In ``Deer, the Bane of Suburban Lawns,'' Nov. 9, the director of the Fund For Animals asks: ``Why should a deer lose its life because it chose to eat a marigold?'' She also says that property owners should not grow plants that attract deer. Ridiculous! Our resident deer horde will not touch the pungent marigold, but will cheerfully chomp on a $40 shrub. We had to build a seven-foot fence to protect our vegetable garden from these overly loved invaders. We shouldn't have to. As the article tells us, state game programs expect the landowner to provide fun for sports hunters. It is unjust. If a neighbor's cows escape and forage in our garden, the neighbor pays with no argument. But if the state's deer do the same, there is no recourse except to apply for a kill permit. ``To educate people about deer'' is not the answer. The solution is for the state to control its livestock. Norman Walter, Red House, W. Va.
Closing the door on the poor
The article ``The Push for Welfare Reform,'' Nov. 16, states: ``mean-spirited, punitive welfare `reform' would be simply wrong. Welfare reform motivated by a genuine desire for the economic empowerment of the poor, including the working poor, is what is called for.'' Unfortunately, the aspirations of the new Congress are not in the direction of empowering the poor. Rather, the new Congress seeks to give tax breaks to those who sell their homes at a loss. If that isn't a transfer payment from the have-nots to the haves, I don't know what is. Erlyn Baack, Denver, Colo.