LAUREL COUNTY, Ky. — The slight of a human hand can diminish prosperity for another with reckless abandon.  Time and time again, populations bicker over what is most important to them, and, in most cases, it comes down to politics or money.

Two recent examples of this that were recently covered in the news is a Wisconsin state bill approving the hunting of wolves in the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Game Commission representing 11 tribes of the Ojibwe, and the debate over the growing number of Outer Banks, North Carolina Corolla horses upon tourist beaches.  Both species of wildlife lack natural predators and were initially protected because of their population’s diminishing numbers and historic importance to each region.  

More specifically, the wolves in Wisconsin have sacred religious importance to the Ojibwe, also known as the Chippewa or Anishainaabe tribes, because of oral tales told that the Ma’iingan (wolf) is brother to ‘original man,’ and the wild Corolla herds are descendants from mounts that belonged to Spanish explorers five centuries ago, which are protected by Congress.  Wisconsin set a goal to allow wolves clearance to enter the region, and, with protection, the population has grown to about 800. However, the carrying capacity for the state’s natural environment is about 1,000, according to environmental studies by the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  Although the growing wolf population poses as a problem for livestock and public safety.

The herd of horses are not native to the region, but according to fossil records of wild horses in North America, they are linked to species dating back more than 11,000 years ago.  The issue at hand is the growing population of 140 strong occupying more than 7,500 acres stomping through a fragile ecosystem of beaches, grasslands, marshes and forests as well as nesting grounds for sea turtles and endangered migratory birds.

The clashing of religion, politics and historic importance is always at hand, the question is where the middle ground might be.  Should one species be chosen to prosper over the other, or allow the natural environment to take its own destructive course?  Ethics, in my opinion, is something that should closely be analyzed in these situations.  Did Wisconsin’s decision to slaughter wolves send the message that agriculture affluence is more important that a native religion?  Does protecting a wild herd of horses introduced by the Spanish mean the destruction of touristic activities and various endangered species?

There is no easy answer to which species should prosper more than the other, but as someone well-versed in environmental studies, the natural environment, in most cases, should take its own course and eventually it will balance itself out, void of politics and religion.  But if we as a large human population devoid of our own population control believe we can control nature, we have a much bigger fight to battle for many generations and millennia.



mmccrarey@sentinel-echo.com