Wanton Predator?

Being from Chicago, when I hear, "You can't expect a well-oiled Chicago political machine to understand conservation's importance in salvaging the environment," I take it badly. So here's a test, and a big one. How fast can President Obama say, "Yanking endangered species protection from wolves and polar bears was a huge mistake. It's fixed. Sorry 'bout that."

While I'm skeptical, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Interior Secretary Salazar's terrible decision early in the week to deny gray wolves protection as endangered species was a stupid "rookie" mistake. After all, he's from Colorado and cynical pals from the "West" could have schnookered him.

But stripping both wolves and polar bears of their status, precisely the way the Bushites proposed to do? That smells intentional. And it's just as dreadful now as when Bush and his cronies pushed so hard for it.

The Obama Administration's abandonment of two vital keystone species to a handful of irresponsible killers makes it hard to choose between appalling and outrageous. So I won't. If anything, this egregious failure of responsibility for two vital species that should be naturals for protection is at least as important for a.) the Obama Administration, and b.) humanity, as it is for the wolves and bears themselves.

Contrary to our inflated sense of ourselves in the great scheme of things, humans are not in charge in the real world. And we're not the top predators, even though we make it our business to be the top killers.

Cooling my jets just a tad, let's take this one at a time. First, the wolves.

The Sarah Palins of the world have made it clear that they want their way with wolves: Kill 'Em, Kill 'Em All ... preferably just for the fun of it from the safety of an airplane after you've run them to the ground, exhausted. Compassionate conservatism at it's best.

This clearly is not about economic interests. Far more domestic dogs kill ranchers' livestock than wolves do. And when it is wolves who are responsible? Ranchers are monetarily compensated by environmental groups. So forget the profit motive. To say that wolves have "recovered" from the near extinction to which we drove them is as wrong-headed as it is to drive them back to that brink.

What this is about is grown-ups who mistake themselves for "Little Red Riding Hood," the "Three Little Pigs" or faux-macho Sarah Palin wannabes. Perhaps we should award these diseased souls the scat-wit merit badge or a one-way ticket to Pakistan's Swat valley. Even Romulus and Remus knew better than to swallow the poisonous swill Aesop dished out about wolves. To date, there are no recorded instances of wolves killing humans in the U.S.A. Maybe it's time to give the guns to the wolves. It appears they would use them more responsibly than we have.

Add hard-boiled reason to my own acknowledged biophilia. America has already been down this disastrous road with gray wolves. We wiped them out in Yellowstone National Park and got a stark lesson in return: destroy wolves and the entire ecosystem teeters. While it's a much longer (and very interesting) story, suffice it to say: When there were no wolves, elk completely over-ran the place and the entire ecosystem suffered, terribly -- plants, animals, water, soil, the whole place. Even the ditziest tourist knew something was wrong and acted accordingly.

And polar bears? They are lightyears beyond being either coca-cola cute, or if you want to slick that up, charismatic megafauna. Polar bears, like us, are at the heart and soul of the terrible consequences of global climate change. Whither goeth the polar bear, there go we -- no habitat, no life.

Protecting polar bears in every and all ways has "self-interest" written all over it. Pay attention to them and we also have a chance for the survival of life-as-we-know-it on earth. It's a stretch, but think of polar bears as canaries-in-the-ice; they're a lead indicator. Leave them to chance and we'll go down with them. What was all that talk from Candidate Obama, now President Obama about taking global climate change seriously? Tell that to the polar bears who desperately -- DESPERATELY -- need protection.

So here's the deal. Every authentic hunter and outdoors person, every owner of a "Bo" or "Muffy" or "Buster" (every dog in the world, whatever the pedigree or lack thereof, is a direct descendant of wolves) in the land should be howling along with me, in every parlor from the White House to Your House. Every one of us who has a lifetime allegiance to the bear in our own beddy-by; each of us who's ooo'd and ahhh'd when a commercial venture enlisted the iconic polar bear in an attempt to overcome our sales resistance; and anyone who's had to explain to a worried kid looking at a very real photo of a polar bear stranded on a tiny patch of ice needs to be heard.

It's not that they're cute. They are meat-eaters; they kill to survive, as humans do. They are essential species in the ecologies of which they are a part.

We, the sovereign American people saw to it that the Endangered Species Act was enacted way back in 1973. President Obama, if Ken Salazar isn't up to the job of using that Act on behalf of us all -- and that includes the species with whom we share the land and sea the United States claims -- get someone who is. Before it's too late.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Salazar, why kill a wolf? Why drown a polar bear?

I'm sure Secretary Salazar would like to hear from you as well, as would the president. Do either want to be characterized as a "wanton predator"?

Fortuitously, on Thursday we recorded a program with the President of the indomitable Defenders of Wildlife, Rodger Schlickheisen, focused on wolves and global climate change. We'll have the program up on our "Paula Gordon Show" website and the sunlight/oxygen "YouTube" site shortly.

Comments

[niko73]

Paula: You need to read the Endangered Species Act and rewrite you essay. I’m a huge wolf advocate and supported the reintroduction into Idaho and Yellowstone. However, let’s play by the rules and listen to science, even if that means delisting the gray wolf.

When the wolves were reintroduced, biologists from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, under the environmen­tally-frie­ndly Bruce Babbitt’s DOI, set recovery targets. It was 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, I believe. Well, now there are 1,500 wolves in ID/MT/WY, shattering the recovery goals.

Let’s not abuse the ESA. It’s an extremely important law and we must retain its integrity. The ESA is a TEMPORARY mechanism for bringing species back from the brink of extinction. It is not designed to be a permanent protection measure, and using it as such will strengthen arguments for changing or watering down the ESA. When we completely ignore targets set by qualified scientists and the process the ESA provides, it’s a blow to endangered species. Salazar did exactly what he was supposed to do--by definition, the wolf is no longer endangered.

Listen, the reintroduction of the wolf is a great success story. Although it is very unfortunate that a few more might die now that they’re delisted, that does not mean wolves are going to go extinct again. Wolf populations are strong, they can take a few losses. And if, God forbid, wolf numbers were ever to drop again, they would be re-listed.

[RTIII]

1500 wolves in the area of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, as a practical matter, means the odds of your ever seeing one approach zero unless you are seeking them out. Even if 100% of them were within a boundary of a single square mile, the ratio would still be less than three per acre.

If anything, the ESA needs strengthening. Unfortunately, humanity has so badly managed our world that long-term, PERMANENT stewardship is now a requirement. This is in part a tragedy of the commons combined with unbridled greed and a complacent incurious media, along with other "human factors."

We need both permanent regulation against man-made pollution and special protections introduced when these are not enough to prevent a near-extinction.
.

[niko73]

RTIII, "chance of seeing a wolf" is not a criterion of the ESA or species recovery in general. Chance of seeing an animal has nothing to do with viable, healthy populations. These protections are for the SPECIES, not for human's enjoyment or entertainment. My point is that qualified biologists set those recovery goals. They know more than you and I do about what constitutes recovery. These were not Bush “scientists,” but biologists from one of the more environmentally friendly Departments of the Interior.

I definitely agree with you that permanent stewardship is needed, not only for wolves but for other species which have recovered. But ppermanent protection is possible without modifying the ESA. This can be accomplished through separate laws (see bald eagle), as well as from management plans.

Do you have any evidence that “these [current protections] are not enough to prevent a near-extinction” in the case of the gray wolf? Again, qualified scientists from the US Fish and Wildlife Service disagree. Only time will tell, but as I said before, if numbers drop (which I’m confident they won’t—wolves are doing great), they get relisted.

[averagemaninthecountry]

Pushing the grey wolf issue may sink the endangered species act.
Once a species is listed, a recovery plan has to be set up. The plan has to have a goal.
The wolf population is several hundred percent larger than the goal in most of the areas for which the plans were set up.
Now the Defenders of Wildlife are revising science claiming the original deal wasn't good enough.
Now remember how you felt after spending all day cleaning your room only to have your Mom tell you that you are still grounded because it's not clean enough.

[Frostpaw]

Ask Secretary Salazar to reconsider his terrible decision on the polar bear by signing the online petition at http://www.savethepolarbear.org/