Gray wolves coming off the endangered list

[cloudy]

On one hand, this is great news, but on the other....well, just because an animal is coming off the endangered species list doesn't mean that it becomes fair game to hunt.

Western gray wolves coming off endangered list
Estimated 1,500 animals now roam Idaho, Montana, Wyoming

BILLINGS, Mont. - Gray wolves in the Northern Rockies are being removed from the endangered species list, following a 13-year restoration effort that has seen the animal's population soar.

An estimated 1,500 wolves now roam Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. That's a dramatic turnaround for a predator that was largely exterminated in the United States in the early 20th century.

Their removal from the endangered list was announced Thursday by the U.S. Department of Interior. The loss of federal protection allows states to move forward with public hunts for the animals, possibly as soon as this fall.

Environmental groups have said they will sue the federal government to keep the animal listed.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Yes, it's an interesting ambiguous feeling, but hurrah for the wolves, at least! And really, hurrah for us. It's nice to think that humans (and horses) might be growing and changing a bit as well.

I just watched a crime documentary show about a murder from the 1950's. Included were photographs from a tiger hunt on which the wealthy socialites had gone, with pictures of them smiling proudly next to dead tigers they'd shot. It was encouraging to me to think how few people would not now be ashamed to exhibit such images. We may go in little steps, but slowly we move forward.

 

[rgraham666]

I saw this in my morning paper. I was cheered. No article, just a picture of wolves bringing down a bison.

Then I read cloudy's article.

Personally, I think 1,500 isn't nearly enough to take them off the endangered list.

The loss of federal protection allows states to move forward with public hunts for the animals, possibly as soon as this fall.

And this line makes me think this is the real reason for removing them from the list. Especially considering how 'environmentally friendly' the current administration is.

 

[christabelll]

Huzzah for the wolves.
Boo Hiss DOI =
It would not surprise me in the least if that is the real reason for it. They can make thousands issuing licenses...1500 does not a protected thriving population make, its merely a drop in the bucket. What about relocation to places that had wolves and dont?

Hmmm maybe some one should start a petition to keep them on the endangered list. And what about the red wolf on the eastern Seaboard? never mind ... have a problem with killing wild animals in the first place.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Hmmm maybe some one should start a petition to keep them on the endangered list.

There are some programs underway for this. I think South Carolina was trying them out on some of the coastal islands.

 

[Guest]

.........

 

[buxxxom]

13 years seems like a long time to build up a population that small. Not sure without checking what the gestational time is for grey wolves, but it would only take one hunting season to undo all the progress that's been made. If it happens again, I'm not sure it's recoverable.

 

[R. Richard]

I'm glad to hear the gray wolf is coming off the endangered list, though, you're right. It's not entirely good thing they are. There is too much hostility toward the wolves coming from the ranchers for them to come off the list. They'll surely be hunted this fall, I'm sure of it. If there was a petition to keep the gray wolves on the endangered list, I'd sign it in a heartbeat. I'd rather they stay on it and be sad their numbers are few then have them hunted back on the list again.

You have hit the problem exactly. Wolves are predators. Ranchers don't like predators. The ranchers would like to see the wolves go extinct.

 

[Stella_Omega]

They're very genetically vulnerable now, since the entire population springs from such a small group. 1,500 is hardly a "soaring' population.
fucking fuckers!

 

[The_Fool]

Found an article here that talks about Montana and their take on a hunting season. My assumption is that there will probably be a limited number of tags available for any given season within any hunting community. I don't expect to see indiscriminate hunting. For iinstance here in Kansas, there are a limited number of Mule Deer and Elk permits issued. If you don't get one, tough luck, try again next year.

As for laws, including the endangered species list, those are only going to keep honest people honest. Taking them off the list only changes what laws are broken when poaching.

 

[TxRad]

As a management tool hunting far outstrips the alternative which is the old bounty system.

Believe it or not the Louisiana alligator was almost hunted to extinction in the 50's and early 60's. The state stepped in and stopped all hunting for over 10 years. In the early 70's they opened a limited hunting season by permit only. The permits were only good in areas the state designated as over populated. Also all moneys from the permits went for maintenance and research to maintain the gators.

Today there is an open season on gators in Louisiana but it is still well regulated to size, sex, and area.

Wolves have 2 to 6 pups a season. with 89 breeding pair that they know of, that's a lot of new wolves every year. The number will grow exponentially. What took 13 years will more than double in 3 or 4 years just based on the know pairs.

Ranchers aren't the only people who will be against the wolves. Big game ranches are even bigger business than cattle and they deal in the natural food for wolves. Licensed hunting will be the only answer that can and will be controlled.

 

[Weird Harold]

They're very genetically vulnerable now, since the entire population springs from such a small group. 1,500 is hardly a "soaring' population.
fucking fuckers!

The figure 1,500 is misleading, because that's just the population descended from the origninal 65 wolves transplanted fromCanada into Wyoming and Utah in the late 90's.

From http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canis_lupus.html
Currently in the lower 48 United States, about 2,600 gray wolves exist, with nearly 2,000 in Minnesota (compared to the few hundred living there in the mid-20th century). Successful recovery plans have been developed throughout the country. These plans evaluate the populations to determine distribution, abundance, and status.

The main cause of population declines has been habitat destruction and persecution by humans. But the reintroduction of gray wolves into protected lands has greatly increased the likelihood of their survival in North America.

Populations in Alaska and Canada have remained steady and are fairly numerous. Currently the State of Alaska manages 6,000 to 8,000 gray wolves and Canada's populations are estimated at about 50,000. The wolves in Canada are managed by provincial governments and are not currently threatened.

I've never actually understood why grey wolves were "reintroduced" to the lower 48 (actually just the north and west states) or placed on the endangered species list in the first place.

 

[Greenspace]

I love wolves.

 

[trysail]

The figure 1,500 is misleading, because that's just the population descended from the origninal 65 wolves transplanted fromCanada into Wyoming and Utah in the late 90's.

I've never actually understood why grey wolves were "reintroduced" to the lower 48 (actually just the north and west states) or placed on the endangered species list in the first place.

Harold, one of the things I always like about you is that you usually have a good command of FACTS!

The wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone Park. Part of the rationale was that the herds of bison, elk, antelope, and deer needed to be controlled (one way or another). The wolves have thrived in Yellowstone and, in so doing, partially eliminated the necessity to cull the herds by other means (basically starvation or hunting). The wolves ran into some trouble when their population grew and they began to stray outside the Park's boundaries and prey on livestock.

I have to admit that I'm partial to wolves. They're amazing to watch and I get chills up and down my spine listening to 'em howl- it's a truly marvelous sound. But, in fairness, I'm not trying to scratch out a living running cattle or sheep and it seems to me that ranchers ought to have the right to eliminate (or get the authorities to control) the wolves that prey on their livestock.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Harold is a wonderful person to have around us more emotional-reactive types.

 

[R. Richard]

In the western US area where I live hter is a popular bumper sticker:

"Eat lamb! 50,00 coyotes can't be wrong."

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold, one of the things I always like about you is that you usually have a good command of FACTS!

The wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone Park. ...

If you bothered to read the link, you'd know that only 31 wolves were released in Yellowtone National Park (Wyoming) the other 35 were rreleased in remote areas of national forest lands in Utah.

The Wolves released in Yellowstone got lots of publicity; the wolves released in Utah got next to none.

As for the need to control wildlife (bison) populations in Yellowstone -- I'm a hunter, and millions of people like me would rather pay the government big fees to hunt Bison in Yellowstone National Park rather than let the wolves kill them for "free." (I haven't looked up how much it cost to import 66 Wolves but it was more money spent instead of earned from hunters.)

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Thanx, Harold, you saved me the trouble. Wouldn't belong to Safari Club, would you? We could meet for dinner next year in Reno.

 

[DesertPirate]

Thanx, Harold, you saved me the trouble. Wouldn't belong to Safari Club, would you? We could meet for dinner next year in Reno.

VM, when I saw this thread the first thing I thought was, I want a pelt!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Shoot, I know a guy who traps them in Alaska for the pelts. They're magnificant, thick and warm. My only problem is that they look too much like dogs. I have no problem hunting bears, cats, anything with horns or antlers but dogs . . . just can't do it myself. Not even foxes.

 

[McKenna]

The ranchers here are already preparing for hunting season. Wolves in the west (at least in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana) is a very hot and controversial subject.

I'd rather be hung up by my toenails than talk wolves with your average redneck here. :shudder:

 

[McKenna]

As for laws, including the endangered species list, those are only going to keep honest people honest. Taking them off the list only changes what laws are broken when poaching.

So, so true.

And if you break the law, you have to get caught in order to get punished. In the wilds of Idaho, who's going to know? Your neighbour, 15 miles away, who's also poaching?

Argh.

 

[DesertPirate]

Shoot, I know a guy who traps them in Alaska for the pelts. They're magnificant, thick and warm. My only problem is that they look too much like dogs. I have no problem hunting bears, cats, anything with horns or antlers but dogs . . . just can't do it myself. Not even foxes.

There is that
Guess I'll still have to get my bearskin rug
After I fill the freezer with deer at the wifes request

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I've been trying to put together a spring bear hunt in either the Queen Charolette's or Vancouver Island or the Alaskan Panhandle for some time. Can't seem to get Jim interested. You want to come along?

 

[Weird Harold]

Thanx, Harold, you saved me the trouble. Wouldn't belong to Safari Club, would you? We could meet for dinner next year in Reno.

Nope, and I'm pretty much retired from active hunting for fitness reasons -- I haven't even applied for a tag in ten years.

MY first thought when they reintroduced wolves into the lower 48 was "it took the ranchers nearly a century to drive the grey/timber wolves out of the lower 48 and now the environmentalists want to bring them back?!"