Editor:

A column pushing feedground closings, empowered by a lawsuit from five "conservation" groups, sandwiched around an unabashed, anti-hunting letter to editor -- all within five days -- tells me enviros and anti-hunters have matching aims.

When enviros and the Game and Fish joined pens and dollars to stop game farms, I said feedgrounds were logically their next hit. "Overcrowding and disease" were their alibis in the fight of the 1990s against new opportunities.

Guess the given excuses for closing feedgrounds today and curtailing long-enjoyed recreations. I said anti-privatization of Wyoming's wildlife (even from Missouri, Brazil, Tibet) was the real reason -- not often denied -- and government and outsider control over private property were the means.

I called them anti-hunters so they issued slogans like, "Wildlife Federation is hunters." However, today's crusades convince me most greens and cohorts are not hunters' rights or opportunities champions.

If moderate groups are annoyed by the suit why do they only speak against pro-feedground people? Remember the anti-private argument used by the department and its minions? "The system's worked well for generations. Don't fix what ain't broke"

The oft spouted, "Wyoming offers world-class, big game opportunities for large numbers of population and guests" will be hacked into much fewer elk, thus pushing big-game hunting into a high-bucks, elitist event.

Large elk numbers "democratized" big game hunting, hunting authors write, while this new move comes from easterners, San Franciscans and trust fund babies (and, perhaps, a few important nimrods).

Think tight, rare, expensive permits and hunts, like bighorns or moose. Think of having to watch hunting vicariously on a TV chair. Think, maybe, of utilizing a game farm somewhere.

Some "500,000" enviros and their anti-hunting clones want elk for one function: wolf feed. I remember the above groups and bureaus mocking, denying, and ignoring my claims they'd attack feedgrounds.

They declared that will never happen, that refuges are not private and greed based, that they are scientific.

Could the anti-development crowd have other ideas for 25,000 acres of refuge land?

DENNIS BROSSMAN, Lander