NM: More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

Discuss wolves (news, sightings, etc.).

Moderators: Isela, Koa

Post Reply
User avatar
Blightwolf
New Pack Member
New Pack Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:20 am

NM: More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

Post by Blightwolf » Thu May 12, 2011 10:30 pm

New Mexico: More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed
New House Bill Would Circumvent Mexican Wolf Recovery Planning
May 12, 2011

SILVER CITY, N.M.— New legislation proposed by Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.) and seven House colleagues from the West and Midwest would prematurely remove Endangered Species Act protections for Mexican wolves once they reach a mere 100 wolves, turning management over to the states of Arizona and New Mexico.

“This bill continues a disturbing trend of mostly Republican congresspersons trying to legislate what should be scientific decisions in order to do away with environmental protections,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. “One hundred wolves is nowhere near a viable population and would leave Mexican wolves in constant danger of extinction.”

The legislation would undermine an ongoing effort to develop a scientifically based recovery plan for the Mexican gray wolf to replace an outdated 1982 recovery plan. The 1982 plan did not include recovery targets because the Mexican wolf was considered too imperiled for such a goal to be envisioned at the time.

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently developing Mexican wolf recovery goals for the very first time,” said Robinson. “There is absolutely no call for Congress to override this scientific process.”

At present, there are approximately 50 wolves spread between Arizona and New Mexico. Reaching 100 wolves was an interim benchmark of the recovery program, but the Fish and Wildlife Service has said on repeated occasions that it does not consider this to be a recovered population. Even the modest goal of 100 wolves, however, has not been met, largely because of heavy-handed management advocated by the states that calls for removal of wolves if they leave an arbitrary recovery area or are involved in depredation of livestock, which has led to many wolves being removed from the wild, injured or even killed.

“This vicious bill is akin to ripping away life-support systems from an emergency-room patient just as soon as vital signs begin to stabilize,” said Robinson. “The last thing that beautiful, wild, but very vulnerable Mexican wolves need is a resumption of persecution from the callous and misled Arizona Game and Fish Department, which is exactly what would happen if H.R. 1819 were to pass.”

The introduction of H.R. 1819 follows last month’s budget rider that arbitrarily removed wolves from the endangered species list in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Utah, the first-ever congressional removal of Endangered Species Act protections for a species. The Endangered Species Act, in stark contrast to congressional whimsy, requires meeting scientific benchmarks to delist a species. H.R. 1819 would amend the Act such that while the Mexican wolf and other wolves might technically remain listed, management would entirely devolve to states on an indefinite basis.

Source: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news ... -2011.html
AUGUST 2009 USER OF THE MONTH

User avatar
Canidae
Former WQ Moderator
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:08 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Las Cruces, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: NM: More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

Post by Canidae » Thu May 12, 2011 10:33 pm

Noooooo, no no no no no....100 wolves in two states is far, far too few. I was hoping for three or four hundred. :|
Like animal photography? Check out my Deviantart account:
http://familycanidae.deviantart.com/


Avatar by me.

User avatar
Blightwolf
New Pack Member
New Pack Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:20 am

Re: NM: More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

Post by Blightwolf » Thu May 12, 2011 10:53 pm

Canidae wrote:Noooooo, no no no no no....100 wolves in two states is far, far too few. I was hoping for three or four hundred. :|
I know; even 200 would be a better number than 100. Wolves are managed by the standards of politics and not science, like you once said...
AUGUST 2009 USER OF THE MONTH

User avatar
Canidae
Former WQ Moderator
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:08 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Las Cruces, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: NM: More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

Post by Canidae » Thu May 12, 2011 11:23 pm

Just because 100 is the goal for the recovery program doesn't mean that wolves should be managed at that very low level. 100 is the bare minimum number of wolves that the recovery program calls for. Using aggressive management tactics to keep the population at that extremely low point is silly. Yes, they'll technically be recovered at 100, but think about it this way. If the population falls below 100, then they will have fallen below the recovery goal...technically, worthy of being re-listed again? Do you agree?

Therefore, I consider 100 to be a dangerous number, not a healthy one. I think there is a clear difference between a community of wolves with the ability to survive, and a large, healthy population of wolves that easily survives and reproduces profoundly year after year.

And I think this legislation is failing to make that distinction. Just because wolves might be able to sustain themselves at 100 individuals doesn't necessarily mean that 100 is a healthy number.
Like animal photography? Check out my Deviantart account:
http://familycanidae.deviantart.com/


Avatar by me.

NewMooon
Hunter-in-training
Hunter-in-training
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:33 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Behind you... You looked didn't you?
Contact:

Re: NM: More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

Post by NewMooon » Sun May 15, 2011 7:16 am

I agree with Canidae that 100 is a very low population. Many laws now have also been passed to be able to kill or reinforce the killing of wolves. I hope that some how the Mexican wolves get a stronger population.
..........╔═╦╗────╔═╦═╗
..........║║║╠═╦╦╦╣║║║╠═╦═╦═╦═╦╗
..........║║║║╩╣║║║║║║║╬║╬║╬║║║║
..........╚╩═╩═╩══╩╩═╩╩═╩═╩═╩╩═╝



.........."life IS hard."
.........."~ŋɚɰ ɱøøŋ



Green Paws Team

TextArt© Nightly
Avvie© Crystal

User avatar
Koa
WolfQuest Moderator
WolfQuest Moderator
Posts: 12998
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:53 pm
Gender: Female
Location: washington, d.c.
Contact:

Re: NM: More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

Post by Koa » Mon May 16, 2011 6:10 pm

If I remember correctly, weren't they (and aren't they) still struggling with the Mexican wolves (with regards to conservation and conserving the species.)

I mean, I don't think their genetic pool is that diverse, is it? I don't think the Mexican wolves can afford this at the moment - diversity or not.

Canidae wrote:Just because 100 is the goal for the recovery program doesn't mean that wolves should be managed at that very low level. 100 is the bare minimum number of wolves that the recovery program calls for. Using aggressive management tactics to keep the population at that extremely low point is silly. Yes, they'll technically be recovered at 100, but think about it this way. If the population falls below 100, then they will have fallen below the recovery goal...technically, worthy of being re-listed again? Do you agree?
...and then wouldn't it just turn into a vicious de-listing/re-listing cycle? :/ I don't think they are making the right choices here.
YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GET BETTER AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW.

User avatar
Canidae
Former WQ Moderator
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:08 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Las Cruces, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: NM: More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

Post by Canidae » Wed May 25, 2011 6:07 am

Koa wrote: ...and then wouldn't it just turn into a vicious de-listing/re-listing cycle? :/ I don't think they are making the right choices here.
Yeah that's exactly my point.

Let's compare the Mexican gray wolf population to eating at an all-you-can-eat buffet. xD

If you eat just the bare minimum that you need to survive, then you will just eat a little tiny bit, and will become hungry again very shortly afterward. If you stuff your face full of as much food as you can possibly take in, then you will get sick, bloated, and nauseous. The key is finding that happy medium...the amount of food that will satisfy your hunger without making you feel sick.

So...we need one or two platefuls of wolves. Not a single spoonful, nor ten plates full. I consider 100 wolves to be a single spoonful.
Like animal photography? Check out my Deviantart account:
http://familycanidae.deviantart.com/


Avatar by me.

User avatar
Koa
WolfQuest Moderator
WolfQuest Moderator
Posts: 12998
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:53 pm
Gender: Female
Location: washington, d.c.
Contact:

Re: NM: More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

Post by Koa » Wed May 25, 2011 4:43 pm

Canidae wrote:
Koa wrote: ...and then wouldn't it just turn into a vicious de-listing/re-listing cycle? :/ I don't think they are making the right choices here.
Yeah that's exactly my point.

Let's compare the Mexican gray wolf population to eating at an all-you-can-eat buffet. xD

If you eat just the bare minimum that you need to survive, then you will just eat a little tiny bit, and will become hungry again very shortly afterward. If you stuff your face full of as much food as you can possibly take in, then you will get sick, bloated, and nauseous. The key is finding that happy medium...the amount of food that will satisfy your hunger without making you feel sick.

So...we need one or two platefuls of wolves. Not a single spoonful, nor ten plates full. I consider 100 wolves to be a single spoonful.

With the red wolf being confirmed to be a coyote (although I mean, it's kinda been like that for awhile now... but I'm not sure if the general public has noticed) would that hopefully lay aside some funding for the Mexican wolves or any problems regarding them? If so, do you think it would perhaps lighten this situation or not?
YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GET BETTER AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW.

Post Reply

Return to “General Wolf Discussion”