Whither Wolves in Michigan?

There will be a wolf hunt this fall in three areas of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The animals have become a threat to the local framers, killing cattle and other livestock, and have even hurt the deer population. But more than that, there are fears that the wild dogs will become predatory against people.

Well, why wait until the fall if such is the case? If livestock are being killed now, and if the wolves are appearing in residents' back yards and in the streets of small towns now, as reports assert, why wait until the fall? Perhaps there are decent ecological reasons for it, but still, if the threat is that grave, waiting seems ill advised.

Some feel that the wolf packs can be trained to stay away from livestock because killing some wolves interrupts the pack. Perhaps; but that seems a bit pie in the sky. How does one train wild animals to respect human endeavors? We're not saying that it can't be done, but only that the idea seems at odds with itself. At the end of the day, it comes down to a rather simple idea of micromanaging the environment.

Which brings us to the real issue: why on earth ought we expect government, any government, be capable of caring for everything to the nth degree? The wolf issue is a decent example of the fallacy of such thought. Congress came up with the Endangered Species Act in 1973 and put wolves on it because they had been killed to the point of extinction. They came off the list last January because of their resurgence, and now they're a threat. Now we have a battle of wills between residents of the UP concerned for their safety, academics who want to 'train' wild animals, and downstate Michiganders over whether a hunt is good or not.

Here's a simple solution: if an animal is a danger to human beings and human commerce, why not allow people to protect their lives and property as they need to, on a case by case basis? Why is the government at any level involved in this at all? Would there be a problem today if the Endangered Species Act had never been proposed? Why is it presumed that we're better off with wolves at all?

Balance, dear fellow, balance. But why must everything be balanced? What is this idea of balance except a presumption that somehow, someway, anything and everything must stay as it once was or, at least, how some people fancy that it once was?

Things change. If we can accept that concept, with a proper respect for the unchanging, we will find our world a simpler place. Until then, we will only have a world of micromangers who can never micromanage quite rightly, and for a simple reason: no one can.