The Gray Area

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Gray wolves under attack, groups want them re-listed

Posted at 1:03 PM on 28 Apr 2008

Saying that their concerns about trigger-happy hunters have been validated, 12 conservation and animal-rights groups have sued to get the gray wolf re-listed as an endangered species. The 1,500 wolves that roam through Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho were delisted on Mar. 28 and can now be shot at will; a total of 37 have been killed in the last month. Conservation groups filed suit Monday, saying that the wolf population should be 2,000 at a minimum to protect genetic diversity. But federal biologists have a goal of maintaining a minimum population of only 300 wolves, and predict that even with willy-nilly killing, the population will stabilize well above that goal in the next few years.

sources: Associated Press, Center for Biological Diversity

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (21 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

very sad

So long as the anti-wolf prejudice persists in so many people in that region, there is no way that de-listing the gray wolf can be a sensible, rational policy.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 2:46 PM on 28 Apr 2008

300?

Federal mandates call for only 300 wolves? What, so that they'll have a breeding pair for most of the major city zoos? I find it hard to believe that 300 animals is enough to ensure long-term survival, let alone genetic diversity. Even 2000 seems small to me, but I imagine, at least, that some geneticist has done some number crunching.

Can you imagine only 2000 humans left on the planet keeping the species alive?

by kmp at 4:09 PM on 28 Apr 2008

2,000 is more than it seems...

...given the fact that a typical wolf pack has such a large territorty, and wolf packs don't usually allow rival wolves in their territories.

However, you're right in that 300 is not nearly enough.

by Tasermons Partner at 6:26 PM on 28 Apr 2008

Yellowstone Wolves

I believe that 300 was the original enviromental impact studies goal that was sent to anyone requesting it and open for public comment period before the wolves were reintroduced on March 21st, 1995. I don't believe it's enough either but I am happy theres some allowed to live in the wild at all (closer than Alaska so I can go possibly experience them), considering the money and power behind the livestock industry. If you want your opinion to count, get educated and get way more involved on many different levels. Send letters to everybody from friends to politicians, visit Yellowstone and let them know why to put your money behind your voice, drop beef from your diet to become healthier and help the enviroment not just the wolves.

by hinhankola at 2:22 AM on 29 Apr 2008

"Drop Beef From Your Diet"

Hihankola's comment needs to be highlighted and emphasized. Boycotting beef and getting others to do so, while clearly and strongly stating your reason for doing so, is by far the most effective action you can take to help wild wolves. The cattle industry is the driving force behind the anti-wolf sentiment in the West, despite some humans' irrational fear of wolves. It is people's consumption of beef that is the root cause of this problem, just as consumption and overpopulation are at the root of all other environmental problems.

by Wolverine at 11:11 AM on 29 Apr 2008

excellent point

I would not go so far as to say that eating beef is the "root cause," but it is certainly true that historically, anti-wolf prejudice has been often justified as the reasonable attitude of keepers of farm animals to protect them.

Certainly in that part of the country, cattle ranchers are very powerful, and are responsible for a great deal of environmental destruction, including the killing of wildlife.

Another charismatic animal at Yellowstone who have got dangerously in the way of the ranchers' interests: bison. They had an especially hard winter, and many more died than the usual casualty rate. And yet, for fear of brucellosis spreading to cattle, those who wander into Montana might still be culled:

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 2:07 PM on 29 Apr 2008

hmmm

I find it somewhat entertaining that people still think that animals understand our insane beliefs. I love how they think that animals understand the difference btwn social and political lines. Those wolves, who were nearly exterminated, have finally "bounced" back only to be killed off again. Sorry, but how does that make sense? "We'll allow you to live, but if you live too well, we won't hesitate in killing you" Really? I love how animals are subjected to this understanding because as a human, I can barely understand it.

by green ewok at 6:54 AM on 30 Apr 2008

Right, Ewok

As part of the same willful confusion, many people who own dogs and cats love to let them run free, believing conscientiously that they are respecting their animals' nature, I guess, but in fact endangering both their animals and many other animals that they may encounter.

Wolves have been blamed for many kills of sheep and cattle, in fact perpetrated by loose dogs. The experts cannot generally tell the difference between kills carried out by wolves and dogs.

Moreover, even well-behaved dogs, let loose, can get into serious trouble. Here is another troubling story from Montana, which just appeared today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/us/30traps.html

Setting traps for animals is among the most cruel, arrogant and cowardly activities that human beings have historically been engaged in.

And no ancient Montanan "tradition" can justify it.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 7:23 AM on 30 Apr 2008

trapping

I just read that NY Times article about trapping (above). That is despicable. My feeling on trapping for fur is this: go out and earn the money yourself. Don't use a trap for your dirty money. I know that this may seem unreasonable, especially for the trapper, but I'm sick of animals (either the targeted or non-targeted ones) getting needlessly killed by these. And most of the time, it sounds painful. Just imagine what it would be like to get your leg stuck in one of these. The pain. Plus, these animals go crazy trying to free themselves (if they happen to be one of the unlucky ones not instantly killed). I can only imagine trying to gnaw off your own limb to go free, and all in vain.

by green ewok at 10:22 AM on 30 Apr 2008

quite a shame

hinhankola: I believe that 300 was the original enviromental impact studies goal that was sent to anyone requesting it and open for public comment period

Yea, and majority or respondents to the last public comment period on WY's draft management plan said they didnt agree w/ the plan and that the number of breeding pairs was too low. I'm not sure of your point? We know who makes the decisions around there (Wyoming Stock Growers Association), and it is not WYG&F.

by greenfire8 at 3:19 PM on 30 Apr 2008

not all trappers have it in for wolves

http://www.earthjustice.org/library/features/hoppy-the-st ...

Hoppy: The Story of Wolf 253
Wolf 253 was one of the first casualties as the federal government stripped Endangered Species protections for gray wolves in the northern Rockies. But this particular wolf was unique.

.....watch a local network channelâ€^TMs piece: KSL, Salt Lake City "Beloved â€^~Wolf 253â€^TM killed in Wyoming"

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2994073

by greenfire8 at 3:24 PM on 30 Apr 2008

re: 2,000 is more than it seems

Minnesota has more than 2,000, and that's just one state compared to 3 in the N. Rocky Mtn. region

by greenfire8 at 3:33 PM on 30 Apr 2008

Minnesota is a larger state...

...plus, differences in habitat and prey supplies can limit or expand a wolf pack's territory.

by Tasermons Partner at 9:55 PM on 30 Apr 2008

Actually...

...their range in MN spans less than half the state. Compare that to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming's potential if connectivity can be restored w/ the proper corridors. As for prey supplies, take a look at the Jackson Elk Refuge and the feedlots around Yellowstone for starters...

by greenfire8 at 10:46 PM on 30 Apr 2008

can't forget....

public lands grazing rights for cattle!!! Not exactly a small issue out there...

by greenfire8 at 10:47 PM on 30 Apr 2008

My dog

Looks just like a wolf..

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/2/24/ ...

I have to put a big blaze orange collar on him now due to wolf hysteria. A hunter brought his gun up at Arnie last fall on the running trail. Then he saw me and realized he wasn't a wolf.

He was scared!

Wolf hunting will come here I'm sure, they are just too successful. Sad but true. With such deer overpopulation from crops and feeding, the predators have abundant food.

I watched an osprey fishing today after running. The osprey waited for a loon pair to scare fish up then dove from a tall pine tree. He missed, then flew back up three or four times. Finally he flew away after a sploosh with a heavy load, a fish!

One loon called as if to say, we rule the water, and take all the fish we want. Go ahead and catch one if you can. They are the elite fishers, regal in bearing and being.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:55 PM on 30 Apr 2008

"connectivity"; Arnie

Good points, Greenfire8, about potential re-established ranges for wolves of the Rocky Mountains and the Northern Plains. Presumably the wolves in northern Minnesota intermingle easily with wolves in Manitoba. In the Rockies, if the natural expansion of wolves is not impeded (as it may very well be now), they might indeed extend their range as far south as northern New Mexico. They might also establish a corridor westward to the Cascades, about the possibility of which I commented on another occasion. But I do not know the geography of that region first-hand, and am restricted to my atlases; plus, what is worse, I mistrust the people of Idaho.

Also, as has been well observed in Yellowstone, when wolves suddenly re-appear in ecosystems that have been too long dominated by predatorless elk and deer, every member of the ecosystem is happier in the long run, including the elk and deer who escape becoming prey.

Amazing,
thanks as always for sharing your observations. The story of the osprey and the loons is nice. You be sure to keep Arnie safe, though!

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:45 AM on 01 May 2008

coyotes, agro aryans, and MDOT

I was/am especially exited at the potential for wolves increasing the antelope herds through controlling coyotes.

As for N. Idaho, be afraid, be very afraid...LOL...I kid. There is no shortage of agro hunters and trappers there that would like to see wolves eradicated entirely though. The Governor said he'd be the first in line for the kill.

N. Idaho is such a spectacular area....Bitteroots, Salmon/Selway, Frank Church/River of No Return, Clearwater. Cant speak too well about the potential for Idaho>Oregon>Washington migration. They are definitely beginning to show up in Oregon. Last I heard there was some confilct in policies b/w that state and the N. Rocky mtn wolves where a nebulous gap lies between the zones.

For now, I'd just like to see the N. Rocky mtn wolves able to make it from Yellowstone to Glacier....Yellowstone>Gallatin/Beaverhead/Deer Lodge/Bitterroot>Missions/Bob Marshall/Seeley-Swan>Flathead/Glacier/Waterton (Canada). I was in MT when Hwy 93 was being expanded....the main N/S arterial wolves have to cross if they want to make it to ID and points west. Those meetings were a complete nightmare! Not even going to get into what MDOT tried to pull w/ the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes in the process.....

by greenfire8 at 3:23 AM on 01 May 2008

Yep Canis

We're very careful. I think I better get him a blaze orange vest this year. Turkey hunt is on here soon I think.

I may need to take a laser pointer to distract the human AND animal predators. Harmless, but scary. I saw a black wolf about one half mile from our river sweat lodge site. Arnie may be too friendly to realize he is in trouble until it is too late, where wolves are concerned. They are said to be very intolerant of distant cousins, yikes.

Good for you g-fire save the wolves.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 6:44 AM on 01 May 2008

the juggernaut

Saving the wolves is much harder than it seems. It requires a dizzying array of inter-disciplinary consensus and cooperation. It goes far beyond breeding pairs and F&G and FWS management. Just try to get DOT to take a stance on highway expansion's impact on sprawl. They, together w/ their many backers, will play that chicken-or-the-egg card till you're ready to lay one yourself.

by greenfire8 at 1:16 PM on 01 May 2008

Does de-listing matter anyway?

The wolf-haters are going to be able to kill them anyway, according to this blog entry from earlier this year which the NRDC just sent around:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lwillcox/wolf_storm_in_ ...

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 5:09 PM on 04 May 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?