Gray wolves may lose protected status in 48 US states

Surroundx

Well-Known Member
Gray wolves may soon lose their protected status if plans drafted by federal officials go through.

The draft, written by the US Department of Interior, contends that the roughly 6,000 wolves living in the Northern Rockies and the Great Lakes are enough to prevent the species from going extinct.

If the law goes through, gray wolves in the lower 48 states would lose their protected status. The agency adds that having gray wolves in other areas of the country — like the West Coast, parts of New England, and other areas of the Rockies — are not required for them to survive.

The loss of federal protections would be welcomed by ranchers and opposed by wildlife advocates. While ranchers contend that their stock suffers too much at the hands of the wolves, advocates say that the proposal could cut short the gray wolf’s recovery from widespread extermination.

While protections for gray wolves would be removed, a small population of Mexican wolves in the Southwest would keep their federal protections. The US Fish and Wildlife Service announced on Friday that the rule is under review. It will be published in the Federal Register and opened to public comment before a decision is made.

Gray wolves are currently listed on the endangered species list. The government has considered removing the federal protections since at least 2011. But they have held off in the past because of concerns among scientists and wildlife advocates. Both groups have warned that the removal of protections could completely halt the species’ expansion back into territories it used to roam freely.

John Vucetich, a wolf specialist and biologist at Michigan Tech University, explained that suitable habitat remains for gray wolves in large areas of the Rocky Mountains and the Northeast. But wolves only occupy 15 percent of their historical range. That amount could be greatly expanded if humans allow it to happen. Vucetich added:

“It ends up being a political question more than a biological one. It’s very unlikely the wolves will make it to places like the Dakotas and the Northeast unless the federal government provides some kind of leadership.”

Increasing numbers in the wolf population have angered many agricultural and hunting groups who are upset by the predators’ attacks on livestock and big game herds. The argument forced Western lawmakers to remove gray wolves from the endangered list in five states.

It is not yet clear whether the gray wolf will be removed from the endangered species list or not. Either way, it will be a source of contention for both sides involved.

Read more at Gray Wolves May Lose Protected Status
 
Only 6,000 and they believe that is enough? And humans are only allowing them to live n 15% of their historical range and they can still condone hunting? Wow.
 
Only 6,000 and they believe that is enough? And humans are only allowing them to live n 15% of their historical range and they can still condone hunting? Wow.

I think they should establish a population in Chicago as soon as possible. The people who want them should get them first. It is easy for people who don't have to live with them to say others should have to.
 
I think they should establish a population in Chicago as soon as possible. The people who want them should get them first. It is easy for people who don't have to live with them to say others should have to.

I agree, while I love wolves they can be very dangerous. It is easy for some people to say just let the wolves run around. I bet they don't have to worry about the wolves coming along and taking house hold pets or livestock. Even when I walk alone at night I get the feeling they are watching me. I wouldn't let my young kids walk far from the house by themselves at night.
It starts to get real when peoples kids are in danger.
 
I think they should establish a population in Chicago as soon as possible. The people who want them should get them first. It is easy for people who don't have to live with them to say others should have to.

That's true. I didn't think about the threat they posed to people sharing the area with them. I apologize for what I said before. Sorry.
 
I think if the goal is a self-sustaining free roaming population, we're good. States that want to re-introduce the Grey Wolf onto state, or private with consent of the landholder, could do so. Especially if the Grey Wolf is no longer endangered in the lower 48. If California or Illinois wanted to put them on National Forest lands, the Feds might agree. Though, here in Alaska, attempts to re-introduce Wood Bison on the Yukon-Charley Preserve were blocked by the Feds.
 
I agree, while I love wolves they can be very dangerous. It is easy for some people to say just let the wolves run around. I bet they don't have to worry about the wolves coming along and taking house hold pets or livestock. Even when I walk alone at night I get the feeling they are watching me. I wouldn't let my young kids walk far from the house by themselves at night.
It starts to get real when peoples kids are in danger.

Wait, you live in California and can "feel" [wolves] watching you? The state where a wild wolf hasn't been seen in nearly 90-years before OR-7 spent a couple of months in and around Modoc County? Yeah, I call bollocks. Where are the inflamed passions about the several thousand mountain lions that roam the state? That's right; they're nonexistent.

wallaby said:
That's true. I didn't think about the threat they posed to people sharing the area with them. I apologize for what I said before. Sorry.

Don't apologize. The amount of hand wringing that goes on over wolves is absurd; it makes as much sense as my demanding that great whites be wiped out because I live in the heart of the Red Triangle. They can exist in Hawaii and South Africa, but not here. They might eat my child or my dog!

Every waterman knows that you'll eventually receive a visit from the landlord in the grey suit.

Pleistohorse said:
I think if the goal is a self-sustaining free roaming population, we're good...

6,000 individuals across the entirety of the Lower 48 is hardly a self sustaining population if open season is declared on wolves. I'd put money on ranchers and "hunters" wiping out at least half of that number within five years.
 
You might not see a pack of Wolves in every roadside field, but I think Wolves are back in the Rockies for good....unless a concerted effort is made to wipe them out. Illegal under the ESA. The Great Lakes Population was never lost and is now (even with state control) healthy. As always, the real fear towards losing these animals would be habitat loss in general. I'd guess that the management strategy in force now, might hinder, but won't stop natural dispersal. Again, California or Texas or Deleware voters could prompt their states to re-introduce Wolves on State Lands. Easier if Wolves are not subject to ESA protections.

6,000 animals occupying 10 - 15% of their former range is extremely healthy considering the available habitat; and in excess of recovery goals. The really productive grassland and broadleaf forest habitats are largely out of reach for now (unless we want to put humans on the ESA listing). The protections for the Arizona and New Mexico populations remain in place and if the populations in the Rockies or Great Lakes are in danger of being lost, the Feds will resume protections.
 
I guess to summarize: There may not be as many as you (or we) want; but there are enough Wolves to ensure a wild population where 30 years ago there were just stragglers. Ignoring local interests or imposing overbearing restrictions risk the whole balance and then the Wolves lose. Let people get used to them and the Wolves (as a population, not specific individuals) will be fine.
 
Back
Top