Although Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama stood firm against Republican attempts to repeal clean air and clean water protections, wolves in the Northern Rockies weren't so lucky.
Under pressure from ranching interests in Montana and Idaho, as well as anti-wolf zealots in those states, Reid and Obama agreed to accept an amendment from Montana Democrat Jon Tester mandating the removal of grey wolves in Idaho and Montana from the endangered species list. For Obama, at least, the move isn't surprising: his administration backed the Bush administration's delisting of wolves even though it would allow the two massive states to cut wolf populations to as few as 450 individuals between them.
While the decision is bad news for the ecology of the Northern Rockies, where wolves play an important role in keeping elk and deer herds healthy, it also sets a disturbing precedent.
Defenders of Wildlife president Rodger Schlickheisen told The New York Times:
In all the decades of the Endangered Species Act, Congress has never legislatively removed protections for any species. It's bad to do it for the wolf, and it could set a very bad precedent, replacing scientific determinations with politics.
The extraordinary thing about this action is that it was eminently preventable -- and may still be if environmentalists are willing to act a little more like wolves and less like lambs. The reality is that the American people love wolves and other charismatic predators -- and want politicians to protect them.
That came through in spades during the 2008 presidential campaign when Defenders of Wildlife ran a hard-hitting ad attacking Sarah Palin for her support of aerial hunting of wolves.
This ad worked in spades -- according to independent research by the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, it was one of the most effective spots of the entire 2008 election cycle. According to Glenn Kesller of HCD Research, which conducted the study:
The ad which focuses on Governor Palin's record regarding the treatment of wildlife in Alaska seemed to strike a chord with voters. The recent ads from both parties have had little impact among voters. This is the first ad in over a month that seems to have broken through.
Here's the reality: wildlife advocates could legitimately run an equally hard-hitting ad targeting President Obama or Senator Reid and would likely change the politics of this issue very quickly. Obama in particular is particularly vulnerable on wildlife issues: despite important habitat designations for polar bears and beluga whales, Ken Salazar's Interior Department has listed endangered species at one of the lowest rates of modern presidents, just slightly ahead of George W. Bush.
If Democrats start to feel real heat in a way that resonates emotionally, wolf killing will cease to be a way for them to portray themselves as in tune with big ranching interests, and start to become a political liability. More broadly, it would send a clear message to the administration that any attacks on wildlife could create political problems for them. In other words, sending a strong signal now is a way to avoid having to blast Obama, Reid and other Democrats in the future -- and help ensure that wolves and other native wildlife remain part of America's natural heritage for generations to come.
Follow Glenn Hurowitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glennhurowitz
If by "healthy" you mean "decimated", then yes, they would. Since being reintroduced into Idaho 15 years ago, the elk population has dropped by 20%. (1)
Regulating/reintroducing the wolves has helped the wolf population recover. This program has worked far "better" than biologists had ever predicted. Wolves breed quickly and live long natural lifespans. It's time to deregulate them so states can actually manage the numbers, just as they do for other large animals, like elk, deer, moose, bears, etc. It won't just be "open season" on all wolves- There is a limited number harvested each year, and fish & game keeps a sharp eye on populations.
I'm a democrat, but I don't understand why this is even a political issue. I guess my advice to activists would be to come up to the Northwest, capture a few wolves, and release them in your local neighborhood and see how that works out.
(1) http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/news/fg_news/10/aug.pdf
And if you have a fundamental problem with hunting or eating meat, well, I can't really say much, because that's just the way you feel. I can respect that, but don't abide. PEACE
Despite the fact that MT & ID were dealing with the wolf population in a responsible way, 14 groups sued to relist wolves in MT & ID. These 14 groups have achieved a Pyrrhic victory. Although they were able to get wolves temporarily relisted, it may well cost us the ESA. If anyone should be feeling the heat right now, it should be the 14 groups that brought this short sighted lawsuit in the first place.
The legislative language that Tester's bill uses relies on an Idaho legislative wolf management plan which prescribes reducing wolf populations in the state to between 100-150 individuals. The Idaho Department of Fish & Game Management plan, which at least included a pretense of being scientifically informed - has been nullified/abandoned by the IDFG Commission.
Tester and Reid are hoping that this language will outflank a Rehberg contest come election-time with the latest polls showing a neck and neck - but with Democrats like this, who needs Republicans !?! It's weak-spirited capitulation at its worst and there is no indication that the rabid-rednecks whose bloodlust for wolves is boiling over would ever vote for a D anyway. Environmental values in the west - at least concerning wildlife and ecosystems - would be better off without Western Democrats picking up any elections. All Western Dems do is give anti-enviro interests an able voice/vote even in a Democratic majority.
I urge anyone concerned about wolves to join or at least visit Defenders of Wildlife's website to get updates and access to petitions. Donations probably wouldn't hurt either. And write to your state representatives and to the President to show them that this is totally unacceptable. I believe we can effect change if we're willing to get ourselves heard.
It makes me a little ill to think of how they just jump at the chance to kill them off.
If we want action, we have to take it.We can't just sit on our hands and hope that "someone else" does this for us.
I posted the White House phone numbers below. Call your Democratic Senators and House members.
I specificalÂly meant the types of organizatiÂons that ran the anti-Palin ads and such, the ones with the money and influence to get more people involved. I might pull another 3-4 people posting to my facebook and such, but I can't afford billboards or tv spots to get the word out like they could if they "jump on it"
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Please include your e-mail address
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
I saw a wolf in Yellowstone who watched me for about 10 minutes and trotted off.
POLITICIANS ARE FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN WOLVES.