Science and Society
The Latest Developments in Science and Technology

Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Previous | Main | Next »

The Fate of the Gray Wolf

February 21, 2008 2:04 PM

Gray_wolf_080221_main The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced that the gray wolf in the northern Rockies "is thriving and no longer requires the protection of the Endangered Species Act."  The Interior Department says there are now 1,500 wolves roaming free in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

The wolves, which once ranged from Mexico to the Arctic, all but disappeared by the 1930s.  They were listed as an endangered species in 1973.  In 1995, amid great controversy, wolves from Canada were released in the region, and now, says the government, there are at least 100 breeding pairs in the area.

A quote from Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary of the Interior: "The wolf population in the Northern Rockies has far exceeded its recovery goal and continues to expand its size and range. States, tribes, conservation groups, federal agencies and citizens of both regions can be proud of their roles in this remarkable conservation success story."  Find more HERE, and the actual rule, proposing that state governments take over, HERE.

Local people, especially ranchers, have been pushing for the government to do what it did today.  They complain about wolves threatening their livestock; now, if the decision stands, they'll be allowed to hunt them.

But not so fast, say environmental groups.  “The decision to remove protections for wolves is premature. We still have a long way to go before wolf populations are sustainable over the long term. This is like declaring victory at mile eighteen in a marathon,” says Melanie Stein of the Sierra Club.  They had been expecting today's decision, and had their responses -- as well as legal petitions -- at the ready.

Take a look as well at what's been posted by the National Wildlife Federation.

And contrast it with an editorial last month in the Idaho Statesman: "As the wolf population continues to increase -- actually explode -- so do concerns about conflicts." The paper, like many of its readers, expresses distrust of Washington bureaucrats making decisions from afar.

The issue is really more nuanced than left-vs.-right.  But how you feel about the gray wolf, it's been suggested, can depend on where you live, how you vote, how you interpret Genesis.  Are you a rancher or a city-dweller?  Do you think of humans mostly as having domain over the earth, or having an obligation to be stewards of it? 

February 21, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (77)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Unfortunately, we humans have gotten used to "taking dominion" over the land. We've only recently realized that we've taken so much dominion that we're about to run out of resources. We moved into the wolves' territory (and the territories of a lot of other animals) and now, we consider them to be pests. The truth be known, we are the pests. We've interrupted and broken food chains and disrupted whole ecologies. We still don't have a handle on the effect we've had on the "big picture." The whole planetary ecological system is being disrupted because of our rapacious ways. I hope we can learn quickly enough to stave off disaster.

Posted by: Andy | Feb 21, 2008 2:19:24 PM

I can't believe that since there are a whole 1500 wolves they are going to start killing them again. Of course that's about how many Indians were left when we decided to quit killing them off. The wolves will be back on the endangered species list in no time once the good ol boys get the ok to start shooting.

Posted by: Wayne | Feb 21, 2008 2:36:04 PM

1,500 doesn't sound like that many. This on the heels of the story that the governemnt had done the research and finished the report making ready the polar bear's move to threatened/endangered status but our government held off until they could get some oil drilling legislation in place. They knew that if the polar bear became protected first, they couldn't let their friends drill in the bears' habitat. Republicans are unbelievable. Well, unfortunately, I CAN believe it.

Posted by: TSnow27604 | Feb 21, 2008 4:13:51 PM

As a resident of wolf country (Montana), I can tell you that this decision has been negotiated for at least a couple years now. The issue was whether the states could manage the wolf population so that it didn't decline again. Wyoming was the hold out, since their original plan would have allowed up to half the wolves to be killed. Probably no one is satisfied with the outcome, but if you are going to have wolves in ranch country, some kind of flexibility in management is going to be necessary.

Posted by: jock59801 | Feb 21, 2008 4:28:00 PM

this is outrageous. 1500 is not enough for a successful reproductive population. Next Bush will be organizing Florida Panther hunts and Manatee roasts.

Posted by: cturple | Feb 21, 2008 4:41:52 PM

Wolves are beautiful creatures that deserve FULL PROTECTION!!

Ranchers.....build a bigger fence!!

Posted by: johnsan | Feb 21, 2008 4:44:18 PM

I say let the rancher hunt them. Only on the wolf's terms. No guns. Claws and fangs only. Fair's fair.

Posted by: BigT | Feb 21, 2008 4:46:19 PM

It just doesn't make sense...spend millions to have Canadian wolves released in Yellowstone...sucessful program....wolf population expands...wolves move and change ranges..solution is to shoot wolves.
How American!!

Posted by: Canajunlady | Feb 21, 2008 4:49:21 PM

hunt wolves at your own risk

Posted by: chris | Feb 21, 2008 4:51:54 PM

The wolf is part of the land just as we are. He is our brother. He has just as much right to the land as we do. We can learn to live with nature or learn to die without it. We will soon learn the latter I fear.

Posted by: jijalagi | Feb 21, 2008 5:04:30 PM

I cant beleive this mess! how dare we shoot something that deserves to be here just as much as we do. hello they were here first. i know and understand that there is an issue because of farming and ranching, but you know what you knew that moving to the mountanous states where you live you would encounter problems like this. did you not? now everyone wants to hunt & shoot them. not to mention people are hunting and shooting with high powered rifles... oh thats real fair. how stupid! i agree fangs and claws all the way. things like this make me question my americanism.... how sad for this animal, to be protected and now to be klled off again. all we can do is pray.

Posted by: angryinohio | Feb 21, 2008 5:04:31 PM

I just returned from a vacation in Wyoming and learned first hand from ranchers there that the wolf population needs to be controlled. The wolfs may be beautiful creatures, but they no longer have a natural predator. There have been wolf attacks on ranchers live stock and actual ranchers (humans) themselves. So, while we need to maintain the wolf population, we also need to consider how an exploding population without a natural predator can impact the local residents in these western states. It's not an easy issue to solve, but the population must be controlled for all (human and wolf) to survive.

Posted by: Bill | Feb 21, 2008 5:04:52 PM

pencil head bureaucrats have failed to educate ranchers and farmers of the threats wolves poses to livestocks. They have failed to prove that wolves don't threaten the livelihoods of ranchers and farmers. People's livelihoods are more important than wolves.

Posted by: fred | Feb 21, 2008 5:09:57 PM

Wow, what a response. How many people here have had the advantage of seeing these magnificent animals take down an Elk? They will run them down when the snow is deep and crusted, where the elk will fall threw and they stay on top. They will hang on the bellies of these animals until there guts fall out and they trip on them. Then they go after another, and another. They eat only the guts out of them and leave the rest.

It is a wonderful site. I think all should witness it before they give an opinion.

Posted by: henry | Feb 21, 2008 5:12:37 PM

I think that this is very bad for our country, if our wolfs are going to be hunted then what will happen if they get hunted again? We just hurt our country so much and don't care, like global warming.

Posted by: Shina | Feb 21, 2008 5:25:53 PM

Just read "State of Fear" this morning and boy does this conversation sound familiar. I guess Michael msy be right after all.

Posted by: Quietman | Feb 21, 2008 5:29:26 PM

Shina
Urban or suburban neighborhood?

Posted by: Quietman | Feb 21, 2008 5:35:18 PM

henry - I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, wolves are predators, and when they take down an elk it probably isn't pretty. So? Does that mean they don't have a right to exist? As for your "eat only the guts out of them," that would be a pretty stupid wolf, and a pretty gullible person to believe it.

Posted by: jock59801 | Feb 21, 2008 5:43:54 PM

For those of you who don't live where the wolves do - think about this little nugget. They say 1500 wolves, however, they really don't know how many there are. This is only an estimate and it is conservative at best. The last know originally released breeding pair of wolves died this last year at about 12 years old. If those wolves had just one litter of 8 pups a year for twelve years, and only half lived to breeding age, you would be talking about more than 100 breeding pairs in a very short amount of time and that is just one pair. How many canines (aka dogs)living in pampered homes live that long??? These are very resilient, dangerous, smart, adaptive, and prolific predators that have dramatically impacted several large game populations in a short amount of time. We no longer live in a "natural" wild land, and we have been managing wildlife populations for the last century. Letting the wolf population explode without parameters to protect other wildlife populations and human will not be a pretty sight. populations. On your next camping trip to areas with wolves, remember to keep your pets and children close to you at all times - wolves think of them as tasty little snacks! Really not kidding, there are already documented cases of pets being taken right in front of their owners.

Posted by: Informed Citizen | Feb 21, 2008 5:55:35 PM

I live in a rural mountain area, can't see any neighbors unless it winter. We see bears, deer, coyote and tracks from big cats (never see the cats but most likely cougar) quite often around the perimeter of my property. We supposedly have timer wolves in the region but I've never seen one. You watch the kids and keep large dogs - no problem with the wildlife. You don't keep dogs, you got worries.

Posted by: Quietman | Feb 21, 2008 6:09:13 PM

Post a comment





 

TECHNOLOGY VIDEOS