Gray wolves, a species that has long been vilified and admired, will no longer receive federal protections under the Endangered Species Act in the Lower 48 U.S. states, the Trump administration announced Thursday. The long-anticipated move is drawing praise from those who want to see the iconic species managed by state and tribal governments, and harsh criticism from those who believe federal protections should remain in place until wolves inhabit more of their historical range. Gray wolves used to exist across most of North America. "After more than 45 years as a listed species, the gray wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery," said Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, announcing the delisting, which will revert management of wolf populations to local wildlife agencies. Federal wildlife officials are hailing the move as a success story, similar to endangered species recovery stories such as the bald eagle and American alligator. After being nearly wiped clean from the contiguous U.S. by the mid-20th century, there are now more than 6,000 gray wolves in the Lower 48 states, largely clustered in the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Western Great Lakes region. Gray Wolves To Be Removed From Endangered Species List
I have mixed feelings on this. I think in many cases state and tribal governments will handle wolf populations better than on a federal level, some states won't and I would like to see wolves in more of their former range.
You bring up some fair points. I would love to see more Gray wolf reintroductions in their former range myself. One place I would like to see this is on the Mogollon Rim of north-central Arizona to fill the niche of the extinct native subspecies there.
To say some states won't handle it well is an understatement. I am trying my hardest not to say what I think about the lawmakers in Idaho, but it's not nice believe me. Idaho bill aims to kill up to 90 percent of state’s wolves (msn.com) (If I can get on my high horse for a minute, the main reason for this is it is supported by ranchers, which is a primary reason I gave up beef decades ago. Those of you who still eat beef need to think about what you are supporting.)
Here is another relevant article. Idaho is going to kill 90% of the state’s wolves. That’s a tragedy – and bad policy Fed by myths, fairytales and Disney, America’s demonization of wolves has been going on for centuries, and continues full throttle. Nothing embodies wildness like wolves, our four-legged shadow, the dogs that long ago refused our campfire and today prefer freedom and risk over the soft sofa and short leash. The dogs that howl more than bark, add music to the land, and – if left alone to work their magic – make entire ecosystems healthy and whole. Witness Yellowstone, a national park reborn in the 1990s when wolves, absent for 70 years, were reintroduced. Everything changed for the better. Elk stopped standing around like feedlot cattle. They learned to run like the wind again. Streamside willows and other riparian vegetation, previously trampled by the elk, returned as well, and with it, a chorus of birds. All because of wolves. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.amp...ay/12/idaho-wolves-environment-animals-policy
It's not just Idaho. Now Montana is joining the killing spree. Montana has made killing wolves easier. Some hunters are pushing back. (msn.com)
Wolves haven't even recovered to most of their former range, they simply aren't allowed to do so. In general, I wouldn't really call much of what state wildlife agencies do "conservation".
Here is another relevant article. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Reports Wolf Depredation, Multiple Wolves in Eastern Plumas County “While we are thrilled to learn of the presence of multiple wolves in eastern Plumas County and the possibility of a new wolf pack in this area, where only individual dispersing wolves have wandered through in the past, we are greatly concerned that these wolves have already been implicated in the death of livestock,” said Pamela Flick, California program director for Defenders of Wildlife. “This news underscores the urgent need to work closely with local livestock producers, share information about conflict reduction tools and employ non-lethal strategies to ensure that people and wolves can successfully share the landscape as this iconic native species continues to expand into its historical territory in northern California. Defenders stands ready to assist in this critically important work in any way we can.” California Department of Fish and Wildlife Reports Wolf Depredation, Multiple Wolves in Eastern Plumas County
Here's a news article I found that was written back in 1994. Apparently, there were two elk population growth periods in Yellowstone. The first growth period happened after the native predators were eliminated from the area. The elk population grew to the point where they caused damage to the ecosystem. In response, park managers would trap and ship elk off to other places and they would shoot surplus elk and give the meat to Indian reservations, and there was hunting outside of the park as well. This management reduced the elk population below 5,000. The science supported it, and you would think everyone would've liked it. But there was a problem with it: hunters. "Although there were no significant demurrals in the scientific community, in 1967 politics reared its ugly head. With the northern herd below 5,000, hunters, outfitters and guides who had previously enjoyed abundant elk hunting on animals straying outside the park were falling on hard times. Their appeals to the Wyoming congressional delegation brought Senate hearings to Casper, Wyo., on March 11, 1967. Wyoming's Sen. Gale McGee was on the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funded the Park Service. He informed agency director George Hartzog that continued funding could be in jeopardy if the park did not stop shooting elk. Nine months later, with no new scientific evidence, the park announced a new ungulate-management policy of "natural control." Policy phase 3 had begun." Scientist says Yellowstone Park is being destroyed When that happened, the park stopped controlling elk and the population got out of control again, up to nearly 20,000 animals which caused more damage to be done. In other words, the hunters, who are supposed to be conservationists, with their "Those elk are mine!!" attitude caused more damage to be done to Yellowstone. As we all know, this huge elk population would lead to the reintroduction of wolves, and since hunters caused the elk population to grow so much the second time, that means they somewhat caused wolves to be there. So the next time you hear a person saying "Wolves are killing all the elk!" You can tell them "Well you are responsible for what they have done. You caused it to happen, you're the reason the elk population grew, you have no right to complain!" That, and while the elk control was happening, hunters were wanting to hunt elk inside the park itself, but that never happened. So I think part of their hate for wolves comes from jealousy at the fact they never got to hunt in the park, but wolves did.
I agree that hunters / the hunting fraternity nor some of the State Govt.'s across the US are the best policy advisors and drivers on sound wolf management, conservation and re-establishment. In my personal view that is the definite and wider role for both State and Federal Fish and Wildlife Departments: To come up with these policies and good conservation management practice for the individual State Govt.'s. to adopt ... and is only sound and fair. This unlike what some public interest groups crying foul over "predation" and all would have you/us believe while the very same predator species remain in biologically insignificant numbers to call these populations even a half secure or sustainable one and then clamouring to have 30 - 90% kill ratios for them to be executed by State FWS ...), Over and above the questionable role some of the hunting fraternity (along with some in the ranching community) have played in thinking and management around wildlife and their management in the US they have actually been responsible for wolf extermination prior to wolf re-establishment in Yellowstone and in Arizona/New Mexico as well as the wider United States. Unfortunately, much of what you have observed can be applied to Continental Europe too where hunting fraternity and farmers thanks to EU intensive management favouring farming over any other land usage had managed to do quite the same in terms of the larger predators that might grace our landscapes (be they wolf, jackal, bear, lynx, wild cat, martens, badger, mink et cetera). However, it seems lately common sense has taken more of an upper hand and more sound conservation policies may be set in motion on an European level forcing European States to apply the laws of the land (they should have adopted all along) to conserve large predators in European nations. Despite vocal and sometimes unsavoury and ill-informed opposition from both these communities (crying foul over perceived predation by ... wild predators as a main argument for killing them or their livestock - forget that the predation percentage is in fact conspicuously insignificant and nowhere near the daily deaths occurring in modern day diary and other livestock farming across Europe that everybody seeks to wilfully ignore for want of meat on their plates ...) predators are making a slow but steady comeback, even in heavily populated countries like my own. BTW: Contrary to what some would have you/us believe f.i. my home country is able to absorb at least 10-15 packs and numbers in the order of 100-125 (scientific evaluation done by . The centers of distribution will most probably be the forested parts of eastern and south-eastern Netherlands and links to neighbouring wolf populations in Germany and France/Belgium.
Here is another relevant article. California identifies new, rare gray wolf pack A new pack of gray wolves has been identified in Northern California, becoming the third pack to establish itself in the state in the last century, state wildlife officials and conservationists said. Three wolves in the Beckworth pack were first spotted in May on a trail camera in Plumas County near the California-Nevada state line after the tracks of two wolves were detected earlier this year in the same area, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife said. https://www-ktvu-com.cdn.ampproject...fornia-identifies-new-rare-gray-wolf-pack.amp
Here is another interesting and relevant article. Why the poaching of one gray wolf in Washington matters Losing one of the state-endangered species can mean the pack not only loses pups, but dissolves entirely. When wolf biologist Trent Roussin first saw the gray wolf on May 26 in the Sheep Creek area of Washington's Stevens County, it wasn’t immediately apparent that she had been shot. The wolf was lying on the ground miles behind a locked gate; it was quiet, Roussin says, and not particularly messy or bloody. When he and his colleagues realized she had been poached, he wasn’t surprised. But he was disappointed. Why the poaching of one gray wolf in Washington matters
The head of AZA, Dan Ashe, wrote an opinion piece against the new wolf killing legislation in states like Idaho, Montana, Wyoming. Cruelty toward wolves is erasing conservation efforts - (wpcomstaging.com)
I've been thinking about this topic lately and I've come to a couple of conclusions regarding wolf management. 1. There is a bit of disagreement as to whether the legal hunting of wolves increases tolerance or not or just does the opposite. (Here's a little of it: Wildlife Biologist Makes The Case That Wolf Hunting Is Good Conservation) Thinking about it a bit more deeply, I've really come to believe that wolf hunting does nothing to increase tolerance for them. Why? Just look at what happened in Idaho and Montana earlier this year. Doesn't look like increased tolerance to me, rather it looks like increased intolerance. And both states have allowed wolf hunting for years. 2. I've come to realize that any efforts to conserve wolves in this country, even helping to reduce conflicts with livestock owners, must be private solutions. The reason is that quite frankly, state governments have no interest in maintaining wolf populations. They serve special interests, like the livestock and hunting industries, and due to that, they're not interested in having healthy populations of wolves.
I have given up beef for months now, for albeit somewhat different but not all that different, reasons.
My parents are Indian, and my dad is Hindu, Hindus don’t eat beef, and many are vegetarian. I have no clue what beef even tatted like lol One a more related note, I truly wish that the government would do more for these beautiful animals.
As everyone knows, wolf conservation in this country is in a bit of a pit if you will, but if you look at American wildlife news really badly, you can see that it isn't just gray wolf conservation that's in a bad position. Mountain lions are in a worse position with not one but now three states (Idaho, Utah, and Texas) basically declaring open season on the cats. Then we have the example of the USFWS being forced by a judge to do their job in conserving red wolves, and now, there looks like there's going to be an attempt to downlist, at least, Florida Panthers. In short, large predator conservation in this country pretty much sucks. But like everything, there's a cause for it to suck. The reason is that the owners of this country's wildlife don't want good predator conservation. Who are the owners? The people who go out into the woods to kill wildlife aka the hunting community. I call them the owners because while all taxpayers technically pay for the wildlife, the hunting community are really the only people who have a say in how wildlife is managed. The state wildlife agencies purpose isn't to conserve biodiversity, it's to produce a large number of game animals for hunters to kill, and the hunting community can get the agencies to do whatever they want them to do since when it comes to the funding they have these people in their wallets. As a result, game agencies recognize them as their primary constituents and cater to their wants and "needs" plus, big hunting organizations (looking at you hunter nation) will sue and lobby to get what they want. In the end, what the machine of wildlife management wants is to have huge populations of game animals just below their carrying capacity, but large enough to provide a killable surplus of animals for hunters to kill. In other words, they want to keep America what it is, a gigantic game farm. Now put in a fully recovered gray wolf population. Every animal killed by wolves in the hunting community's mind means fewer animals for them personally to kill, therefore they don't want that because it doesn't help them. And that's why predator conservation in this country in general sucks in my opinion.
