American Gray Wolves Lose Federal Protection
Hunting Season Opens Again
A Sign of Progress?
One thousand two hundred North American gray wolves were removed from US government federal protection today in Montana and Idaho.
Another 4,000 wolves in other regions of the United States may also be removed from the endangered species list as early as next year. This comes as an announcement from Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. All of these animals are open to what wildlife management scientists euphemistically call "harvesting".
While 1,200 animals today may seem like many for some people, in comparison to the tens of thousands more that lived in the American wildlands around 100 years ago, this is not very many at all. The reason why these animals were on the endangered species list to begin with may well have been for legitimate reasons.
While residents who reside on the same land with the wolves - and the politicians who represent these people - bicker among themselves, who is there to represent the wolves?
What's Your Opinion?
By removing wolves from the endangered species list, is this a sign of disciplined wildlife management tempered by scientific ecological process?
Or does this mark another era of wholesale slaughter of an animal that has no rights, and no government protection, to keep someone from suddenly ending its life at the pull of a trigger?
What is your opinion? Please provide your comments in the box below.
One thousand two hundred North American gray wolves were removed from US government federal protection today in Montana and Idaho.
Another 4,000 wolves in other regions of the United States may also be removed from the endangered species list as early as next year. This comes as an announcement from Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. All of these animals are open to what wildlife management scientists euphemistically call "harvesting".
While 1,200 animals today may seem like many for some people, in comparison to the tens of thousands more that lived in the American wildlands around 100 years ago, this is not very many at all. The reason why these animals were on the endangered species list to begin with may well have been for legitimate reasons.
While residents who reside on the same land with the wolves - and the politicians who represent these people - bicker among themselves, who is there to represent the wolves?
What's Your Opinion?
By removing wolves from the endangered species list, is this a sign of disciplined wildlife management tempered by scientific ecological process?
Or does this mark another era of wholesale slaughter of an animal that has no rights, and no government protection, to keep someone from suddenly ending its life at the pull of a trigger?
What is your opinion? Please provide your comments in the box below.
Published by John Melendez
The Yahoo! Contributor Network ranks John Melendez in the Top 1% of its 400,000 writers. John has worked as a journalist and technical writer developing content for industry, health care, and IT. John Me... View profile
Gray Wolf May Get De-Listed The U.S. Inspector General's new assessment of leadership and enforcement within the Federal Fish, Wild Life and Parks may be lacking. The FWP is considering de-listing from the...
Endangered Species Protection of the Egyptian Jackal is Now the Only Opt...The Egyptian jackal is critically endangered, only 40 remain and there is no endangered species protection in place in Egypt to stop wanton hunting and trapping. More must be do...- Florida Manatees to Be Removed Off Endangered Species ListThe manatee is on the federal and Florida state endangered species list, but Florida voted to remove it off their list and reduce it to threatened status.
Endangered Species Act at RiskThe Bush Administration has rushed forward plans to gut key elements of laws protecting Endangered Species. The last minute nature of this effort smacks of political vengeance t...- Should Wolves Remain on the Endangered Species List?There is a lot of controversy surrounding the decision to keep wolves in the western states on the endangered species list. Now a new problem arises in that the endangered species list is now being scrutinized.
- Mexican Gray Wolves Were Declared and Endangered Species in 1976
- Endangered Wolves Endangering Wisconsin Pets
- Development in Northern Canada Threatens the Survival of Wildlife Fisheries, Says...
- Do You like Wolves? Watch These Wolf Pack Videos!
- Killing of Wolves Begins
- Wolves Invade City of Moline
- Reintroduction of Wolves Into Yellowstone National Park
7 Comments
Post a Comment(cont'd from previous comment) Both Idaho and Montana basically withdrew all state management activities when wolves were relisted over a year ago. Both of those governors sent letters to Interior Secretary Salazar commenting that they will no longer offer any management or enforcement of 'your' wolves (meaning the federal government), which essentially eliminated any enforcement of protected status at that point. They simply refused to respond to any wolf issues.
Clearly, the political agendas are greatly influencing what has to this point been a success story for the ESA. How that will shape the future of the species remains to be seen.
(cont'd from previous comment) The wovles don't pay attention to state lines.
And for the record, most of the wolves in NW Montana and northern Idaho came down naturally from Canada. The wolves in Yellowstone and southern Montana and southern/central Idaho were reintroduced. Most of these populations are doing well, however the current blanket delisting will remove protection in states like Colorado and Utah where wolves have barely begun to explore. The state of Utah has gone on record already as stating that no wolves will be allowed to exist there. This is the unfortunate downside of state management. (cont'd)
(cont'd from previous comment) No doubt there is predation on these ungulates, however the idea that they have been 'wiped out' is ludicrous. The herds move to safer ground when wolves appear, so they just aren't where they traditionally have been before the wolves arrived.
The bigger issue with removing protection under the ESA is primarily political, and in Montana wolves have been listed and de-listed multiple times. These decisions had more to do with political and geographical boundaries than biology. A federal judge in Montana has ruled that protection cannot end at a geographical boundary (such as a state line) and when the de-listing was originally discussed, the state of Wyoming's plan was not approved by the federal government. Montana and Idaho had acceptable plans, but how can wolves be protected in one state, and not another? (cont'd)
A comment from a reader elsewhere: Ted's right. The ESA was never meant to protect a species indefinitely. The idea is to provide protection and give a threatened species a chance to recover. The fact that the discussion even exists shows that to a large extent wolf recovery in several western states has been a success. In the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, and the NCDE (Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem) wolf populations are exceeding the recovery expectations. Wolves reproduce rapidly, and have done so even more quickly and successfully than biologists anticipated in many areas. This is of course a source of controversy with some ranchers and hunters. Ranchers for obvious reasons, and hunters because they compete for the same food. I have worked extensively in NW Montana, where this issue is extremely polarized. One of the most common things I would hear from some hunters was that there was no elk or deer left because wolves had wiped them out. (cont'd)
con'td from previous comment: Further, at this point, the "harvesting" of the animals will be needed to assure the population does not outgrow the population of the ungulates and other species on which they prey. If that happens, there is a much greater likelihood the animals will come into conflict with the ranchers and other folks, and whether you like it or not, they have a right to make their living, too,
Really, this may be a story comparable with the de-listing of the bald eagle and should be looked at with some signs of hope.
By the way, I am no expert on this issue, although I lived in Wyoming during the 1980s, and this was a significant issue that was followed statewide by the news media. My statements reflect the reporting of my fellow journalists while I lived out there, as well as other news media that have followed this issue over the years ever since.
A comment from a reader elsewhere: Actually, if this is part of the same wolf population that was introduced into northern Wyoming during the 1980s, this should be considered a huge victory.
First off, that introduction was bitterly contested by ranchers who feared the impact on their cattle and sheep herds. They also argued that the introduction of gray wolves into the area was not a re-introduction, as wildlife advocates and officials said, because they ranchers and other opponents believed the original population of wolves in Yellowstone was not the gray wolf or was a subspecies that had gone extinct.
Nevertheless, the introduction was allowed, and the lifting of the protection is an indication that the population of the animals has grown over the past 30 years to a self-sustaining level. That is a huge success story for the animals.
(cont'd)
A comment from a reader elsewhere:
Of course not; it's heartbreaking. And very ignorant, as wolves are a critical part of the chain of life and, with each species we decimate, we come closer to our own end on this planet. Most people who DO understand this are crying in the dark; the others either don't get it or are pretending it will go away if they ignore the problem.