Dear HCN,
Pat Tucker and Bruce
Weide’s article on wolves contains many errors (HCN, 4/13/98).
Wolves were not “occasional loners’ in central Idaho’s wilds, prior
to the recent release, as their article asserts. There is ample
evidence that wolves did inhabit the Greater Salmon-Selway
Ecosystem, dating back to the first confirmed sightings from the
late 1970s. For example, the all-volunteer Gray Wolf Committee from
Idaho, the one litigant represented by Earthjustice their article
failed to mention, spent months in the field in the early “90s
documenting wolf signs in many locations across the Greater
Salmon-Selway Ecosystem. The Earthjustice lawsuit was successful
because it used data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
files showing wolves were present in central Idaho. Clearly, the
10(j) exception to the act was illegally applied in the case of
central Idaho.
What makes this even more
remarkable is the simple fact there were and are obvious
bureaucratic disincentives for the FWS to document naturally
occurring wolves in Idaho. It is logical to assume that had the FWS
lived up to its duty under the Endangered Species Act, wolf
recovery in central Idaho would have naturally been well on its way
by the time the release took place. Even given the dereliction of
duty by the FWS, naturally occurring wolves were reaching critical
mass, if they had not already done so, by the
mid-1990s.
It is precisely because the evidence
was so strong that wolves were in central Idaho and were recovering
naturally, that the Earthjustice lawsuit was restricted to Idaho
and did not include Yellowstone, even though a naturally occurring
wolf was killed south of the park just prior to reintroduction. It
is either dishonest or uninformed for Weide and Tucker to imply
that Earthjustice based its case on “occasional”
wolves.
Wolves have done well in the wilds of
central Idaho because the habitat is still remote enough to limit
contact with humans. But that habitat is going fast. The roadless
Cove/Mallard region, an area with numerous wolf reports prior to
the artificial release, has been partially developed and is slated
to be ripped by 145 miles of roads and 200 cuts. Section 10(j)
fails to offer protection of wolf habitat rendering any recent
gains under the threat of future habitat
loss.
Section 10(j) of the ESA has not lessened
the shoot, shovel and shut up mentality. “Nonessential” wolves have
been illegally killed as have ones with full protection under the
ESA. Wolves or any other species are not benefited when
environmentalists bow to blackmail of this sort. Furthermore,
section 10(j) did not prevent the Farm Bureau from filing its
lawsuit. So much for the politically greased compromise alternative
that wolf opponents accepted.
It is also
inaccurate to portray the ESA as being inflexible. Wolves are all
too routinely killed for predation under the more protective
measures of the ESA.
The real issue behind the
debate within the environmental community over the wolf
reintroduction needs to be examined. The underlying message of the
article is the ESA is either too stringent or it is politically
untenable. Rather than couching that belief in sophistry – wolves
were not in Idaho, or there were too few to be a viable population,
or they were only transient (allegations unsupported by the
scientific facts) – honesty is needed. People like Pat and Bruce
need to be forthright in explaining why they believe the ESA should
be weakened.
An ESA that is not used is like no
ESA at all. The FWS fails to follow the Act in many instances. That
doesn’t mean environmentalists should give up and call for
exceptions to the ESA. Pressuring the agency through lawsuits or
other means to enforce the law should be
pursued.
Finally, wolves will remain in
Yellowstone. The public won’t allow them to be removed. The dream
of wolf recovery in Maine, the Adirondacks or elsewhere is alive
and will remain so because citizens stand up for wildlife and
wildlands. Capitulation, not action, kills
dreams.
Gary
Macfarlane
Moscow,
Idaho
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Wolves deserve protection.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
