Dear HCN,
A complete review of the
situation is the subject of a book, not an article, but in response
to Mr. Macfarlane’s more salient complaints:
1)
There was no reliable documentation of wolves breeding in central
Idaho, despite the efforts of trained, professional biologists to
find them. If wolves had, as Mr. Macfarlane claims, reached
“critical mass,” where are they now? When breeding occurs, packs
are formed and packs are easily documented. Judge Downes didn’t
conclude from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that
breeding populations of wolves inhabited central Idaho. What he
gained from reading the reports and what the Fish and Wildlife
Service never denied, was that dispersers and/or lone wolves passed
through or temporarily inhabited the area. Judge Downes then
narrowly interpreted Section 10(j) of the ESA to mean that it could
not be used if there was a naturally occurring “specimen” in the
area or even if there might be one in the
future.
2) The Endangered Species Act is a
strong, far-sighted law, but like all laws it needs to be tempered
with common sense. Because it was written to protect species with
vastly different biological needs, too loose an interpretation can
allow one species to spiral towards extinction. At the same time,
rigid, narrow interpretations can lead to absurd results for
another species. The spectacle of the spectacular wolf recovery
story being shut down to satisfy a legally narrow interpretation is
a case of the latter. Conservationists who claim that applying
10(j) to central Idaho subverts the integrity of the ESA belong in
the same paranoid category as mining industrialists adamantly
refusing the slightest alteration of their sacred 1872 Mining
Law.
3) Mr. Macfarlane correctly states that ESA
Section 7 provisions designed to protect habitat are dropped for
species reintroduced under 10(j). However, wolf recovery has not
been used to halt development or resource extraction in
northwestern Montana, where Section 7 provisions are in place. In
large part, this is because research has failed to demonstrate that
logging and mining adversely affect wolves. Therefore, the wolf is
not an appropriate tool for environmentalists to use to protect
wilderness. We have loaded wolves with enough baggage through the
ages. We should not further burden them by misrepresenting their
habitat requirements and using them as poster animals to preserve
wild lands. Instead, our country needs a land ethic and laws that
protect the integrity of ecosystems.
The ESA is
intended to ensure the recovery of endangered species. Because the
10(j) provision of the ESA worked, even as you read this there are
real, not hypothetical, wolf pups emerging from dens in Yellowstone
and Idaho. Wolf recovery is on a trajectory headed towards
self-sustaining wolf populations within the next decade. Even the
most optimistic projections examining the possibility of “natural”
Idaho wolf recovery under “full ESA protection” did not come close
to matching this remarkable achievement.
If this
isn’t success, what is? If the use of 10(j) isn’t appropriate in
this case, when is it? Mr. Macfarlane’s concerns seem focused on
fixing something that isn’t broken. Let’s concentrate on real
problems, such as the need for a land ethic, and real enemies – the
Farm Bureau, which is furthering its agenda of derailing wolf
recovery by its hypocritical, cynical exploitation of ambiguities
in the ESA. In the words of livestock representative George
Bennett, “We want natural recovery. It’s been working for 20 years.
There still aren’t any.”
Pat
Tucker and Bruce Weide,
Hamilton,
Montana
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Pat Tucker and Bruce Waide respond.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
