The "basically impossible, theoretical, worst-case scenario" for wolves takes effect today
- Sylvia Fallon
- Staff Scientist, Washington, DC
- Blog | About
- Posted May 4, 2009 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Last month, as the Department of the Interior finalized the on-again delisting of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains, I was out of the office experiencing the delirium of sleep deprivation that comes with the birth of a new child. So when I returned to work last week I sifted through hundreds of half-read and unread emails that accumulated in my absence including a slew of press clips on the wolves.
The piece that struck me the most was one in which the US Fish and Wildlife Service accuses NRDC of lying about the possible consequences of delisting wolves in the region. To be fair, the Service's wolf recovery coordinator, Ed Bangs, didn't actually use the word "lying" to describe our claims - I believe his words were "flat out spinning a bunch of horse pucky," but you get the point.
You see, there are currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,600 wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. The US Fish and Wildlife Service will tell you that upon delisting the states have committed to maintaining around a thousand of those wolves (a number, by the way, that we believe is inadequate to ensure longterm survival). We, on the other hand, would tell you that rather than being protected by the state plans those same thousand wolves are actually in danger of being exterminated. Now read on.
When Louisa Willcox defended NRDC's statements to the Missoula Independent by explaining that the only legally binding number of wolves the states are committed to maintaining is a few hundred (not over one thousand), Ed didn't disagree.
"That's true, Bangs acknowledges, but only under a 'theoretical, worst-case scenario' that's 'basically impossible.'"
What is impossible about the states exercising their legal right to reduce their wolf populations to the minimum number allowable? The Service may not think they will, but let's just say for a minute that they do, what recourse would there be? That's right - none.
That is why we will be challenging the delisting that takes effect today - as we did the last one. Because until there is a legally binding agreement that would prevent the states from drastically reducing their wolf populations, there is no way to ensure they won't do just that. And that's no horse pucky - that's just the truth.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
melissa mcclure — May 4 2009 09:16 PM
Questions: In a crucial species recovery effort, why wouldn't somewhere on higher end of the MVP (most viable population) be set as the figure and not a bare minimum figure? Choosing a middle ground figure, or slightly above, based on multiple research sources, would be a "more likely to be successful", as well as conservative and conservation-minded approach.
And besides, for predators high on the food chain as wolves are, in general don't fluctuations or decreases in prey populations naturally regulate wolf populations over time and within bioregions?
Reciprocally, don't wolves (and other predators) help keep prey populations in check?
(ex. now out of control deer populations in areas where wolves used to be present to keep the pop. down).
Who has an interest in keeping the MVP at the minimum end of viability estimates? And why?
As far as actions we can take to increase the mandated MVP's, what can individuals do? And perhaps some research-grounded talking points regarding healthy populations and predator prey relationships, as well as myth-busting about wolves?
Thank you!