Renee RosenowA little over a week ago a U.S. District Court judge in Washington D.C. made a ruling that returned an estimated 4,000 wolves in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan to the endangered species list. A large number of people are angered over the decision, including myself, for a variety of reasons.
Officials from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan on appealing the ruling because, according to a Sept. 30 Leader Telegram article, they believe the gray wolf has been recovered in the three states. The article goes on to say a recent Department of Natural Resources count found there were 539 to 590 wolves in Wisconsin, far exceeding the Fish and Wildlife Service’s goal of 100 jointly in Wisconsin and Michigan.
The biggest problem with the decision for me is that it will allow an already large population to wreak even more havoc on landowners than they previously could. In the article, Chuck Matyska, chairman of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation’s Endangered Species Committee, says that an overpopulation of gray wolves can bring large depredation to livestock operation. This isn’t necessarily because there are too many wolves, but because being placed on the endangered species list makes it illegal for landowners to kill wolves while defending themselves or their cattle.
Prior to the judge’s decision, Wisconsin landowners could receive shooting permits from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the state DNR to get rid of wolves that threatened their livestock. As a result of the new ruling, landowners taking matters into their own hands and killing a wolf would be committing a federal crime. They are being urged to contact the DNR or wildlife service officials’ assistance if they encounter problems with wolves.
My problem with the decision doesn’t really have anything to do with the court not seeing that the wolf population is booming. There is no harm in adding something to the endangered species list even if their endangerment is debatable. Obviously things such as squirrels, seagulls and bluegills shouldn’t be added. But if a population of a species is low enough to even be considered for the list I don’t think actually placing it there is that big of a deal. What is a big deal are the rules that accompany the decision to place it there, and it is in that part of the decision that I feel changes should be made.
If an animal is placed on the endangered species list there should definitely be severe punishments for those who nonchalantly kill one. Many of these animals are defenseless and prized for certain characteristics they have. Everything that could possibly be done should be in order to prevent them from needlessly being killed.
But some of these species aren’t defenseless. Some are capable of putting human beings and their lives in jeopardy. The wolf is one of them. Although wolf attacks on humans are rare, that doesn’t mean we should be afraid of defending ourselves if the low probability of it happening actually occurred. It is absurd for higher authorities, like the judge who ruled in favor of the wolves, to force citizens to make a phone call, wait for someone from the DNR to arrive and refrain from defending themselves if they were ever to be attacked.
The same should also go for landowners that have livestock. It is easy for outsiders and city dwellers to look at landowners with livestock and not realize how vital they are. To many, they are what keeps the land running, providing food and money to their owners. Thus, when something negatively affects the livestock it negatively affects their owners.
Taking away the right for landowners to protect their livestock from wolf attacks goes against the common sense that should go along with the endangered species list. The list should be a warning against pointlessly killing the animals out of fear of their extinction, not a warning against actual justified killings.
The rule doesn’t just go for wolves, so in general it is one that needs to be changed across the board. I am not condoning the killing of endangered species, but I do think that certain occasions should allow for them to be killed. There was nothing wrong with the previous system providing permits to landowners who were suffering from the wolf population. It allowed those with the permits the ability to defend themselves and cattle if need be while giving the DNR an idea of how the wolf population was fluctuating.
But with the judges ruling now comes the decision a large portion of landowners will unfortunately make. They will likely kill wolves without a permit and the DNR will then have no idea of how the wolf population is fluctuating. They shouldn’t have been forced to make this decision, but unfortunately a judge that likely has never stepped foot in Wisconsin made it for them. Hopefully the appeal being made on the decision goes through and that appeal isn’t appealed, because otherwise their population may become depleted without us even knowing.
Hansen is a junior print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator. “Mmmboppin’ with Scott Hansen” appears every Thursday.
