Are they extinct yet?.....

Was just browsing around on one of my old yahoo contributor articles submitted last year in the wake of the wolves' de-listing (removal from endangered species list - as if they should have been on it in the first place ) down in the lower 48, and was intrigued by a positive reader comment.

Point being - Now that the hunting and trapping seasons have been established and wolves are being harvested again.......... are they extinct yet? Umm, no. Not even close, despite the world wide web's explosive reaction to the fact that they were now legally harvestable. Just thought I'd post my article here on the blog, as a celebration of the successful-for-all-parties-involved wolf hunting and trapping now going on. (as it should be...) My original article can also still be found on the yahoo contributing writer network - just click here.

Here is my argument, though I shall spare my bibliography here: :)

Wolves' Delisting: What You May Not Know

With all the emotional debate raging on about the 'covert' delisting of the gray wolf in the lower 48, I find it worthy to call to attention some undisguised facts regarding this adept predator and the current management practices surrounding it that are taking place in North America. Though I would not venture to vindicate the process used by legislators to enact this ruling, there are some points that should be assessed without allowing government decisions to cloud the truth.

The gray wolf has never been eradicated from any state due to public hunting seasons alone. A government eradication program, spurred on and supplemented by state-offered bounties, still took the better part of a century to eradicate the wolves from each of several states in the lower 48. This cannot be categorized as a level of harvest reached with public hunting. (www.wolf.org, 2009)

The claim that public hunting can or will eradicate the wolf can thus be labeled as inflammatory and unfounded at best. Let's look at Alaska, for example. In over a century of pursuit, through public hunting and trapping seasons and government sponsored hunting programs (including the oft-contested aerial harvest), what has happened to the wolf? Alaska now boasts the highest population of wolves anywhere in the United States. That hardly sounds like eradication. What better example of harvest's effectiveness than the state with the most aggressive programs - especially when the wolves in that state are the most successful on the continent? (www.wolf.org, 2009) The fact is that in this hunting, trapping, management hotspot of the wolf's world, wolves have never in recorded history been threatened or endangered. (www.adfg.alaska.gov, 2011) Hard to argue with.

The argument that reducing wolf numbers to such levels that genetic problems and inbreeding will result in the demise of the species is unfounded. After all, let's not forget that today's present populations in the lower 48 arose from very low numbers of reintroduced individuals in the states the programs affected. Examples? In 1995, 15 wolves from Canada were reintroduced into central Idaho. 14 individuals were released into the Yellowstone area. Subsequent releases? 20 more were released into the Idaho, and 17 more into the Yellowstone re-introduction areas. (NCSEonline.org, 1997) Not a breeding pool of epic proportions, in either case. Consider also that not every member of a pack will breed, and your gene pool gets even smaller - as does also the required number of individuals necessary for perpetuation of the species. Another often heard claim is that there is no reason to kill a wolf. Any animal with fur that exists at harvestable, sustainable populations is a renewable resource. To then let surplus individuals of that species die un-utilized cannot be considered anything but a waste of a renewable resource. The fur of a wolf will provide more to a human being, in warmth, for far more years, than the brief, minimal return it will provide in nutrients to the environment. The carcass of a wolf harvested for fur is not lost to the ecosystem.

And it does not stop there. Keeping wolf populations in check allows members of those populations to better thrive, just as true as the claim that allowing wolves to keep prey animals in check benefits them. Same reasoning, - same need for control. Disease, suffering, and starvation are all large parts of unbalanced eco-systems. Management brings ecosystems into balance faster than nature, stopping negative conditions before they occur. Healthy populations are not those allowed to run amok, but rather those kept in check. Biology and historical data alone can determine a balance that is productive for all concerned. To claim that "we do not need to manage wolves" is to say two things, not one; that is, we need not either hunt them nor do we need to declare them endangered. We need to look at the evidence provided us and make up our minds.