Part of the Bay Area News Group

Feds retreat on Northern Rockies wolf hunting plan

By Gary Bogue
Thursday, September 18th, 2008 at 5:40 am in Animal Politics, Wildlife, Wolves.

Breaking news! The Bush administration today announced it will abandon its defense of an ill-fated decision to remove the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies from the endangered species list, which would allow hundreds of wolves to be killed by hunters and state agencies.

To stop the killings, the Center for Biological Diversity and allies sued the administration, winning a temporary ruling stopping the killing in July. But rather than continue to fight us in court, the administration just announced that it will formally revoke its previous decision and return the wolf to the endangered species list as a fully protected species.

We’re ecstatic about the victory — but our hearts go out to the nearly 100 wolves that were gunned down before we were able to secure the initial legal injunction.

Thanks for your support. This victory could not have been achieved without the help of thousands of Center members who donated their time, money, and voices to save the Northern Rockies’ wolves. And thanks to our litigation allies at Earthjustice, NRDC, and Defenders of Wildlife.
Kieran Suckling, Executive Director, Center for Biological Diversity

Way to go! /Gary

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

No Responses to “Feds retreat on Northern Rockies wolf hunting plan”

  1. Janice Says:

    For every feel good idea, there is a reality.

    Please realize that the population imbalances are causing social pressures, pack related stress and are evolving *abnormal* behavioral issues for the wolves. Not all wolves can exist in close proximity to large numbers of other competing packs. It is not how they evolved. There are no longer any really balanced ecosystems.

    Planting wolves and transplanting species into regions for which they were not originally adapted, as if they were trees or legumes – is the act of godlike arrogance. “I want a wolf there, a tree there, a rock here, and a lake over there, surrounded by pines.”

    Individual wolves are getting increasingly acclimated to the human population which established in areas that were not wolf territory ten years ago.

    See the growth trend in Idaho and compare it to other areas and what does it tell you?

    We love wolves but transplanting sentient beings as if they were like peanuts and then rooting mindlessly for their preservation when resources and the environment they are planted in, is not the one by which they evolved — is just asking for more trouble.

    Mankind, animal lovers – grow a brain. Just like choosing a breed of dog appropriately, behavior must be taken into account when assessing wolf population issues.

  2. Janice Says:

    As to the following issue, it speaks for itself.

    Dr. David Mech, USFWS wolf biologist, states there are no “documented” cases of rabid wolves below the fifty seventh latitude north (near Whitehorse, Yukon Territory). When asked what “documented” meant, he stated, “The head of the wolf must be removed, sent to a lab for testing and found to be rabid.”

    Those requirements for documentation negate all historical records!

    As with rabid wolves, the biologist can say, “There are no ocumented’ cases of wild healthy wolves attacking humans.” In order to be “documented” these unreasonable criteria must be met:

    1. The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be healthy.

    2. It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in captivity in its entire life.

    3. There must be eyewitnesses to the attack.

    4. The person must die from their wounds (bites are generally not considered attacks according to the biologists).

    That is a “documented” attack.

    Such criteria make it very difficult to document any historical account of a wolf attack on a human!

    Biologists assume when a wolf attacks a human, that there must be something wrong with the wolf. It’s either been in captivity or it’s sick or whatever. They don’t examine the evidence in an unbiased manner or use historical tests.

  3. Janice Says:

    Wolf maps

Leave a Reply