To the editor:
I have a few problems with some of the facts that Judith from Oregon shares with us to explain why she is shocked that wolf hunting is used as a management tool. First of all, it may be possible that thousands of years ago European farmers found ways to protect their livestock from predation without killing the predators, but I would guess such methods were used along side the hunting of problem wolves (and bears and big cats).
She says a wolf hunt ignores the voices of Michigan citizens. Maybe this is based on some poll, but does it reflect the voices of the people who live with wolves, and whose livelihood depends on their flocks, or does it reflect the voices of people who like the idea of wolves being somewhere, but definitely not in their neighborhood.
She says that wolves are not eaten by humans and are therefore not game. Even if nobody ate them, the use of their skins for blankets or other things would negate this, for did not God himself kill animals in Genesis to make skins for Adam and Eve after they had sinned, and yet people did not eat meat until much later in their history.She says that gray wolves have not recovered, yet she cites the Endangered Species Act. If they are no longer in any significant danger of becoming extinct, the ESA should no longer apply to them. However grizzly bears are still considered endangered outside Alaska. Has she considered that these two predator animals, along with people, must compete for the same limited prey resources? The fact that wolves have naturally reintroduced themselves to areas like Michigan shows that wolves are doing alright, and no longer need support from the ESA.