I have never written a letter to any editor. Then I saw the rhetorical headline: “Was saving the moose the right answer?”
There is no right answer, only opinion. Let me share my rhetorical response.
It was stated, “Interfering with wildlife is not a good idea.” That’s rather definitive. Later it was stated, “The general rule should be to not interfere with wildlife.” Which is it? I agree with the latter.
The writer also said, “Unless a person is qualified and authorized they should leave wildlife alone.” A person does not need “authorization” to make a judgment call. A person does not need a piece of paper to be “qualified.” A person (or persons) needs to be ready, willing and able, as these individuals obviously were.
Was saving the moose the right answer? Yes, if the moose (which some argue is threatened) is going to die, better on land than polluting the lake as a carcass for who knows how long. Someone could retrieve the carcass from the lake, but that would be interfering with nature.
Robert Brandt
Grand Marais
P.S.: Ducks Unlimited interferes with nature. Without it, there may be no ducks.
Leave a Reply