Among the most recent stories written about the outdoors, two subjects hit a raw nerve among readers — Lake Powell and wolves.

Those who responded to the Lake Powell story stood on opposite ends of the opinion scale. Most wanted it full. A few wanted it drained. No one asked for half-full.

The wolf issue was different in that some argued to allow wolves to dine on whatever was available — sheep, cows, deer, elk, mice or rabbits — and others argued not for shooting but in support of ranchers' rights to manage their livestock and wolves.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took the wolf off the endangered list within a small circle in and around Yellowstone National Park, which included a corner of Utah.

Which means ranchers in that area now have the right to shoot wolves killing cattle and sheep.

In fact, Josh Mogerman with the Natural Resources Defense Council wrote to tell me that Utah's lone wolf, No. 253, the one caught in a trap near Morgan, "was one of the animals shot in Wyoming hours after the delisting took effect."

Those who wrote in defense of the wolves had little sympathy for ranchers. Wolves taking livestock, they wrote, is a part of doing business, much like shoplifting is to retail stores.

Their answer was to let the wolves dine on taxpayer dollars, meaning, of course, to have the state pay ranchers for livestock killed. Or to have ranches suck it up and take the loss.

Wolves kill to survive, and cattle and sheep are easy targets, much more so than buffalo and elk. One writer, obviously a rancher, said when he brings his cattle in from the range in the spring, 5 percent of his calves are missing and "I have no way of knowing what killed them." Otherwise, he has no way of collecting compensation.

Then there's the other side.

"Anonymous" wrote: "... reckless hunters with a rifle will shoot any coyote, fox, badger and now wolf, because it's simply a 'varmint' and has no value other than bullet bait to a wily human."

Not so. Only problem wolves can be shot.

It's obvious Anonymous, and a few others who wrote in know nothing of wildlife management, which is what the wolves fall under now.

Entering the 20th century, Utah had its own "endangered species list." There were no elk, moose, Rocky Mountain goats or sheep, a few deer and fewer bighorn sheep and antelope.

Today, all of those big-game animals are thriving here in Utah, thanks to good wildlife management.

The same thing will happen to wolves. Lazy wolves who go for easy meals of sheep and cattle will be shot; wolves that stick to a diet of elk, deer, buffalo, mice and rabbits will, as in the past, have families and grow their packs.

In truth, hunters are no different from nonhunters. Both sides want to see wildlife do well, wolves included.

What needs to happen is both sides need to meet in the middle, shake hands and realize both have objectives that can be reached best by compromise.

Michelle said it best: "After reading through the comments on this page, there are only a couple that seem to grasp the idea that compromise is the only solution, and that does mean including the welfare of the wolf. ... We need each other."

---

E-mail: grass@desnews.com