I am curious about the motivation of the article about a fish seizure from a restaurateur. The article states “armed” game wardens confiscate fish from restaurant. “Armed” is stated three times in the paper.

Everyone out of Boston knows that Maine game wardens are law enforcement officers and they carry firearms. The firearms are part of the uniform and they go where the officer goes as with any agency.

Why then, is it relevant to the article to mention the wardens were armed?

There were other articles about police in the paper, did any of these state an armed officer investigated the complaint, or an armed officer went to a domestic complaint? Of course not. So why “armed” game wardens?

Could the article have focused on the owner who thought Maine laws were a joke? Maybe it could have mentioned why a tank of fish is lucky. Maybe it could have said the wardens protected our fragile ecosystem by taking the fish.

Was the mention of arms supposed to garner sympathy for the illegal actions of the owner, or was this simply to put a negative spin on the wardens doing their job?

The pen is mightier than the sword, so watch out everyone, there is a reporter out there “armed” with a pen.

Gayland Brackett, Bethel

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.