Recovery has been robust, but it’s not yet complete
Published:
The federal government
should abandon its premature plan to remove endangered species
protections for gray wolves in the lower 48 states — including Oregon,
where the apex predator’s numbers have yet to reach sustainable levels.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
last Friday formally proposed the elimination of most remaining federal
Endangered Species Act restrictions across the country, saying that the
gray wolf has sufficiently recovered after being hunted nearly to
extinction by the mid-20th century.
That conclusion conflicts with
warnings from many wildlife biologists that the species’ numbers have
not reached sustainable levels and that the gray wolf has only begun to
re-establish itself outside the northern Rockies and western Great
Lakes.
Last month, 16 scientists responsible
for most of the research that the Fish and Wildlife Service used in its
latest delisting decision sent a letter to agency Director Dan Ashe
protesting that their findings had been mischaracterized. “We do not
believe the rule reflects the conclusions of our work or the best
available science concerning the recovery of wolves,” they wrote.
Earlier this year, Reps. Peter
DeFazio, D-Ore., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., along with 50 other members of
the U.S. House of Representatives, asked Ashe to continue existing
protections for gray wolves. They called wolf recovery “a wildlife
success story in the making” — but one that has not yet reached
completion.
It was a rare bipartisan plea for an
endangered species, yet the Fish and Wildlife Service continues to
pursue a delisting strategy that appears to be driven more by hunting,
ranching and political interests than science.
Those same interests influenced the
federal government’s decision two years ago to withdraw Endangered
Species Act protection in the Northern Rockies, Eastern Oregon and
Eastern Washington and give the job of wolf management to the states.
Since that delisting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in
sanctioned hunts, including nearly 700 wolves in Idaho alone. In Idaho,
wolves in four-fifths of the state can now be killed without a license
at any time for almost any reason.
Montana’s “management plan” will allow hunters and trappers to kill up to three wolves apiece this winter.
Montana’s “management plan” will allow hunters and trappers to kill up to three wolves apiece this winter.
Yet Ashe, in his news conference last
week, went out of his way to praise the state agencies that have
authorized such large-scale wolf hunts. “We need to be dependent on the
states to carry out wildlife management on a broad scale. And states are
very competent to do that,” he said.
Even if such praise were justified,
Ashe ignores the fundamental problem with his latest delisting decision:
Scientists and conservation groups warn that it will effectively limit
the further expansion of the wolves’ current range, which is less than
10 percent of its historic reach.
In fairness, Ashe is right to call federal wolf protection to date as an endangered species success story.
While wolves were once abundant in
the West before white settlers arrived, they were hunted nearly to
extinction — and were wiped out entirely in Oregon — before a small
number were reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park and in central
Idaho in the mid-1990s. Under federal protection, the animals thrived.
At least 1,600 wolves now populate the northern Rockies, although last
year the population fell by a disturbing 7 percent, primarily because of
the 2011 delistings and the recreational hunting that resulted.
Sally Jewell, the new secretary of
the Interior, should intercede and pull the plug on the proposed
delisting. Gray wolves need additional time and protection to continue
their recovery, find their balance and expand their range so that they
can survive — and thrive — for years to come.
source
source
No comments:
Post a Comment