Ed Bangs, wolf recovery director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says he wants to ease the strict rules on wolf protection making it easier to kill wolves that are killing livestock and other wildlife such as elk.

While it all sounds well and good, a closer look at what is being proposed and one can see how absolutely ridiculous the proposed idea is. From the Billings Gazette.

The other rules loosen the language that governs when wolves can be killed.

One focuses on the effects of wolves on ungulates, such as elk.

A 2005 proposal said states could kill wolves if they were causing “unacceptable impacts” on wild herds. But the rule said the decline had to be “primarily caused by wolf predation.” Inevitably, declines are tied to other factors, including severe weather, loss of habitat, hunting and other predators, Bangs said.

The proposed rule said wolves can be taken out if they can be shown as “one of the major causes” of herds declining. If that’s the case and state officials want to reduce the wolf population, the idea would have to go through peer review among wildlife officials and would be subject to public comment.

If it passes muster and doesn’t reduce the wolf population below 200 in any given state, wildlife agencies could use public hunts to reduce the wolf population, Bangs said.

How foolish! “Unacceptable Impacts” and “primarily caused by wolf predation”? Have you ever read any account of consensus on what is unacceptable impacts? Remember that 12 years ago it was determined that full recovery of wolves would be 350 wolves. We now have 1,300 and that’s not enough. Ranchers lose livestock everyday and nobody cares. In areas where wolves are living, the elk population is dwindling rapidly yet, this seems to be quite “acceptable”.

The other thing we need to ask is who and how do we prove that reductions in elk are “primarily caused by wolf predation”? Officials won’t determine when a wolf kills livestock unless they actually see the animal making the kill. Arguments rage everyday as to what is causing reduction in game animal populations. How is anyone seriously going to make any of these determinations?

If any determination is made, then “if it passes muster”, wildlife agencies might be able to administer wolf hunts. Who will muster? What individuals or groups will be called in to make the call?

This is a joke and will serve no purpose other than an attempt to appease those gullible enough to believe the USFWS actually wants to do something about controlling wolves. We already know that such a suggestion, as ridiculous as it is, will only prompt the wolf protection freaks to cry wolf and demand that we stop killing their pet animals because a few killed will eradicate the pack.

Sorry, I’m not buying it. This is a clear example of how the USFWS has no intention of actually doing anything to protect the property of ranchers, the game herds and public safety. Their interest lies in appeasing the wolf advocates. It also further shows why the Endangered Species Act needs to be subjected to the scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine once and for all that the ESA is unconstitutional and unjustly strips Americans of their rights.

We shouldn’t fall for such double talk and smoke and mirrors used by the USFWS officials.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this article check these out:

• Vermont Moose Permit Applications Available Now
• News And Views For The Progressive Society
• New York Governor Says He Wants To Boost Hunting And Fishing Participation
• Landowner Protection For Unnecessary Lawsuits
• Managing Elk Herds
• There Are More Hunters Than Some Believe
• Bear Bladders Again in the News
• Maryland’s Black Bear Hunt Gets Underway Today
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Approve New Shot For Waterfowl Hunting
• Hear That Sucking Sound?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!