Below is an unpublished letter to the New York Times on wolf recovery.
cheers, Bill
~
In his NY Times article (’Wolf’s Future in Wyoming’, 05 Feb 2005′), reporter Kirk Johnson states there is ‘broad agreement’ that grey wolves should be taken off the Endangered Species List. This is a sadly misinformed statement for two reasons. First, a majority of people in public comments to various wolf plans continually demand stronger protections and a wider distribution of wolves throughout the United States. Second, a federal court ruled in early February 2005 that under the Bush administration, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had illegally down-listed the protection of grey wolves. This was done by misinterpreting the Endangered Species Act (ESA) along with other questionable bureaucratic maneuvering having nothing to do with the science of wolf recovery. The suit was brought by Defenders of Wildlife and 18 other plaintiffs, and is quietly supported by many professionals within the FWS itself. This should come as no surprise, given that a recent questionaire by the Union of Concerned Scientists and PEER documents the persistent meddling of the Bush administration in the work and reports of FWS managers and scientists. Removing federal protections would hand wolf management over to state wildlife agencies. With a few exceptions, the state wolf management plans are weak at best, and focus more on killing wolves, than nurturing healthy wolf populations and natural ecologies. Wolves do thrive in the presence of appropriate prey, habitat, and the absence of human harassment. The restoration of wolves in Yellowstone National Park is a testament to this. Even so, wolves only occupy one fifth of their original range in the lower 48 states of the US. Wolves are an integral part of healthy ecosystems. There are many areas in the Pacific Northwest, Central Rockies and Northeast where grey wolves could and should thrive. There are other areas in northern Rockies and Midwest where their range should expand. Removing the protections of the ESA from wolves at this time and under these conditions is a malicious act of partisan politics, justified by neither science nor ethics.
William Lynn :: Feb.10.2005 ::
Environmental Studies, Ethics, Human-Animal Studies, Wolves ::
No Comments »
A brief note that I added two artists to the Practical Ethics web site. Henry Fair is a highly regarded artistic and commercial photographer. The landscape images in his gallery focus on ‘industrial scars’. They are compelling images, both beautiful and repellent. Jaanika Peerna is an Estonian-born artist with a superb sense of space, landscape, order and chaos, sensibilities she variously combines in multimedia work using sketches, photography and digital transformations. You can find both of these wonderful artist in the gallery menu of Practical Ethics, www.practicalethics.net.
