Crying about wolves, while habitat for pheasants and other wildlife burns
There was a wolf-hunting season in Minnesota last year. It was very successful for those that realize the wolf population in this upper Midwestern state is viable and growing and a hunting season will result in proper management of the species.
To those who find a wolf hunt an abomination, well, they go to the courts or a friendly legislative body to get it stopped. This is typical of environmentalists who wish to halt something they find disgusting. In the case of the wolf hunt the wolf lovers went to a friendly state senator to push a bill that will set up a five-year moratorium on wolf hunting. His words were, “This is about fairness and doing the right thing for the majority of Minnesotans that do not want a wolf hunt.”
But what is fair about stopping something that has proven a good working model just to appease some constituents and garner votes? How long can they hold off the inevitable? The delisting of the wolf was expected in 2003, but the environmentalists kept it locked in the quagmire of court and legislative wrangling until last year. It makes no sense to block a working solution to managing a wildlife population to appease a group that bases their assessments on their feelings.
The bottom line is that the wolf population will grow exponentially if the moratorium takes place and when the moose and deer populations in wolf country take a huge hit then the hunt will happen and many wolf will die. It’s better to keep this population in check now instead of letting it get out of control and have to deal with the repercussions later.
So how long can we hold off the inevitable when it comes to our natural resources? I just watched a video on YouTube called, Pheasants Forever: A Call To Action which was hosted by Ron Schara and Bill Sherck and featured Howard Vincent, the president of this outstanding conservation organization. Pheasants Forever sees the problem of dwindling habitat but instead of wailing to the skies and hiring a building full of lawyers to beat up the farmers this group calls for action by increasing membership and partnering with landowners to slow the loss of quality hunting land. Schara said we need to get mad, and he’s right, but Sherck reminded him that to accomplish the goal means acting in a smart manner that will generate results.
These two examples highlight the difference between conservationists and environmentalists. One group creates never-ending battles, while the other creates solutions.