Readers Write: Electric vehicles, Trump's Minneapolis visit, Congress, hunting with dogs

President of the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association Scott Lambert states that his industry likes electric vehicles ("Calif. fuel standards don't make sense here," Opinion Exchange, Oct. 9). I haven't found that to be the case.

It is difficult finding many electric vehicles on their lots, and the latest models are not sold in this state because of our lack of government support. We own an electric vehicle and a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle and we knew far more about them then the dealer salespeople we talked to. Many would deride the idea of electric vehicles or fail to bring up the government rebates that applied.

Lambert knows that according to the National Automobile Dealers Association, 50% of an auto dealer's profits come from service and parts. Electric vehicles have about 20 moving parts in their drivetrains, vs. more than 2,000 in an internal combustion engine. With no oil, transmission fluid, belts and other maintenance items to replace, there is little reason for electric vehicle owners to visit a dealership. Next year, we will see many new electric SUVs as well as two full-size electric pickup trucks introduced, but good luck finding many on Lambert's lots without Gov. Tim Walz's new regulations.

Lambert thinks it is radical for California to try to protect the planet with modest zero-emissions-vehicle mandates. I wonder how he feels about the billions of dollars in handouts that are mandated for the petroleum industry that unfairly support his antiquated business model.

I'm an independent voter who didn't vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in 2016. I do find it hypocritical that liberals like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey support diversity — but not diversity of opinion ("Mpls. vows not to pay; AEG says it can't," Oct. 10). President Trump was not welcomed in Minneapolis because the city's value system is different than the state's. More than 1,322,900 people in Minnesota voted for Trump. He had a majority of the votes in 78 of the 87 counties in Minnesota. Didn't these constituents have the right to hear their president speak?

This incident is getting me to reconsider who I will cast my vote for in 2020.

There are many ways to protest. This was mine. On Oct. 10, long before Target Center opened, I drove to my local public library (not one street was blocked off on the way there, and I could bring in my backpack) to one of our finest community treasures. There, books and history, literacy and learning are honored; both grown-ups and children (all colors, all ages, rich or poor) are welcome; freedom derives from sharing; imagining hurts no one; silence is golden. My signature rally was safe and peaceful. Next week, I expect more homegrown magic — especially if it snows.

If there was ever a time to consider term limits for Congress, it's now! Both Democrats and Republicans are in a dither — once again — on how to vote in order to get re-elected. They are not formulating their support or votes based on what is best for the United States. They scratch their heads and run the numbers in their districts to make a calculated decision on matters vital to America, based not on what is best for the country, but what is best for their re-election chances.

Don't be fooled by campaign claims that scream, "I will represent YOU in Congress." You are kidding yourself if you believe they will represent and vote for what is best for our country. They will vote whichever way they have to vote in order to keep getting re-elected. We have relics in Congress who haven't had an original idea since 1970.

Term limits for Congress may bring integrity to the body — and that would be a breath of fresh air to all Americans. We might actually have members of Congress who work for us — not for their re-election.

I am writing to share my disappointment in a piece recently printed in the Outdoors section, "Thinking about the hunt — and wolves" published on Oct. 4.

This particular piece poses a few different problems, mainly that it incompletely shares facts, thus skewing the readers' opinions to one side of the issue. I understand that there are very strong opinions on both sides of the wolf topic, but if we continue to discuss this topic without a well-rounded approach, we are just continuing to perpetuate stereotypes and cause division when we should be fostering collaboration.

In reality, the deer population has steadily risen since the early 2000s, with one minor decrease around 2013-2014, but reaching higher numbers ever since. There is a handy chart that explains this on the Wisconsin DNR website.

The article then progresses to discuss dogs lost to wolves during bear hunts. As a dog owner myself, I can certainly relate to the devastating loss of a loved one. However, I must point out that there are obvious and inherent risks that come with hunting with dogs — injury in the woods or out in the field, injury caused by the animal being hunted, injury caused by humans, or, in this case, injury caused by wolves. When you enter a landscape that is shared by multiple predators and introduce other predators (yourself and your dog), it cannot be unexpected that some conflicts will arise.

It is easy to write an article that focuses just on one side of an issue, but this is not the type of news we need to be spreading. As a reader, I appreciate an approach that clearly conveys both sides of an issue, complete with facts (not opinions), and that allows the readers to make an informed opinion for themselves — or even better, prompts collaboration to work toward a solution that benefits both sides. We have more than enough "us vs. them" situations to go around. Do we really need to add more?