Ethics questioned

To the Journal editor:

I must point out those who think the Natural Resources Commission makes its decisions on game management strictly based on science are naive. Having worked for more than 30 years in state government on wildlife and other issues, I can say there are many examples where this was not the case.

Just because the NRC is not accountable to voters (a dangerous situation in itself) does not mean it is immune to politics. The group is dominated and influenced by extremist pro-hunting organizations, both from in and outside of Michigan.

No one has disregarded the views of Upper Peninsula residents: current wolf management practices allow the removal or killing of individual wolves who pose a problem to people or animals.

Lies abound about the so-called danger posed by wolves that are not borne out by actual statistics. The legislation at hand is about more than wolves: It is about allowing a small minority of citizens and the GOP majority in Lansing to both disregard and even eliminate the constitutional right of a majority of citizens to have a say in wildlife management in our state.

Given how easy it was in the U.P. to gather signatures for a referendum against wolf hunting, it is factually obvious that even a majority of U.P. residents do not want to see wolves hunted for sport and worse, cruelly trapped.

This is really about a minority of unethical hunters who want a new trophy and is not about ethical subsistence hunting.

E. M. Liska

Holly, Mich.