Gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains will be removed from Endangered Species Act protections next month, the U.S. Fish and Wild Service announced Thursday. Management of the wolf population will be turned over to states on March 27. In states such as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming where conservatives have shown rancor toward the predators that they see as threatening to ranching and other interests, state management plans have included sanctioned wolf hunts. The Sierra Club and other green groups disagreed with the decision to delist the wolves, arguing that the Rocky Mountain population still faces threats to their long-term stability, including a lack of genetic diversity. The groups said they'll challenge the delisting in court. "The decision to remove protections for wolves is premature," said Melanie Stein of the Sierra Club. "We still have a long way to go before wolf populations are sustainable over the long term."
Across the Gray Divide
Gray wolves in northern Rocky Mountains lose endangered-species protections 13
-
Posted 11:21 AM on 21 Feb 2008
-
Posted in
Read More About
Related Stories
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Another coal plant bites the dust
Barcelona outcome: White House strategy is plea for more time
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
javaearth Posted 4:57 am
21 Feb 2008
Why are they making so many poor decisions? - There is more killing of the wildlife animals versus protection of them!
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:00 am
21 Feb 2008
Permalink
birdrehabber Posted 6:03 am
21 Feb 2008
Permalink
mskellyann Posted 3:39 am
22 Feb 2008
And it's the number one reason why I am a vegetarian. Ranchers and wolves simply cannot peacefully coexist.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:43 am
22 Feb 2008
Yesterday's message from Defenders of Wildlife said in part:
<<
Idaho officials want to use aerial gunning to kill wolves in their state. Wyoming agencies have left the door open to the use of traps and poison to eliminate wolves. And officials in both states -- and Montana -- have proposed wolf hunts.
>>
The use of traps, poison and aircraft is human behavior at its basest. It is already bad enough that aerial hunting of wolves is tolerated in Alaska; it is dreadful that it may be introduced before long in Idaho.
If the animosity of ranchers against wolves is motivated by a sense of affection on their part for their own cattle, well, that is a mitigating circumstance -- though of course there is nothing wholesome about the relationship between a rancher and his cattle to begin with, and ranching is hardly a golden example of good relations between humans and animals. But ranchers and others are given a great deal of wicked misinformation about wolves and their alleged destructiveness. An important part of the work of pro-wolf conservationists in the Northern Rockies ought to be to fight aggressively against such misinformation. And that is very tough work indeed, because prejudices are deeply rooted.
As for hunters, I can think of nothing to mitigate their anti-wolf animosity.
Permalink
morzy01 Posted 5:03 am
22 Feb 2008
Fact: As far as I know, wolves are the only creatures, other than humans, that kill for the pure sport and fun of it.
If they ever reach their sustainable population, whatever that is since they breed like rabbits, please enjoy running for you life the next time you go out to hug a tree.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:19 am
22 Feb 2008
There's no such thing as an unborn child. It's called a fetus. Anyone who uses this term shows their lack of knowledge.
Wolves do not kill for "the pure sport and fun of it," where in the world did you get this idiocy? Like every animal except humans, wolves kill only to eat and, on rare occasions, to defend themselves.
Humans who refuse to share the planet with other species should go live elsewhere, like the moon. We could even give them 24 hours of oxygen once they get there. Wolves have every bit as much right to live as people in general, and in some cases, more so.
To respond to a legitimate post from caniscandida, ranchers are by far the most environmentally destructive force in the western U.S., and they should be totally removed from this region of the country. Short of that, cattle should be completely removed from OUR public lands and ranchers should be forced to live with all native species, including wolves, coyotes, and mountain lions and should not be allowed to kill them for any reason. There are many other restrictions that should be placed on cattle and sheep ranching in the west, but these are the ones specifically relevant to this issue.
Permalink
rrecroc Posted 11:38 am
22 Feb 2008
Appointments by the President should be totally disallowed by legislation to the judicial, legislative or to public regulatory agencies.
Ipso facto, appointments to the Judicial or Legislative branch directly undermines the balance of power desired by the founding fathers.
This means appointments to either the enforcement or trial portions of the judicial branch. The President, no matter what party he is from should not be allowed to select the Attorney General of the US .......state attorney generals should not be political appointees ..... and of course the Supreme Court nominees should not come from the President.
High level judges should be selected by a committee of their peers (national lawyers organization) with representatives of the public on the committee. Congressional approval, though I do not like the idea would be okay for the Supreme Court.
Regulatory agencies should be totally immune from Presidential imput with oversight from Congress.
Bush appointed key members to US Fish and Game, FDA, etc and we have seen the results.
No President should have this power ..... no matter what party they represent.
Permalink
rrecroc Posted 11:42 am
22 Feb 2008
Money is more important than life and the rights or others .....
Disgusting monkeys .....
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:56 am
24 Feb 2008
http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2008/02/22/ne ...
Permalink
Greenneck Posted 4:04 pm
27 Feb 2008
I'd thought I'd add my sportsman two cents to the mix, as someone who has lived in two states with wolf populations (Montana and New Mexico).
While Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have committed to maintaining a minimum of 150 wolves in their respective states (currently there are about 500 in each), it is likely the states will never approach that crisis 150 level.
SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN FOR SPORTSMEN?
In a nutshell:
* Wolves are good for other wildlife and help promote healthy, balanced landscapes. That's a fact. They do knock down elk and deer populations, but it is a very rare occurrence for wolves to completely eat out their game (think about it, that wouldn't be much of an evolutionary strategy, would it?).
* Wolves help hunters by promoting healthy game populations, weeding out the weak, sick, and old (it will be interesting to see if wolves help control Chronic Wasting Disease in the Northern Rockies, an emerging problem).
* Wolves help fishermen by protecting riparian areas from over-graze by elk and deer, which help keeps streams and rivers shaded, thus keeping water cooler for fish.
If you are the kind of hunter who only cares about hanging horn-porn on his wall, and likes shooting from the back of a pick-up, then maybe you aren't a fan of wolves because you may actually have to get off your ass to hunt. (By the way, maybe you aren't a fan of wildlife in general. And you aren't much of a hunter).
On the other hand, if part of the hunting and fishing experience for you is participating in the outdoors, appreciating the work of God or evolution (take your pick), then you will love being outdoors in a healthier wolf-influenced landscape. More birds, more fish, more critters, more water, more vegetation, more FUN.
The greatest experience hunting I ever had was in the Gravelly Mountains in southwest Montana. It was very cold, fairly remote, and the elk were hard to find. We built a fire in the snow to warm up. We humped over ridges through 4-foot snow drifts.
But on that day, alongside the elk prints we were tracking, we found wolf and mountain lion prints. The wolves and mountain lions were doing the same thing we were. Truly wild.
I didn't harvest an elk that day; but I did harvest an experience. And I don't need it to hang it on my wall to remember, because I carry it in my heart everywhere I go.
http://www.sierrasportsmen.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:35 pm
27 Feb 2008
The nature writer (and hunter!) Rick Bass wrote a powerful little book about some of the first wolves reintroduced into the Northern Rockies, "The Ninemile Wolves," back in the early 1990s. He lives -- still, God willing -- in the Yaak Valley of northwestern Montana. I wonder how he has involved himself in the latest downturn in the wolves' fortune.
In New Mexico, I wonder what you have observed. The only wild wolves are recently reintroduced Mexican wolves, in the Gila Mountains in the southwest. One has heard discouraging reports from the Arizona side of the border, into which the Gila Mountains region spills, to the effect that many ranchers, etc., cannot abide the presence of wolves, and a good number of the reintroduced wolves have been illegally and surreptitiously killed. But I wonder if the wolves have had better luck in the Land of Enchantment.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:45 pm
27 Feb 2008
Go to the congress and defend wolves and risk having your car vandalized or worse, the next time you park in a remote area?
It's a dilemna, considering the video game kids waiting to join the marines who I regularly spot out in the woods firing at whatever they can see with dad's most powerful guns.
The wackos with the infamous "No wolves" bumperstickers will be out in force at the meetings. They are up in arms at wolves ocasionally killing bear dogs on the hunt. Or during practice seasson, they let the bear hunters take their dogs out to chase bears before the season to "practice".
A professional wildlife scientist I know who should know better said, "Well those bear dogs are expensive." I guess she forgot the beaver and deer overpopulation problems?
But it illustrates why we can expect little help from the professional wildlife people, they view wildlife as a quantity to be counted, not a spiritual experience to be enjoyed.
In order to further their careers in the GOP wacked government conservation organizations local, state, and federal, the attitude of any sentimentality towards wildlife must be eliminated early on.
These are friends, but they named the otter that swam near the home I rented to them, and then joked, we could get 75 bucks for that pelt, maybe we should trap it. I didn't say anything. I got the feeling it wasn't a joke, especially when I spotted a pelt on the couch, yikes.
Humans... their heatbeat annoys me. Hehey.
Permalink