Dear HCN,
It is more than a little
ironic that the arguments of a group – the Audubon Society – trying
to enforce the letter of the Endangered Species Act yielded a
result contrary to the one that they had hoped for. Their intention
was to extend coverage of the act to all wolves, including the ones
that had been re-introduced. The result is that (barring an
overturn of the recent court decision) the entire introduced
population must now be removed.
The
reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone and Idaho – wildly
successful by most measures and promising the perpetuation of a
healthy and sustainable wolf population in the lower 48 – was the
result of years of tireless effort on the part of countless
individuals with all manner of viewpoints on the subject. That it
became a reality is a testament to its attempt to involve those
affected and the willingness of these to offer some measure of
compromise.
Efforts that attempt to protect
wildlife and other parts of the environment (e.g., old-growth
forests) with total disregard for people who are impacted by those
efforts, are bound to fail.
We should not ignore
the lesson provided by the current situation. Perhaps Audubon and
others should have carefully considered the goal they were
attempting to achieve (a sustainable wolf population) and assessed
the best way to achieve that end before thoughtlessly and
stubbornly leading us down the dead end that we currently find
ourselves on.
Laurence W.
Jewett
Reading,
Massachusetts
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Audubon should have thought it over.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
