Spokane7
65°
April 15, 2011
Great Lakes wolves may be delisted
About 4,200 wolves roam the upper Midwest
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Friday it would try again to drop wolves in the western Great Lakes region from the federal endangered species list, although courts have overruled previous attempts.
About 4,200 wolves roam and forests and fields of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, their numbers growing steadily since receiving government protection in the early 1970s.
“Wolves in the western Great Lakes have achieved recovery,” said Rowan Gould, acting director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The agency said it would take public comment for 60 days before making a final decision on its proposed rule.
Its action came one day after Congress voted to strip wolves of federal protections in five Northern Rockies states: Montana, Idaho, Washington state, Oregon and Utah.
The fish and wildlife service has proposed removing Great Lakes wolves from the endangered list four times since 2004 but has been thwarted by court rulings that sided with lawsuits filed by animal rights and environmental groups.
The agency tries in its newly proposed rule to objections raised by the courts, including making the case for identifying the Great Lakes wolves as a distinct population and calling for their removal from the endangered list at the same time, agency spokeswoman Georgia Parham said.
For the first time, the rule recognizes the existence of two species of wolves in the region: the gray wolf, which was the type listed under the Endangered Species Act, and the eastern wolf, which historically ranged in eastern Canada and the northeastern U.S. The proposal to remove federal protections applies to both.
Landers: Hunters must consider their image 
fishinjay on April 15 at 12:43 p.m.
It seems like a never ending refrain from environmental groups “goverment is ignoring science.” However, it appears that in the case of wolves when science points toward the species being classified as “recovered” suddenly those very same groups want to ignore science.
hawken on April 15 at 4:12 p.m.
Environmental groups are not “conservationists.”
They are “preservationists.”
“Conservationists” practice the “wise” use of our natural resources, whatever they might be. For example, hunting is a “management tool” to maintain wildlife populations in a healthy balance.
“Preservationists,” so-called “environmentalists,” would have total, “non-use” of our natural resources.
What they don’t understand is that if any population of wildlife is allowed to grow out of control, based upon the ability of the ecosystem to support any given species, that species is subject to a massive, uncontrolled kill, due to disease and overpopulation. It’s called “game management.”
And yes. They use science only when it furthers their “preservationist” view.
detroitdude on April 15 at 6:50 p.m.
The population of these wolves may have rebounded steadily, but there needs to be due diligence and making sure their population remains stable. It reminds me of humpback whales, they were literally a hair away from becoming extinct. Protections that were put in place have allowed them to rebound, and they are coming along well, however it is still very fragile. If those laws were relaxed or repealed tomorrow, those creatures could be decimated within a years time.
It is a different story, being that wolves spawn, grow, and die in about the time it takes a whale to reach adolescence, but all the same, just because something is no longer “endangered” doesn’t mean we ought to just start blowing them away just because we can lol. And I’m all for farmers taking whatever action they need to in order to protect their livestock and means of making a living. And I eat meat, and I think vegans are silly, so there.