Readers agree: Public money shouldn't fund sports arena

I like your column, although I am not a fisherman and skip most of that, I do like the outdoors.

First comment: Your picture that is in the Daily O is misleading. No wonder we think that you are just a kid. At 47, you should have some wrinkles, gray hair and a little bit of baldness showing through. At least I did. Get a new picture or else have yours airbrushed.

Comment No. 2: Right on about no taxes to support the big business of pro sports. I don't watch any pro sports now - although it used to be an addictive habit. I would much rather have tax money spent on the outdoors, parks, etc. If the fans want a new stadium, have them pay more for the tickets. I still think that we should have kept the "users tax" on the state parks, many of the other states use them, it helps to keep out the riffraff. And like the new stadium, users should pay for them.

Keep smilin'.

Bill Allen,



Thanks for your nice words. I've gotten lots of calls and e-mails in response to my column on using $300 million of public money to help the SuperSonics build a new arena. I feel kind of like a choir director this week.

As for my looks, I'm graying up pretty well these days, and I've started using glasses to tie flies. My knees even creak a little when I snowboard. All that said, I'm 45 until May 2, when I'll turn 46.

I have plenty of wrinkles and my daughter thinks I'm ancient.


A reader with the name of Haarslov sent in this e-mail:

I always enjoy your articles even though I'm not an outdoor adventure person. As an animal & nature lover (translate that to love my only planet), I heartily concur with your thoughts on business outrage!!!