..and the Anti-Management, Anti-Hunting Side is Wrong.
An original, brief (probably cogent, but possibly harebrained) essay by Dr. Tad. Please give input if I've made errors of fact, or have a suggestion for improvement...
While not directly affecting us in Okla, this is something I follow....
The Great Wolf debate raging in ID/WY/MT/UT and elsewhere, despite all of the rhetoric and exxagerations on both sides, really comes down to this: WHO do you TRUST to better and more appropriately manage the wolf numbers, to maintain and preserve the species in its natural habitat, yet manage the numbers in such a way as to allow the species to co-exist in harmony with man and other animals, at the best "goldilocks" balance: The FEDERAL government (via the Endangered Species Act and similar legislation, which really is no management at all, but we'll get to that), or the STATE governments of the respective states (via their Wildlife/Game & Fish Departments, which have been established and effectively managing species for decades on end)?
That's the real question, because both sides agree, more or less, that the wolf should be allowed to co-exist, but yet it needs to be managed in at least some minimal (or more) way - the question becomes who should do this - the state or the federal government? The pro-management folks say state government, by removing it from the Endangered Species list. The anti-management side says the federal government, and the federal government, via a federal judge recently ruling, interpreting the Endangered Species Act, halted all hunts in MT and ID, already approved by each state, saying that the federal bureaucracies themselves (USFWS / Dept. of Interior) incorrectly interpreted the Act, by proclaiming the wolf no longer endangered in ID and MT, but proclaiming it still endangered in WY (not because the numbers are too small in WY, but solely because it believed and believes that WY's own state-prescribed management plan was insufficient to adequately protect the wolf). The federal judge said it's impossible for a species to be endangered in one state but not in others, so the agencies misinterepreted the Act, and therefore all things which flow from that erroneous interpretation are null and void, including the until-now-scheduled 2010-2011 ID and WY controlled wolf hunts/tags. So the wolf is still once again technically "endangered" (despite the fact that the numbers are several times the goal contemplated at the time of reintroduction). As such, they cannot be hunted at all, even in a controlled way under the act - not anywhere.
Now, even giving full faith and credit to this federal judge, assuming he correctly interpreted the act, we can still theoretically change the legislation itself to allow for a selective-unendangering, state by state, as had been done but ruled incorrect, by urging our federal legislators to make this change to the law. But in any event, in the meantime, the anti-management people hail this as a correct ruling, a win for their side, and allegedly a win for the wolf. The pro-management side of course denounces the ruling. Therefore, it's clear that the anti-management side thinks the federal gov't does a better job of properly managing canis lupus, and the pro-management side believes that the state wildlife department will properly institute species management in such a way as to protect the wolf long term, but also provide a balance with hunters, ranchers, and others who have problems with wolves. It's all a matter of who you TRUST more to do the job right, when it comes right down to it - the states or the fed.
With that background, there are really just two words you need to know to figure out which side is correct: Great-tailed Grackle. The federal government maintains a list of protected migratory birds. Still included on this list is the great-tailed grackle. Now, anyone in Oklahoma City or any number of other towns and cities knows all too well that the non-migratory (resident) great-tailed grackle is a veritable plague on the cities (yet still protected as "migratory"). This enormously successful species has reached nearly-biblical plague proportions in many areas of many cities. They are thick as ticks on a hound dog. Yet, despite this fact, the very unresponsive, distant federal government in Washington, D.C. , still keeps the great-tailed grackle on the protected migratory bird protected list - shooting one could get you a stiff fine and jail time, plague or not. I posit that any governmental entity (here the federal gov't) that protects the great-tailed grackle is clearly and absolutely incompetent to manage any sort of wildlife properly and effectively. This tells me all I need to know about who's right in the Great Debate. Amend the Endangered Species Act to allow selective de-listing, and let the states who have a good management proposal in place take over the wolf management, including controlled hunts in their discretion. And of course, while we're at it, amend the migratory bird list to delist the grackle.
P.S. I refuse to call the Anti-managment side "wolf lovers" because that suggests us we hunters and other pro-management people are not wolf lovers and by implication, want the wolf eradicated. Nothing could be further from the truth. We love the wolves and their place in nature too. But like all species, their numbers must be properly managed, especially in light of their danger to livestock, game animals, pets, and children.
An original, brief (probably cogent, but possibly harebrained) essay by Dr. Tad. Please give input if I've made errors of fact, or have a suggestion for improvement...
While not directly affecting us in Okla, this is something I follow....
The Great Wolf debate raging in ID/WY/MT/UT and elsewhere, despite all of the rhetoric and exxagerations on both sides, really comes down to this: WHO do you TRUST to better and more appropriately manage the wolf numbers, to maintain and preserve the species in its natural habitat, yet manage the numbers in such a way as to allow the species to co-exist in harmony with man and other animals, at the best "goldilocks" balance: The FEDERAL government (via the Endangered Species Act and similar legislation, which really is no management at all, but we'll get to that), or the STATE governments of the respective states (via their Wildlife/Game & Fish Departments, which have been established and effectively managing species for decades on end)?
That's the real question, because both sides agree, more or less, that the wolf should be allowed to co-exist, but yet it needs to be managed in at least some minimal (or more) way - the question becomes who should do this - the state or the federal government? The pro-management folks say state government, by removing it from the Endangered Species list. The anti-management side says the federal government, and the federal government, via a federal judge recently ruling, interpreting the Endangered Species Act, halted all hunts in MT and ID, already approved by each state, saying that the federal bureaucracies themselves (USFWS / Dept. of Interior) incorrectly interpreted the Act, by proclaiming the wolf no longer endangered in ID and MT, but proclaiming it still endangered in WY (not because the numbers are too small in WY, but solely because it believed and believes that WY's own state-prescribed management plan was insufficient to adequately protect the wolf). The federal judge said it's impossible for a species to be endangered in one state but not in others, so the agencies misinterepreted the Act, and therefore all things which flow from that erroneous interpretation are null and void, including the until-now-scheduled 2010-2011 ID and WY controlled wolf hunts/tags. So the wolf is still once again technically "endangered" (despite the fact that the numbers are several times the goal contemplated at the time of reintroduction). As such, they cannot be hunted at all, even in a controlled way under the act - not anywhere.
Now, even giving full faith and credit to this federal judge, assuming he correctly interpreted the act, we can still theoretically change the legislation itself to allow for a selective-unendangering, state by state, as had been done but ruled incorrect, by urging our federal legislators to make this change to the law. But in any event, in the meantime, the anti-management people hail this as a correct ruling, a win for their side, and allegedly a win for the wolf. The pro-management side of course denounces the ruling. Therefore, it's clear that the anti-management side thinks the federal gov't does a better job of properly managing canis lupus, and the pro-management side believes that the state wildlife department will properly institute species management in such a way as to protect the wolf long term, but also provide a balance with hunters, ranchers, and others who have problems with wolves. It's all a matter of who you TRUST more to do the job right, when it comes right down to it - the states or the fed.
With that background, there are really just two words you need to know to figure out which side is correct: Great-tailed Grackle. The federal government maintains a list of protected migratory birds. Still included on this list is the great-tailed grackle. Now, anyone in Oklahoma City or any number of other towns and cities knows all too well that the non-migratory (resident) great-tailed grackle is a veritable plague on the cities (yet still protected as "migratory"). This enormously successful species has reached nearly-biblical plague proportions in many areas of many cities. They are thick as ticks on a hound dog. Yet, despite this fact, the very unresponsive, distant federal government in Washington, D.C. , still keeps the great-tailed grackle on the protected migratory bird protected list - shooting one could get you a stiff fine and jail time, plague or not. I posit that any governmental entity (here the federal gov't) that protects the great-tailed grackle is clearly and absolutely incompetent to manage any sort of wildlife properly and effectively. This tells me all I need to know about who's right in the Great Debate. Amend the Endangered Species Act to allow selective de-listing, and let the states who have a good management proposal in place take over the wolf management, including controlled hunts in their discretion. And of course, while we're at it, amend the migratory bird list to delist the grackle.
P.S. I refuse to call the Anti-managment side "wolf lovers" because that suggests us we hunters and other pro-management people are not wolf lovers and by implication, want the wolf eradicated. Nothing could be further from the truth. We love the wolves and their place in nature too. But like all species, their numbers must be properly managed, especially in light of their danger to livestock, game animals, pets, and children.
