Earlier this year, protections were lifted on the gray wolf (they were considered extremely endangered just thirty years ago, in the 1970s). These protections were lifted because the wolf population made a great comeback UNDER the protection of the Endangered Species Act. And the comeback was noticeable. Wolves were pouncing on many of the rancher's sheep, cattle, and other animals for a little snack (; and this obviously disturbed the ranchers. Also, hunters complained that the wolves were devastating game (most importantly elk). So, when the protections were lifted, Montana and Idaho hurried to approve wolf hunting seasons. There was a cap on 75 wolves for Montana and 220 for Idaho, but even with these caps I think hunters should be careful when hunting wolves. Even though they have made a comeback, they can easily slip back into endangerment. Although the population of wolves has made a remarkable comeback, that doesn't necessarily justify the hunting of wolves. Environmental scientists claim that the population is not yet at a sustainable level, putting the wolves at harm for endangerment again.
And the wolf isn't just there to kill. They perform critical jobs in the ecosystem that help it thrive. If wolves didn't exist, then smaller animals would thrive more and eat more plants and reproduce more and more would survive and then they would kill more plants and etc.. it would get very out of hand. The wolf is necessary to keep these in check.
I can see why people are angered at the wolf because it kills animals and game, but they also serve a function that shouldn't be ignored. I see how the hunting season for wolves are necessary (because of the killing of livestock), but I think the protections shouldn't be lifted until the wolf population is sustained and healthy.
Friday Late Night Open Thread
51 minutes ago
9 comments:
Hey Britney, where did you find this article? And if you found it online could you post a link please. I'm interested in reading it.
Human activity destroyed their natural habitat, so their role in the ecosystem will probably always be far from what it should be. So taking away the extra protects the act imposed, to me, doesn't seem like the best thing to do. However, by taking the act away, they are also returning to a more natural ecosystem...but is that what they need right now?
"However, by taking the act away, they are also returning to a more natural ecosystem."
Mona, I'm not sure what you mean by "a more natural ecosystem." Lifting the ban would cause more human intervention in the daily life of the gray wolf. Isn't human intervention considered unnatural?
-Yuzo Yanagitsuru
Oops my bad Yuzo, I forgot to embed the link. Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/opinion/02wed3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
and yes, human intervention is hurting the natural ecosystem.. which I think IS important because the natural ecosystem was untouched for so many years (and it did fine..) until people came. =\
Well, I read the article and I agree with you and Mona, so yeah.
I remember reading about this issue a couple of years ago. The National Resourse Defence Council (NRDC- The organization deals with environmental issues by taking major groups and corporations to court to prevent the further destruction of the environment) was taking the Bush Administration (I think) to court because they were threatening to lift the ban on hunting gray wolves, even though population had not completely recovered or reached sustainable numbers. I'm a bit saddened and surprised to hear the the ban was lifted (I'm also a bit surprised to have not heard anything about this from NRDC, since my family has membership)
1) What is the point of wolf hunting season? People do not hunt wolves for meat. If they are trying to achieve population control, there must be a better way then sending a bunch of random guys with guns in.If it is simply for sport, well then I do not exactly support that.
2) At the same time that I find wolf hunting season to be ridiculous, the idea that the ecosystem will collapse without the wolves is also ridiculous. The smaller animals have plenty of predators other than the wolves and would achieve a reasonable population cap even without any predators due to resource limits (and this would not destroy all the plants either). Now I am not advocating for simply eliminating the wolves but rather being realistic.
Actually.. wolves are called a keystone species because they serve an important purpose to the ecosystem. Keystone species determine the way of life for other organisms. They are extremely important to the ecosystem because the ecosystem would indeed collapse without it. It is necessary to keep the population in check, just like a keystone (in an arch) is necessary to keep an arch from collapsing. Although I haven't been in an APES classroom in a year, I still remember learning about the importance of the survival of keystone species. If they weren't needed, why would there be such a stress on the importance of their survival?
Although it is good news that the protection is lifted on the gray wolf (because this means it is being less endangered), the best thing to do is to keep the protections on this animal. If it was endangered in the past, the same cycle could occur to make it become endangered again. Since the ecosystem is so fragile, simple little actions can create circumstances which might put the wolves in danger.
-Molly Cheng
Post a Comment