When it comes to wolves, it's not time to walk away

Government plan fails to meet intent of species protection law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE • 27 February 2007
For more information contact: Rob Edward | 303.918.8073 (cell)

Wolves confronting bison in YellowstoneCheyenne, WY – At a hearing today in Cheyenne regarding the federal proposal to strip wolves in the Northern Rockies of their legal protections, citizens and conservationists underscored their opposition to the plan. In particular, Rob Edward, Director of Carnivore Restoration for Sinapu stated that the plan is illegal because wolves presently occupy less than five percent of their once vast range in the lower 48 states (and less than 15 percent of their historic range in the region covered by the plan). “The job is not done,” said Edward. “The government cannot cut-and-run from their stewardship of wolves.”

When measured against the definition of “recovery” outlined in the Endangered Species Act, the effort to recover wolves has a long way to go. The law requires that a listed species (e.g. wolves) must be restored to “all or a significant portion of its range” before being removed from the endangered species list. Moreover, the agency’s plan represents a glaring double standard for wolves, when compared to other wide-ranging species (e.g. bald eagles, brown pelicans, and peregrine falcons) which remained protected until they again occupied nearly all of their historic range.

“Wolves deserve the same chance as bald eagles to reclaim their place in America,” said Edward. According to Sinapu, the government is misapplying an obscure policy for endangered species management in order to strip wolves of their protections. The proposal will set the stage for a massive campaign by the livestock industry and some hunting outfitters to drastically reduce the number of wolves in Wyoming.

Wyoming lawmakers want the state to allow the unregulated killing of wolves everywhere outside of the national parks. Such attitudes underscore that wolves still warrant protection. “The lawsuit that will result from this plan could well be called The 21st Century versus Wyoming,” said Edward.



4 responses to “When it comes to wolves, it's not time to walk away

  1. Editor, You are assuming that your personal values over-ride the fact that it is not OK or even legal to destroy rural existance. At least in this country the Supreme Court has unanimpously recognized many times that western cattle allotments (of which the Mexican Wolf Recovery entirely consists of) are real property rights, as per Dr. Angus Macintosh, top expert on western Property rights. Though wolf-involved agencies and wolfys don’t recognize these rights they are very real.

    Wolf advocates should look behind the hype and see the 100+ year old dream of corporate advantage as far as resource access/acquisition, by destruction of the ranching property rights in the greatest storehouse of
    resources in the country, the Rocky Mt. West area.

    It is not by coincidence that the same wealth and power bases, some of which were already international (loyal to no country) in scope, are active in the “conservation” movement today. Funding, and perception management are a powerful tool and temptation to corruption on an international corporate level.

    Remember this warning in this time of the World Wildlife Fund partnering with the World Bank. Corporate (UN) funding to the 3 big NGO’s is already providing atrocities of behavior against fellow humans and vast corrupted compromises of the landscape. As funding in the form of “grants” and “charitible” contributions enable vast human and property rights violations most often of the very cultures who are a sustainable, generational and a vital abundance generating (Keystone) part of the naturak environment.

    It’s true, what certain enviro leaders have said all along, it’s not about the wolf. It’s about control of the land. The rural nature-friendly cultures and their lands world-wide are the biggist obstacle to international corporate control and aquisition of the remaining resources of the world. They don’t care if you indulge your wolf-ranching fantasias and they actively encourage them as they are a powerful and charismatic method of clearing title to the small family forage and water rights that literally blanket the western resource land they so lust after.

    Maybe you’ll remember next lifetime, how callous indifference to the rights of innocent people will, with these totally unscrupulous entities, turn back to bite you and all others as callous indifference to all but the bottom line sets precedence here, ripe to destroy all that you hold dear.

    The “no impact” hype is just that. Here in the southern rockies a whole rural county exaustively studied as to economic impact will be destroyed within a few years due to the wolf. This economy is local renewable resource based, a rare and precious commodity (recognized by those not suffering cognitive dissonance from the massive and repetitive pap produced by internationally skilled corperate perception developement people on the Board of Directors of the NGO’s). Just the exact kind of generational existance that economically trumps all others in terms of viability and stability. Open your eyes. Don’t allow this bottom-line corporate greed to ravage all! WAKE UP.

  2. I agree with Dora we should send some to Northern CA, the Appalachian mountains, parts of MA. Even the east coast has areas that I am sure that could handle wolves, and was even part of their natural range. But is that a good idea. Probably not, and why not, because you would have the same problems that WY and ID are having now. But I think we should send a couple packs out there and let them wreak havoc, then people might understand where were coming from. And they do have a sufficient prey base. Millions and millions of white-tails. And why will we never do that. Because it would be a disaster, just like it has been here.

    [Editor’s Note: As of yet, I’ve seen absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there’s any wolf-wrought “disaster” in the offing here in the American West–not with livestock and not with big game. What I have seen is a lot of hot air being blown about as if it is fact. Wolves lived alongside their native prey for millennia without wiping them out. If they had the propensity to drive their prey to extinction, they too would have gone extinct.]

  3. In other words you feel they should be used to punish those with whom you disagree? It is not about an animal you love and want to be around.

    [No, Dora, I was simply greeting what I perceived as sarcasm with sarcasm. This is not about animals that we want to necessarily “be around” although that’s nice when it happens in the wild. This is about restoring an ecological process (wolf predation) to a broad landscape, where there is enough wild prey to support such a process. To the extent that places at the edge of human development host abundant wild ungulate populations, then I have no problem with wolves being part of the mix, because they will serve an important ecological role].

  4. Perhaps instead of killing problem and excess wolves, they could be loaded up and hauled to friendly places in California, NY, the Smokies, etc. It would be a win win.

    [Editor’s Note: Or, perhaps to save a little money on gas, we could just move them to the area around Basin, WY]