Groups Sue To Get Gray Wolves Back on Endangered Species List
A dozen environmental groups sued the federal government Monday in an attempt to reverse a decision to remove gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains from the endangered species list.
Since the delisting went into effect March 28, at least 35 wolves have been killed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
“That’s more than one a day under the state plans,” said Louisa Willcox, a senior wildlife advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Livingston, Mont.
“We believe that is excessive and we’ll wind up right back on the brink of extinction if this continues.”
The suit was expected, and wolf management program representatives for the three states immediately said they would intervene on behalf of the federal government.
Environmental groups also requested a preliminary injunction to stop wolf kills until the lawsuit was resolved.
The suit says federal officials ignored scientists who said a connected population of 2,000 to 5,000 wolves was necessary to ensure long-term genetic viability of the wolf in the northern Rockies.
Gray wolves once were plentiful from central Mexico to the Arctic, but virtually disappeared from the American West by the 1930s. In 1974, they were listed as endangered, and since then about $27 million has been spent by the federal government to conserve the wolves.
In 1995 and 1996, officials reintroduced 66 wolves to central Idaho and the Yellowstone National Park area. The population has soared beyond the program’s goal of 300, to 1,500 wolves throughout the northern Rockies region. The growth rate of the population is estimated at 24% annually.
Since delisting, wolves are managed by each state under plans approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They are required to maintain about 300 wolves throughout the tri-state area, but the current state plans call for a total of at least 1,050 wolves.
Wyoming’s wolf management plans have received the most criticism. In certain areas, wolves are deemed predatory and can be baited or shot by hunters using aircraft. Officials are working out details, including possible permits, for the fall wolf-hunting season in areas where wolves are categorized as trophy game animals.
In Idaho, state law was amended the day the delisting went into effect. There, people are allowed to kill wolves that are “molesting or attacking” pets and livestock.
Montana has not determined how many wolves may be killed during the fall hunting season.
The lawsuit challenging wolf delisting is expected to drag on for years. A 2007 decision to delist gray wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota is still in court. The ruling on the injunction request, however, should occur within the next few weeks.
A separate suit has challenged a revision to the Endangered Species Act that would allow wolves listed as endangered to be killed if they threatened dogs or seriously decreased deer, elk or moose populations.
© 2008 The Los Angeles Times
Hunters–typical cowardly garbage. And I am sure one of the idiots will show up here and say: but we manage Nature. Yeah-humans cant even manage themselves.
The best action they do is when they shoot each other.
But reintroducing wolves to an area where they are subject to being slaughtered is also bad–the groups that pushed for it are also responsible. They are playing games with lives. They shouldnt have reintroduced wolves until they knew they wouldnt be subject to being killed by idiot hunters and ranching interests(I sure hope the people who reintroduced the wolves are also vegan because if they eat meat they are supporting those who are now shooting them).
We are allowing the slaughter of wolves to promote way more cows then we need. As the world stares mass starvation in the face, we need to reduce meat consumption anyway.
If this appeals to our bestial, ugly, reactionary, pro-death conservative side that nature uses to select the fit, can we say that our humanist, beautiful, scientific, pro-life, liberal side is against nature?
Save the Grey Wolf! This is a symbol of the great state of Minnesota and a beautiful animal. Simply pay farmers for losses to wolves, and pay them at fair market value so they don’t feel the need to shoot them. Problem solved and I bet solved pretty cheaply.
Wolves are pretty smart, and unless they are old or sick, should know better than to go after livestock and pets. One would think they provide a service by keeping down rodent, racoon, deer… populations and keeping those populations healthy.
Hunters, ranchers and conservationists should be able to work out a compromise. (and while they are talking, make sure Cheney’s buddies follow the rules when they explore for gas and oil.)
Wolves hunt in packs unlike coyotes that hunt small prey alone.
They can take down an elk weighing a couple thousand pounds. The thing is that it’s a matter of life and death for all predators!
\
People feed the deer and are furious when mountain lions dine on their pets. So; they get out the dogs and tree the cat so they can shoot it when they catch up. What’s up with that?
I want to quote Steve Pearce (R-NM) in a letter he sent me concerning the re-introduction of the Grey Wolf; but I don’t have it with me now. I’ll post it below.
I ask him to free the wolf, he sends me a letter on the dangers to children the wolf would present “it only a matter of time” he says, REALLY!
GEORGE BUSH & STEVEN PEARCE; Two peas in a pod! He is vying for Pete Domenici’s Senate seat. Oh how I hope he is NOT elected!
I called the Governor of Wyoming today to express my displeasure regarding the killing of wolves. They allowed the phone to ring for about fifteen minutes before anyone picked up. I expressed my thoughts clearly and also indicated that I would not purchase anything made in Wyoming until their State policy reflects good environmental stewardship. The best way to beat these people is to split the businessmen and cattlemen.
Again we find moderation of posts here that appears to be based on the position of the moderator…… or what he or she regards as politically correct…Perhaps he or she will pass this post…. or need I tone it down and inject a bit more political correctness? It would appear that when one’s comments are in step with the majority here, offensive statements are overlooked, but when out of step, one must use soft and gentle words and tread carefully to avoid offending anybody. As an example the very first line of the very first response here begins with a grossly offensive and insulting statement…… That appears to be OK with the moderator……. the the other side of the issue is not given the same measure of tolerance. This is the second time one of my posts has been subjected to what I consider biased moderation.
Wolf control is a real problem and it will NOT go away. They do not practice birth control, and reproduction is limited ONLY by the availability of “game”. Game is anything that lives and breaths and can be taken down by a pack of wolves. This area is a livestock industry area, and while some of it is BLM & Forest Service land… particularly in parts of Wyoming, most of the range to the north where I live is entirely privately owned. The touchie feelie Walt Disney view expressed by those so strongly opposed to any sort of control is entirely at odds with reality. The number of wolves is in excess of double the numbers originally set as the limit beyond which control would be allowed. Lacking wolf proof confinement there is no other way to control populations and protect the RIGHTS of those living in this area. The rural west is not a theme park for the urbanites to conduct their experiments in environmental engineering in at the expense of our way of life. The total indifference to the rights, needs, and way of life in this area combined with the widespread stereotyping of the local population as some sort of beer drinking blood crazed Bubba types is deeply offensive to those of us who live here. Indifference combined with contempt for a way of life and a culture we hold dear. Below is a link to an article about this same issue which local Montana people have been commenting on. There is a stark difference between the comments of those who ACTUALLY LIVE HERE and those who live in the remote urban areas, and the radical views expressed in this Common Dreams forum are totally at odds with them. The introduction of wolves and the radical ideology that goes along with it and similar experiments and issues is creating a deep split between Urban and Rural America. A split that should not exist. Our founders warned us of the dangers of what may be called the tyranny of the majority. This is a classic case of it. For a democratic system to function and produce social and economic justice there must be respect for the needs and concerns of ALL….. not just the majority. America is shifting more and more away from this.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/04/29/news/state/18-wolfsuit.txt#comments
Howard
Dear Howard of the Rural West,
Perhaps if y’all and y’alls ancestors had not held the land and those humans and non-humans who lived there before y’all in such contempt, all the so-called urbanites and “environmental engineers” might not hold y’all in such contempt. Perhaps if y’all didn’t have such a poor track record when it comes to conservation, efficient use of resources, and respecting indiginous peoples you might deserve a little bit of the respect you crave. Perhaps if y’all didn’t historically push for the total extermination of anything (human or animal) that gets in the way of your “traditional, yet harsh” rural “lifestyle” then you wouldn’t feel so oppressed about folks wantin’ to protect a few wolves. I wish y’alls settler ancesters had been so concerned about the “Democratic” needs of “ALL” when they massacred Indians and Buffalo and Wolves in the name of private property and cheap beef to sell to the same urbanites you now decry. Sorry, bud, but if you want to sell us beef, then we get a say in how its raised. For quite a few of us, that means let the wolves return! If a goddamn hamburger costs another dollar more so that wolves can thrive, so be it. The wolves are more important to the longterm ecology and sustainability of the American West than one or even 10 more cows squeezed onto the Range.
If all y’all rough and tough westerners can’t handle livin’ with a few more wolves out on the open range, than may I suggest you move to the nice, safe suburbs where there are no more predators (’cept Real Estate agents, Bankers and other such scum).
I know Montana people, and the posters on the Gazette don’t represent the rest of the state. We are talking Billings here. I’m excluding the West Coast transplants too!
We need to connect wild areas and keep the cows OUT! At the same time keep the wolves in. Wilderness is about letting the wild be wild.
Wolves are smart, if they come around people they get shot; just don’t bother them in the wilderness.