see Minnesotans purposely growing, welcoming and displaying milkweed in their yards and gardens instead of pulling it out as we may have in years past.
Governmental agencies such as the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with businesses such as Andersen Windows and Xcel Energy, are joining hands with churches, Rotarians, school kids and retirees to help monarchs and other pollinators. Why? Because it is simply the right thing to do. This diverse coalition recognizes the importance of the beauty of monarchs and the role of pollinators in our lives. This unified front doesn't have anyone discrediting the scientific data or calling this a hoax designed to make scientists rich or give "Big Milkweed" record profits.
I have noticed many more monarchs this year than I have seen in the last few years. Our efforts give me hope that humanity can and will work together to ensure future generations have the same opportunities to enjoy nature that we have had.
Patrick Collins, Lindstrom, Minn.
• • •
For now, while Minnesota's monarch butterfly population is still declining, it is disheartening to see them as mounted specimens in 4-H county fair entries ("Monarch rescue efforts receive a $20M boost," Aug. 21). Please give it a break!
R.M. Hall, Burnsville
MINNESOTA SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM
What could be the motives for releasing rapist over objections?
About the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), we are told that unlike nearly all of the other states, Minnesota seems not to have found a way to address the classification, treatment and supervised release of our sex-offender population. We are told that of the 700-plus "patients," there are scores who are too old or infirm to cause trouble for anyone. We are also told that there is a large number whose offenses were not violent, who are cognitively disabled or whose offense occurred when they were adolescents who had grown up in abusive environments. These people are most appropriate for supervised release to a less-restricted program.
Given the above, why on Earth is a judicial panel releasing a man ("Rapist is granted a contested release," Aug. 27) who has a history of violent attacks, has not cooperated in the program, and in fact has continued his threatening and assaultive behaviors and refuses to agree to follow the rules of a supervised release program? Two psychologists, the Hennepin County attorney, the Minnesota Department of Human Services, the administrators of the program and even one of the members of the panel cite the inappropriateness of this plan.
This seems to be a "see what you made me do" tactic, designed to fail, to endanger the public and to support a "no change" philosophy when it fails.