Western States Killing Wolves By the Hundreds

Ever since Congress stripped Endangered Species Act protections from our nation’s gray wolves, the Montana state government is encouraging people to kill them. People can kill up to 220 wolves in-state during hunting season. Already 100 wolves have been killed this season, but since that’s shy of the total allowed, Montana actually extended the hunting season to make sure that they fill the “quota” — which amounts to offing 40 percent of Montana’s entire wolf population.

Their justification for advocating for the large-scale killing of wolves is that the wolf population is at a “healthy” number. Apparently to some, driving the barely-recovered gray wolves back towards the brink of extinction is acceptable policy once again.

It’s not just Montana. Wolves have been gunned down by hunters and federal sharpshooters in Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon and, as of this week, New Mexico.

By the 1960s, gray wolves had been hunted for sport to near extinction in the United States. The Endangered Species Act was their saving grace, providing them with protection from hunters under the law. But today, our government doesn’t consider wolves an endangered species — it considers them vermin.

Last April, Congress stripped gray wolves of their protection under the Endangered Species Act, the law which had saved them. This was the first time Congress mandated that a species’ protection be taken away and sets a dangerous precedent.

Under normal circumstances, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the judiciary designate which species are “endangered.” However, Congress overrode scientists’ and the courts’ decision to protect gray wolves, caving to lobbies by people who profit from hunting or farming livestock.

Gray wolves balance the ecosystem by naturally controlling the population of animals that consume vegetation. Wolves also facilitate evolution in other species. These creatures are needed by the natural community to maintain the delicate balance of life. Without them, caribou, deer, bison and rabbits would clear the land of flora, and the ecosystem would be unable to maintain itself.

Who are we to decide exactly how many wolves should be able to live? The gray wolf population isn’t even a fraction of its historic size back when they inhabited most regions of United States. State governments needs to let go of this unnecessary and merciless desire to control the population of animals who are just trying to simply survive.

New Mexico Lifts Trapping Ban

Loss of Top Predators is “Humankind’s Most Pervasive Influence on Nature”

Photo From ThinkStockPhoto

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Past Member .

4:03PM PDT on May 2, 2012

Why can't man and Government leave the animals alone ? Wolves only kill to eat and survive. Man can't say the same.

send a green star

Larry D.

7:44AM PDT on Apr 6, 2012

To Phil S: You mention that those who care about wolves react "emotionally"during times like this. So let me get this straight, you compassionate individual: In your view, you have no qualms with a US Forestry Service official -- who is supposed to be neutral and objective, one would think, and certainly "resigned" about having to kill any living animal -- being so happy and ecstatic that he has trapped a defenseless wolf? And is now SO EAGER to let happy hunting wolf-haters stop by to take shots, before ripping its skin from its lifeless body "to hang on my wall?" This kind of torture has no impact on you -- roll with it, then? Sadism rules the wolf hunt then according to you. If there is a higher power, and I believe there is -- there will be a reckoning of some kind. This kind of glee over torturing a wolf in its final moments -- it IS NOT HUMANE. Go ahead, justify torture! Doom your soul by so doing.

Lyn V.

5:58PM PDT on Apr 5, 2012

Some people are just plain and simply disgusting

Lesley B.

5:41AM PDT on Mar 18, 2012

I see, a very sensible way of going about things, protect an animal because it has almost become extinct, then lift the protection so that the animal can be hunted to near extinction again! These wolves must remain under protection from man - man the destroyer!

Wildlife C.

6:31AM PST on Mar 6, 2012

Interesting comment below mine that says hunters,

"sooner than later abuse spouses, children the elderly and finally kill humans"

Sounds like Rush Limbaugh is posting here.

Gianna M.

6:08AM PST on Mar 6, 2012

A campaign must be launched directed especially to politicians, STRESSING THE TIES OF ANIMAL ABUSE, CRUELTY AND VIOLENCE ESCALATING TO HUMANS. This is especially true in the treatment of animals of burden, and those raised for food, company animals and those in the entertainment. If law makers do not care about the animals they should consider that ANIMAL ABUSERS (INCLUDING HUNTERS) sooner than later abuse spouses, children the elderly and finally kill humans as well.

5:49PM PST on Mar 5, 2012

US Fish and Wildlife last week in their 5 year review of gray wolf recommended delisting across the lower 48. Bunch a dog gone scientists. Who cares about science? I just want White Fang to run free like in Jack London's book. ahoooooo.

Frances E.

4:58PM PST on Mar 5, 2012

Wolves should be back on the endangered species list permanently and Congress should keep its crooked nose out of another department's business. Only until the Congressmen who are on the take from certain groups hear from those of us who wish to protect the wolves (I let them hear from me) tell our Congressmen to stop aiding those who wish to anniliate the wolves will they have a chance at safety..

Roy V.

6:02AM PST on Mar 3, 2012

Karma will be a bitch for these low life's.

1:22PM PST on Feb 25, 2012

I love this line from the article.

"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the judiciary designate which species are “endangered.” "

I'll bet you didn't realize the federal bench was charged with determining ESA status did you? Nope neither did I. Do you think it's because of their scientific background? Wonder which part of the ESA has language saying judges should designate endangerment? Care to comment Rachel Matsuoka?