We don’t know that we’d agree with state Rep. Cam Cavitt’s assertion that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is “trigger-happy,” but we insist the DNR respond to requests from lawmakers and the Rogers City City Council for an explanation of the state’s decision to kill Roger the elk.

For two autumns, Roger came out of the woods and spent time hanging around Rogers City, lazing along the beach and meandering through city parks and getting his picture taken by adoring locals and visitors who gave him his name in honor of the city he’d decided to call home.

This autumn, despite admonitions from the DNR and city officials, some people started getting too close to Roger, the DNR said, and Roger was getting too accustomed to the presence of humans.

As Roger entered the rut, or elk mating season, he became more aggressive and unpredictable, and DNR officials decided to kill him.

Officials later said moving him wasn’t an acceptable alternative, because Roger had grown used to residential settings and would just meander into some other community. He wouldn’t interact well with other elk at an elk sanctuary because, despite his inclination to city living, he remained wild, while sanctuary elks had always only known people.

Rogers City officials weren’t involved in the decision to euthanize Roger and played no role in the slaying except that Rogers City police blocked off the scene where it happened.

This week, Cavitt, R-Cheboygan, joined 18 of his state House colleagues in penning a letter to the DNR demanding an explanation for the decision to kill Roger and the lack of consultation with local officials.

“I understand we need to keep the public safe, but there should have been a public forum about relocation before he was killed,” Cavitt said in a statement. “Roger was a member of our community. The DNR’s misguided belief it could serve as judge, jury, and executioner is completely unacceptable.”

We hope that lawmakers and the Rogers City City Council don’t approach the situation with the predetermined conclusion that the DNR acted wrongly and instead listen to what the DNR — experts in wildlife management — have to say.

But we also hope the DNR acts with full transparency in explaining its decision, including a full airing of whether officials fully explored any alternatives to killing the animal.

Once we hear what the DNR has to say, then we can pass judgment.