The Balance

Humans are an interesting lot. I should know; I am one. We want hot soup, but when we eat it, we insist on cooling it off. We want a Slurpee, but complain when we suffer from brain freeze. When it’s winter, we wish it were summer, and vice versa. We enjoy hunting animals, but have to avoid extinguishing a species altogether. We desire to see wolves come back from the brink of extinction, but have to take care that the wolves aren’t killing everything in sight. It’s a mad world, and we humans have taken it upon ourselves to try and create an elusive balance in this world. When it comes to the environment, we haven’t exactly shown that we are capable of maintaining equilibrium. But we can certainly work towards progress and finding the perfect balance between civilization and our planet.

True balance requires the voicing of hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions of opinions and expertise. Balance cannot be established through the dictations of one or two people. President Franklin Roosevelt understood this as he instituted his “Brain Trust” – a group of advisers who were experts in their fields, including an author and agricultural economist. Many of his decisions were made after careful consideration of his advisers’ input. The American government is designed to work similarly, but on a much larger scale. Every citizen is allowed to voice his or her concerns to government officials in the hopes that his or her words facilitate positive change.

Legislators are currently involved in deciding the fates of both wolves and deer. The wolf population is on the rise and there are many who suffer livestock losses because of them. The mule deer population is on the decline and there are those who claim they suffer, such as hunters, because there aren’t enough deer to go around. In both instances, we humans seek to control nature: in one case, by culling numbers; in the other, by allowing a species to flourish, simply to cut it down again for sport. I’m not condoning or condemning the one or the other; I’m merely commenting on the neurotic necessity we humans possess for control.

It is hard for me to take one side or the other on the wolf debate. I have loved wolves since I was 12, and despite their predatory and vicious nature I admire how they work together in a pack and survive against daunting odds. But wolves are killing domesticated animals that provide our communities with necessary commodities: wool, milk, cheese, meat, etc. Should our government pass a bill rescinding the current protection afforded wolves, I will not be angry. I believe in humankind enough to know that, should the gray wolf population dwindle again, we will ensure that a sort of wavering balance is kept. But only as long as sensible people are continually involved in the process.

I would encourage everyone who has strong feelings toward the various issues surrounding nature to take part in the democratic process and voice your opinion. It’s not enough, though, to say, “I hate wolves. They should all be killed.” Find the reason behind your opinion and discover how to show others why you feel the way you do. With enough support, your opinions could help shape the fate of wolves, deer, or even us humans.