Wolf coverage cited

To the Journal editor:

Thank you for publishing Michigan Department of Natural Resources talks about predators.

In this article, Brian Roell likens the subversion of the will of Michiganders not to have wolf hunts to having a doctor, not a voting public, in charge of your appendicitis therapy.

There are enormous differences. The doctor is likely to make your personal health and well being a priority.

The state management of wildlife is not at all interested in the well being of individuals, just of groups. While this is not bad, it is an oversimplificaton.

The killing of a particular wolf, for instance, impacts the well being and survival of five or six others, not to mention unrelated packs. There’s probably no such thing as killing one wolf.

One hopes that the doctor is using the best available science to make decisions about your medical care. But there is no scientific reason for a wolf hunt.

Finally, there’s no medical analogy for this: the management of wildlife is overseen by the NRC — a political body who are overly influenced by people who want to kill wildlife, not science.

There is very little way for a wildlife admirer, who enjoys but does not remove an animal (photographer, hiker) to contribute to management decisions and pay for the privilege.

It’s time for that to happen.

Chris Albert

Lebanon Junction, Ky.