Readers Write: Crow culling, policing, social media, election

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Good people of Rochester, as a former Animal Care and Control supervisor for the city of Minneapolis I have handled many nuisance crow complaints (“City takes aim at murder of crows,” Nov. 20). My research found these facts: Crows are protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. law. You need a permit to kill crows and prove they are a nuisance, which does not include mobbing during migration, roosting or mate selection between clans. Crow poop does not meet the definition of “nuisance.”

Crow facts: Crows are essential to cleaning up urban offal — think dead squirrels. Crows have a language of a wide variety of calls, tweets, etc. Crows live in extended families of lifelong mating pairs, elders, uncles, aunts and cousins. Crows do not breed until they are 2-4 years of age and the whole group works together to keep the young and old alive. Crows need to figure out how to mate. This behavior is as comical as your first kiss.

I once had to remove crows and kill them as part of my job. That still haunts me.

Nancy Przymus, Minneapolis

We support Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara’s decision not to resign and Mayor Jacob Frey’s decision to stick with the current public safety leadership team in the wake of the tragic near-fatal shooting of Davis Moturi (“O’Hara insists he’s here to stay,” Nov. 16). Leadership transitions result in lost momentum in changing the culture of the Minneapolis Police Department, and we have recent examples: the resignation of Chief Janee Harteau after former officer Mohamed Noor killed Justine Damond and the retirement of her replacement, Chief Medaria Arradondo, after the conviction of former officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. Both were good chiefs and reformers, but they lacked what we have now: reform efforts that are backed by a court-approved settlement agreement and monitor, and a police chief with deep experience garnering community support to transform police department culture under a consent decree.

Minneapolis’ revitalized public safety leadership, from Public Safety Commissioner Todd Barnette to Chief O’Hara, are committed to transforming the MPD into a race-neutral police force that prioritizes de-escalation over use of force and that takes special care with mentally ill suspects like John Sawchak. The alleged tragic shooting of Moturi by Sawchak shows the challenge of getting these priorities right in real time on the street, and it is appropriately under independent investigation.

While the investigation is just starting, it seems that the MPD focused on the new de-escalation and mental health policies, to the detriment of Moturi, and Chief O’Hara has rightly apologized. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems the MPD should have used greater force to arrest Sawchak under an outstanding warrant before the alleged shooting, instead of waiting for an opportunity to make a peaceful arrest. We recommend we use our hindsight to learn from this mistake, not to condemn our committed public safety leadership.

John Satorius and Catherine Shreves

The writers are co-chairs of the Plymouth Congregational Church Reimagining Community Safety Group

•••

The recent announcement by Eagan police that the Nov. 7 sexual assault report was false raises significant concerns (“1 of 2 reports of sexual assault in Eagan park since September was fabricated, police say,” StarTribune.com, Nov. 19). While false reporting is rare — occurring in only 2-10% of cases — it often receives disproportionate attention, reinforcing skepticism toward survivors. This announcement, compounded by the decision to pursue charges against the woman for filing a false report, could have chilling effects on victims who are already hesitant to come forward.

The case of Marie Adler, as depicted in “Unbelievable” and the Pulitzer-winning ProPublica article it was based on, underscores the tragic consequences of prematurely dismissing survivors’ stories. In Adler’s case, her rape report was disbelieved, and she was charged with filing a false report. Years later, evidence linked her account to a serial rapist, proving her initial claims were true.

Eagan’s dismissal of the Nov. 7 report prompts several questions: What investigative methods were employed? Were trauma-informed practices used in questioning the woman? How do we ensure justice while protecting vulnerable individuals from coercive investigations that might lead them to recant under pressure?

Moreover, by centering public discourse on the “falsity” of this one report, are we shifting focus away from the still-open Sept. 7 assault investigation? Survivors of sexual violence already face immense barriers to reporting. According to RAINN, more than two out of every three rapes go unreported due to fear of retaliation or disbelief. The heavy-handed response to the Nov. 7 case risks reinforcing those fears.

Let’s not forget that sexual violence is a pervasive issue. Dismissing claims without transparency risks perpetuating the systemic failures that silence survivors and embolden offenders. I urge Eagan police and the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office to provide greater clarity on their findings and methodology. We must approach these cases with sensitivity, informed skepticism and a commitment to justice for all.

Holly Kelchner, Northfield

I was dismayed to read the story “A new source for news” in Tuesday’s paper. When almost anyone can post almost anything on social media without regard to whether it has any basis in fact, relying on “news influencers” to stay abreast of current events is folly. With the proliferation of news sources, some more reputable than others, it is essential that critical thinking skills be applied to distinguish between factual news and misrepresentations and falsehoods. I fear that young adults relying on news influencers are not using their critical thinking skills — assuming they have critical thinking skills.

In writing about social media, the conservative columnist George Will stated that it enabled “the instantaneous dissemination of thoughts, most of which should never have been thought, let alone given written expression.” How true!

Karen S. Lee, Cambridge, Minn.

I wonder what planet Chuck Chalberg lives on (“Democrats: The wilderness years?” Strib Voices, Nov. 19). A Donald Trump administration will begin a process to restore constitutional government? Looking to experts to help shape policies is not consistent with constitutional government? Trump will work to restore debate? Trump sought to appeal to voters writ large as fellow Americans? He must have listened to different speeches and ads than I did, as well as having found something in the Constitution disavowing the use of professional expertise that I’ve never seen. But he did get one thing right — Trump is not a normal Republican. The long list of well-respected and experienced Republicans, many of whom worked for and previously supported Trump but who this year sounded the alarm about his re-election and endorsed Harris, are evidence of that. But it’s the only assertion in his piece based on anything but wild imaginings.

Cyndy Crist, St. Paul

•••

What, no Cabinet appointment for the MyPillow guy? There surely must be room for one more in the clown car.

David Kaiser, St. Paul

•••

There are more than 650,000 people in the U.S. with “MD” following their name as of 2022. Any one is more qualified than RFK Jr.

Robert Wetherille, Eden Prairie

•••

President-elect Trump is now receiving intelligence briefings (”Trump is receiving U.S. intel briefings,” Nov. 20). It would save him a lot of trouble if Russian President Vladimir Putin could sit in on the meetings, too.

Doug Williams, Robbinsdale