To the Journal editor:

I am voting no on Proposals 1 and 2 for many reasons.

Michigan has fewer than 650 wolves, only recently removed from the Endangered Species List. It’s already legal to kill wolves threatening livestock or dogs. Following a loss, landowners can be issued permits authorizing hunters/trappers to kill wolves.

These sensible control methods have been in place since federal delisting (January 2012) and will continue with or without a wolf hunt. It’s always been legal to kill a wolf endangering human life, though that’s almost unheard of. Killing wolves for fun and trophies is a different matter entirely.

The use of steel-jawed leghold traps and even using packs of dogs to chase and kill wolves could be in store, in the future, with Michigan’s politically-appointed Natural Resources Council having unilateral power to decide regarding these cruel methods without voter checks and balances. Consider that both aforementioned practices are legal in Wisconsin.

Not one member of Michigan’s NRC is a wildlife scientist or expert, nor are they mandated to utilize peer-reviewed scientific data. It’s noteworthy that a former NRC member with a natural resources background voted against naming the wolf as a game animal and against the wolf hunt.

Anyone concerned about “outside interests” influencing wolf hunting in Michigan should know that the pro-hunting side drew support from the Safari Club International and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

Proposal 2 in particular is not just about wolves. It means the politically-appointed NRC can designate as game any bird or animal not already on the list of game species-for example, the sand hill crane, a game bird in Minnesota.

My no vote on Proposal 1 means I am against the sport hunting of wolves. Voting no on Proposal 2 signifies my opposition to the power grab by the legislature.

Jackie Winkowski, advisor

National Wolfwatcher Coalition

Great Lakes Region

Gwinn