Thursday, July 28, 2011

Government and Environmentalists Debate over Wolf Delisting from Endangered Species

Despite the laws against acting without judicial review, Congress delisted the gray wolf from the Endangered Species list, much to the dismay and anger of environmentalists. For the first time ever, Congress delisted an animal without scientific review. In the past, the wolf population decreased almost to extinction due to farmers and ranchers hunting them in order to protect livestock. They were put on the Endangered Species list and nurtured back to a healthier population. In the 1990’s wolves were reintroduced to the Rocky Mountains though there were “vehement objections” from farmers and ranchers, who were unable to hunt the wolf because of species safeguards. Now that Congress has lifted this, environmentalists fear that ranchers will once again hunt the wolves to extinction. In Idaho and Montana, state wildlife agencies still maintain control over an estimated 1,200 wolves, and are currently coming up with management plans that call for killing hundreds of the animals—“mostly through public hunting.” In Wyoming, about 300 wolves are currently, possibly temporarily, federally protected. A two-hour hearing was held in Missoula, Montana, during which the presiding Judge Malloy ruled that the Endangered Species Act had been violated because the agency had treated Idaho and Montana wolves differently from those in Wyoming; he stated that they must be treated as one population. Malloy’s decision was overruled by Congress just days later. Andrea Gelatt, a government lawyer, said that Congress has the power to amend federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act by “speak[ing] by language of exceptions”—in this case, the gray wolf. Malloy opposed her statement by retorting that this is the government’s way of “indirectly” saying that the government will permit the agency to act illegally because it didn’t like the court’s decision. Some solutions to this problem could be that ranchers should take more precautions against wolves, perhaps with government funds to assist them, or to put a limit on the number of wolves that can be killed within a certain area. Barriers to this are lack of money and lack of concern over the wolf population. My opinion is that the wolves should remain protected because of the animosity they arouse in ranchers and other hunters, though perhaps not remain on the Endangered Species list if the population is stable.

http://news.yahoo.com/environmentalists-government-debate-wolf-court-011555916.html

2 comments:

  1. While the Endangered Species Act externally appears to be a valiant effort, many problems lie within the legislation and the enforcement of the act. Many feel that animal control should be a state issue as there may be overpopulation in one state and extremely small population in another. As the wolves are considered to be dangerous animals, one could empathize with residents who fear for their own animals and children. Other opposition to the act is the extreme flexibility the federal government holds in regards to controlling personal property if land is found to hold an endangered species. The government has the power to halt all construction as well as forcibly ensuring that no part of a person’s property undergo change; these extreme measures have caused people to actually purposefully hunt endangered species on their property to ensure that their property is not marked as “endangered species territory”. A better solution to endangered species protection would be to compromise with property owners and to reach a mutually beneficial arrangement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If enforcement of the Endangered Species Act was left to state legislation then many states would consider citizens' livelihood more important than the good of "dangerous" species. Therefore, whether states have a high or low population of a species, the needs of the animals could be ignored. Money and power seem to be common themes in the political world, not the safety and preservation of endangered animals. If enough farmers in a state protested against the protection of wolves, the state may take measures to lift the bans on hunting them for the sake of keeping the people happy. Federal control of the Endangered Species Act ensures that the wolves, as well as the states, are all treated fairly. "Dangerous" or not, wolves deserve a habitat as well as humans. Besides, wolves don't attack unless threatened and won't kill all of the livestock that ranchers own. I think that the government should fund better protection for ranchers against the wolves, but the animals shouldn't be killed just because they're hungry.

    ReplyDelete