The conflict arising on whether to allow hunting of wolves by hunters or conservation of the wolves, as a source for saving the livestock of Michigan. The overall economic problem I think is that the state of Michigan was not going to allow the residents a choice in the manner (Mary Wardell).
What role do you think the government has to manage or not to manage scarce resources like wolves?
The government passes legislations that prohibits against destructions such as hunting of animals such as wolves. Designating animals into game reserves. This will allow close monitoring and protection scarce resources like wolves from hunting. Employ game rangers to offer guarding of the game reserves (Mary Wardell).
Consider whether the needs of the local residents/hunters or the needs of wolves/ animal rights activists are of greater social …show more content…
This law was trying to grant the Natural Resources Commission the authority to designate animals as game species without legislative approval. Again they were not going to let the residents of Michigan have anything to say about the laws. They tried to get their rights to vote and keep the animals safe in Michigan (Mary Wardell).
Was it an appropriate solution for the problem?
No I think this law (public act 21) is sensitive and could pose great loss to the once endangered population of the grey wolves. I also think that the more they shoot the wolves that the less chance of the wolves reproducing and will become distinct (Mary Wardell).
How might it solve the problem presented?
It might save more of the livestock. If they hunt the wolves and kill them before they have a chance at the livestock, then there would be less livestock dying. It may solve the problem presented by using the hunting to control the wolves’ population in the game reserves (Mary Wardell).
What might have been the consequences had the bill not