To delist or not to delist: Is that the only question?

Discuss wolf conservation and status.

Moderators: Isela, Koa

Post Reply
User avatar
WQ Project Coordinator
Former WQ Team Member
Former WQ Team Member
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:05 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Apple Valley, Minnesota USA
Contact:

To delist or not to delist: Is that the only question?

Post by WQ Project Coordinator » Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:15 am

Obviously there is a lot of controversy surrounding the delisting of gray wolves out west. Jess Edberg (IWC Info Services) has written a very nice article talking about some of the issues with delisting, specifically the changes to the 10j rule. Please check it out.

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/live_ne ... sp?id=2913

It is no secret that the WolfQuest Team thinks very well of the International Wolf Center and their publications. We feel that they try and succeed at educating without creating biases.
Avatar by Nature Girl

Darkwalker
Hunter-in-training
Hunter-in-training
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:16 pm
Gender: Male
Location: A forest of shadow and glass.

Re: To delist or not to delist: Is that the only question?

Post by Darkwalker » Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:07 am

Hypothetically, delisting should be good, a celebration of the return of a species, but it seems that is not always the case. One wolves were delisted in certain areas of the United State of America, the government sanctioned a sizeable fraction of the popultion to be hunted and destroyed. This is clearly not what dleisting should mean for a species, but is that what will happen whenever wolves are unproteced by the law?
Spifftastic High Inquisitor for Team Awesome.
Darkness follows in my wake...
Umbrae convenit in eorum sepulchris.

Rinith
Hunter-in-training
Hunter-in-training
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Minnesotas Timberland
Contact:

Re: To delist or not to delist: Is that the only question?

Post by Rinith » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:06 am

I am all for the delisting of wolves, it means there populations are up, though I think there should be some amendments to the endangered species at that prevents newly-delisted animals from being hunted for so much, time, then only little hunting for another chunk of time, before being fully delisted, to prevent such an animal needing full protection any more and using even more government money
~Don't tell me to calm down, for I am rarely angry, even this request is nothing more but that, a request
~My Game Ideas, please leave a comment
:http://www.wolfquest.org/bb/viewtopic.p ... 69#p101069

Kenai Wolf
Pup
Pup
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:12 pm

Re: To delist or not to delist: Is that the only question?

Post by Kenai Wolf » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:01 pm

Darkwalker wrote:Hypothetically, delisting should be good, a celebration of the return of a species, but it seems that is not always the case. One wolves were delisted in certain areas of the United State of America, the government sanctioned a sizeable fraction of the popultion to be hunted and destroyed. This is clearly not what dleisting should mean for a species, but is that what will happen whenever wolves are unproteced by the law?
while in theory it is a good thing, yes, in practice, like we are all well aware, it is not, quite unfortunatly. To make things nice, neat and tidy, why not just ban hunting and put in place trained professional euthanisers* who can do any emergency population control?

*By that term I mean people who could end lives kindly and painlessly with minimal loss of dignity.
old & new DA accounts: avan-c-lupus.deviantart.com , avan-clarctos.deviantart.com
Wolves! :3
//starting to upload more art now//

User avatar
MWolf
Newborn Wolf
Newborn Wolf
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:01 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Inland Pacific Northwest

Re: To delist or not to delist: Is that the only question?

Post by MWolf » Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:10 pm

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), signed into law in 1972 by Richard M. Nixon, was to ensure the long-term survival of all species in the United States and its territories.

Among the first species listed was <i>Canis lups</i> the Gray Wolf.

Not until 1995 were wolves reintroduced into three locations under the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (NRMWRP, or WRP).

Wolves now number some 1500 among the three regions. However; one must note that the original WRP gave minimum requirements for populations in each region, also known as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS.) Later, these three DPSs were lumped into one to advance the delisting process. This was in response to pressure from various wolf foes who wanted to push for delisting sooner, and because Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), who is in charge of wolf recovery, saw that they would never reach the intended goal at the rate of population growth.

This change in the requirements for delisting was in response to changing science. Yet, changing science and new research have demonstrated that wolves are not at all out of the woods, and that their long-term survival is assured. Genetic evidence, according to research I read some time ago, suggests that the level of population, and the physical isolation of the three DPSs, is inadequate to ensure long-term survival of the wolf species. Thus, the ESA requirements have not been fufilled, and therefore delisting is not justified.

One must also consider the current debate about the meaning of portions of the ESA, which consider habitat and range. The ESA dictates that species must survive over a "large portion of their original range". The Northern Rocky Mountain's three DPSs, even when taken as a single population, only represent some 5% of the natural habitat of wolves. Thus, when considering this fact; the ESA requirements have not been fulfilled, and delisting cannot proceed. FWS is overseen by a very crooked Bush administration; which has already seen its leader caught altering plans for other species listings for political reasons. That delisting is taking place in the Northern Rockies is evidence that this influence is also affecting decisions here.

No, wolves should not have been delisted. A number of organizations, as planned, have already begun the process of filing lawsuits to prevent delisting from taking place. This is because Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, homes to the three DPSs, have plans to hunt and kill wolves to an even lower population level, as low as 3-500 total for the three states; the bare minimum that FWS set as a threshold for relisting. I am convinced that these lawsuits will prevail, and that the arguments will include those I have presented.

All anyone can really do is help ensure that various organizations participating in the lawsuit have adequate funding to proceed. You can make donations and stipulate that they go to the legal fund for the lawsuits against FWS for delisting.

Oh, and one thing to note, litigation, the filing of these lawsuits, is the only recourse we the people have in correcting policy mistakes. So please, support this legislation, before wolves are killed off and relisted; which I suspect will happen within 5 years, perhaps less.

Also, be sure you vote in November. Your vote does count. In fact, if everyone who believed their vote didn't count had voted in 2004; we would see a different person in the whitehouse. One person can, and does, make a difference.

Rinith
Hunter-in-training
Hunter-in-training
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Minnesotas Timberland
Contact:

Re: To delist or not to delist: Is that the only question?

Post by Rinith » Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:39 pm

wow, much of those facts have swayed what I thought, and I was all ready for them not being delisted right away... thank you for the research
~Don't tell me to calm down, for I am rarely angry, even this request is nothing more but that, a request
~My Game Ideas, please leave a comment
:http://www.wolfquest.org/bb/viewtopic.p ... 69#p101069

Post Reply

Return to “Wolf Conservation”