Dear HCN,
Letter writer Laurence
Jewett of Massachusetts generally took National Audubon Society to
the woodshed as the cause of the recent court ruling mandating wolf
removal from Yellowstone and central Idaho (HCN, 1/19/98). Only one
problem: Audubon didn’t cause the order, the Farm Bureau Federation
did. It appears that Mr. Jewett, and a number of other people, have
been hearing and believing some faulty
information.
Mr. Jewett implies that Audubon (a)
was attempting to address some minute and unimportant “letter of
the Endangered Species Act’ – not true; (b) “Their intention was to
extend coverage of the act to all wolves, including the ones that
had been re-introduced’ – completely incorrect, and (c) Audubon
acted “thoughtlessly and stubbornly leading us down the dead end
that we currently find ourselves on’ – wrong from word
one.
Audubon addressed a fundamental Endangered
Species Act principle – the right of a listed “endangered” species
to be protected as such. Audubon simply said that Idaho’s naturally
occurring wolves (documented by federal biologists) should retain
their full ESA protection when the government reintroduced animals;
nor did we oppose bringing them in. I’ll let HCN readers decide if
it’s “thoughtless and stubborn” to demand full ESA protection for
existing, endangered wolves. I happen to think the terms better
describe those in government, and a few conservationist supporters,
who said “yes’ to stripping this
protection.
Let’s be absolutely clear about one
thing: the “smoking gun” in this case is firmly clenched in a Farm
Bureau hand. They argued that there were already natural wolves in
both Yellowstone and central Idaho, making the reintroduction of
experimental, nonessential animals illegal – not an Audubon
argument. They claimed that the only appropriate remedy was to
remove all reintroduced wolves – strenuously opposed by Audubon. In
both his “ruling” (experimental nonessential is illegal) and his
“remedy” (remove the wolves), the judge agreed with the Farm
Bureau.
A number of conservation groups,
including Audubon, have said they intend to appeal this removal
order and do everything possible to keep the wolves in Yellowstone
and Idaho, where they belong. We cannot afford to await the appeal
outcome. Every environmentalist who owns a pen, postcard and stamp
should be writing Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Congress
right now, demanding that they stand up for these wolves and the
ecological integrity of Yellowstone and central Idaho. Tell them
you want these animals kept on the ground by uplisting them to
“endangered” status. Tell them you will not let the livestock
industry take away our wolves for a second time! That, and not
unwarranted potshots at Audubon, will keep wolves in their new
homes.
Brian
Peck
Columbia Falls,
Montana
The writer is former
wolf/grizzly coordinator for the National Audubon
Society.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Don’t blame Audubon for a judge’s bad decision.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
