Wolves in Wyoming Lose Their Protection

[Pooky 3,783]

Wyoming Wolves to Lose Endangered Species Act Protection

August 31, 2012|Laura Zuckerman | Reuters

JACKSON, Wyoming (Reuters) - Gray wolves in Wyoming, the last still federally protected in the northern Rockies, will lose endangered species status at the end of next month, opening them to unregulated killing in most of the state, the U.S. government said on Friday.

The planned delisting of Wyoming's estimated 350 wolves caps a steady progression of diminishing federal safeguards for a predator once hunted, trapped and poisoned to the brink of extinction throughout most of the continental United States.

Wyoming will officially regain control over the management of its wolf population on September 30, joining Montana and Idaho, where more than 1,500 wolves were removed from the federal endangered list in May of 2011.

About 4,000 wolves in the northern Great Lakes region -- primarily Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota -- lost their status as endangered or threatened last January.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe on Friday hailed delisting of the last wolf population in the northern Rockies as a victory assured by the Endangered Species Act and cooperation among state and federal partners.

"The return of the wolf to the Northern Rocky Mountains is a major success story," he said in a statement.

Conservationists decried the move, questioning how an animal could be protected until September 30 only to be subject to "open fire" on October 1, the first day of Wyoming's regulated hunting season. Environmental groups say they fear ending federal safeguards could push wolves back to the brink.

Like Idaho and Montana, Wyoming is required to maintain a statewide population of at least 150 wolves, including 15 breeding pairs, to prevent a relisting.

Wyoming wolves will remain off-limits to hunters inside national wildlife refuges and national parks, including Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, as well as on the Wind River Indian Reservation.

FROM PROTECTION TO BULL'S EYE

But restricted hunting will be permitted from October through December within zones just outside those parks and refuges in the greater Yellowstone region of northwestern Wyoming, where most of the state's wolves reside.

For the rest of the state, wolves would be classified as predatory animals, subjecting them to unlicensed, unregulated killing year-round through methods such as shooting, trapping and pursuit on mechanized vehicles.

Wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rockies in the mid-1990s, but their return triggered an emotional debate that pitted livestock producers and hunters against conservationists.

Ranchers and hunting groups have argued that wolves prey on livestock and big-game animals targeted by sportsmen. Environmentalists contend the predators play a key role in restoring an ecosystem impaired by overgrazing and erosion caused in part by wildlife such as elk and mule deer.

Under Endangered Species Act protections, wolf numbers rebounded in the northern Rockies, far exceeding the original recovery goals set by the federal government.

Efforts in recent years by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove wolves in Idaho and Montana from the endangered species list were reversed by court rulings.

But Idaho and Montana wolves ultimately were delisted last year through an unprecedented act of Congress, and those states have since sought to reduce wolf numbers -- mostly through hunting and trapping -- to as few as 300 from as many as 1,500.

Wyoming's wolves had remained protected while state and federal officials negotiated what safeguards would sustain a viable population under Wyoming management.

The Fish and Wildlife Service's latest estimate puts current numbers in all three states at more than 1,774 adult wolves.

The gray wolf originally was classified as an endangered species across the lower 48 states and Mexico, except in Minnesota, where the animal was listed as threatened.

An estimated 7,000 to 11,000 wolves roam much of Alaska, but are so abundant they have never been federally protected.

(Editing by Steve Gorman and Peter Cooney)

Chicago Tribune link

So, the bloodletting will begin again.

Sport hunting of wolves will send them back onto the endangered species list in short order.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

YAY!

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Good news. Whenever a species is no longer endangered it is a success.

[Pooky 3,783]

Good news. Whenever a species is no longer endangered it is a success.

And it's a tragedy when that success leads to then being hunted for sport in a supposedly civilised nation such as ours.

[slim 1,525]

Sounds like all the "blood in the streets" we'd see when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons.

... except there is no blood in the streets. I don't think people realize hunters are the biggest conservationists of all. Who else cares about the environment the way hunters do? Tree huggers need to relax.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Sounds like all the "blood in the streets" we'd see when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons.

... except there is no blood in the streets. I don't think people realize hunters are the biggest conservationists of all. Who else cares about the environment the way hunters do? Tree huggers need to relax.

I agree. I love to shoot, but don't enjoy hunting. Never figured it was fair if what I was hunting can't shoot back.

However hunting is a vital part of keeping a healthy population of whatever is being hunted.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I have no problem with taking them off the endangered list at some point, but their numbers still seem extremely low.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

And it's a tragedy when that success leads to then being hunted for sport in a supposedly civilised nation such as ours.

Why? Which game animal has been endangered by regulated hunting? Check out who paid for the success of the wolf.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I have no problem with taking them off the endangered list at some point, but their numbers still seem extremely low.

They are a top-of-the-food chain predator with a huge "home range", they are supposed to be fairly low in number. Predators are efficient, sometimes too efficient, killers/controllers of other animal populations and wolves have notoriously ravenous appetites. They hunt year round, no season, limits or tags. Is does not take many to do what they are supposed to do.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

They are a top-of-the-food chain predator with a huge "home range", they are supposed to be fairly low in number. Predators are efficient, sometimes too efficient, killers/controllers of other animal populations and wolves have notoriously ravenous appetites. They hunt year round, no season, limits or tags. Is does not take many to do what they are supposed to do.

I'd still like to see their number reach at least 500 in the state before they lose status. When you have such a small population, there is a real danger with regards to disease and other losses

[Pooky 3,783]

Why? Which game animal has been endangered by regulated hunting? Check out who paid for the success of the wolf.

If you read the article, there are certain areas just outside Yellowstone where hunting is regulated. For the remainder of Wyoming there is no regulation.

Hunting for population control I can understand, even if I don't personally agree with it. But unrestricted sport hunting? We rail against this kind of hunting in Africa and Asia. What makes us so special?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

If you read the article, there are certain areas just outside Yellowstone where hunting is regulated. For the remainder of Wyoming there is no regulation.

Hunting for population control I can understand, even if I don't personally agree with it. But unrestricted sport hunting? We rail against this kind of hunting in Africa and Asia. What makes us so special?

Sorry to disappoint my liberally challenged Brothers and Sisters, but what the article says is that they are losing Federally endangered species protection in some areas. The Hunting of wolves in those areas not protected, will be like hunting in all of Wyoming, which is heavily regulated by the state to provide for a health population of wildlife.

Much against what these tree hugging activist would have you think, you can not go around Wyoming killing as many of whatever as you please. Hunting is regulated and limits are placed on almost all species in all parts of Wyoming.

The drive by media tried again. The article was purpsoel written to give that apeerance but it is tottaly false. You have to learn to read thru the BS.

[slim 1,525]

I'd still like to see their number reach at least 500 in the state before they lose status. When you have such a small population, there is a real danger with regards to disease and other losses

Sure, but 500 would be a danger to the wolves themselves. With that many animals, they'd encroach on populated areas and interact with humans too much. They'd kill each other as well.

Ever see animal carcasses by the side of the road? With 500 wolves, you'd see wolf carcasses dead because they'd have no choice but to enter into highways and other dangerous places in search of food and territory. There really is a lot of science involved in determining the number of breeding pairs and animals themselves. As Gary's illustrated, that number of animals will cover the entire state and it's highly unlikely all of them would succumb to a disease since each pack is separated both geographically and socially.

350 or so animals doesn't sound like a lot but when you consider their territory is something like 25 square miles for a single wolf and sometimes over 1,000 for a pack, you can start to understand why it doesn't take many to cover the whole state. Wyoming has almost 98,000 square miles of area so when you take out the populated places and grazing land, you end up with an area that 350 wolves could cover quite easily. Trying to fit 500 of them in there would lead to a lot of problems - like we see with bears, mt. lions, and other "dangerous" critters.

It's very likely 500 wolves will mature in the next few years since packs grow quickly due to no natural predators. However, a pack of wolves eats a bunch of food and there's only so much food to go around... see what we just did there?

But unrestricted sport hunting?

"Predators" in most states are managed, even with unrestricted bag limits in place. The department of natural resources for most states (and the feds in this case) still count the number of animals in the wild and take steps (like bag limits) to add restrictions when animal populations get low.

Sport hunting may not be something you agree with, but it is something many sportsmen enjoy. I used to be against it too because I didn't think it was very sporting. Then I heard a rancher talk about putting a horse down because it'd stepped in one of the holes left by prairie dogs. Is the horse any more important? Not at all. But the tears in the rancher's eyes allowed me to see that there is something to managing wildlife and "sport hunting" is one step in that process. A necessary step, I might add.

Sitting in a tree and waiting for a deer to walk by doesn't seem very sporting to me either. But, then again, running into one at 70 mph in a 3,000lb. vehicle doesn't give the deer much of a chance either. It's a lot more humane and "sporting" to manage animals through hunting than it is to simply allow nature to take it's course.

Nature is cruel. Humans have the opportunity - and the obligation - to be master of the animals around them.

Edited September 2, 2012 by slim

[Pooky 3,783]

Sport hunting may not be something you agree with, but it is something many sportsmen enjoy. I used to be against it too because I didn't think it was very sporting. Then I heard a rancher talk about putting a horse down because it'd stepped in one of the holes left by prairie dogs. Is the horse any more important? Not at all. But the tears in the rancher's eyes allowed me to see that there is something to managing wildlife and "sport hunting" is one step in that process. A necessary step, I might add.

Sport hunting, the hunting of animals for the pleasure, is never necessary.

Nature is cruel. Humans have the opportunity - and the obligation - to be master of the animals around them.

And sport hunting is cruel. As the apex life form on this planet, it is our obligation to be shepherds, not masters, of the wildlife around us.