By the real mike
Ben Lamb's article is full of good intentions; but, it misses the key point of the ESA and the wolf reintroduction process. The whole point of the ESA in general and the wolf effort in specific was to restore both physical populations and genetic populations that would be able to maintain both population strength and genetic viability across a significant portion of their historic range. For these wolves, that historic range is the NRM, which includes Wyoming.
When you're in a fight and feeling the heat, it's always tempting to acquiesce to whatever your assailant wants, just to make the noise and abuse stop; but, that's no way to stand up for what's right. Solutions that address Idaho or Montana or even Idaho and Montana may make a few selfish or otherwise poorly bred people act less abusively toward you and your other interests or projects; but, they still leave the question of Wyoming open, which ultimately opens a crack in the intent and foundations of the ESA in the process. Similarly, solutions that make these same people happy about local control in Idaho or Montana or Idaho and Montana may open the door to an eventual lowering of wolf numbers to a point below long-term genetic viability, which again ultimately weakens the foundations of the ESA in the process. The talk about 100 wolves just won't cut it and neither will snookering the courts to allow state management and then reducing numbers to that level.
I don't see wolves as sacred. I don't mind a bit of hunting and culling of the wolf population. But, I do stand firm that wolf populations and their management, whether by the federal government or the states absolutely must address the requirement to restore and sustain both physical and genetic populations, sufficient to maintain both population strength and genetic viability across their historic NRM range, which includes Wyoming. If people like Rehberg or Otter or whoever want to get this issue resolved, they need, first, to get their counterparts in Wyoming straightened out and, second, to set management policies that will ensure high enough populations to reliably sustain genetic viability over the long haul
When you're in a fight and feeling the heat, it's always tempting to acquiesce to whatever your assailant wants, just to make the noise and abuse stop; but, that's no way to stand up for what's right. Solutions that address Idaho or Montana or even Idaho and Montana may make a few selfish or otherwise poorly bred people act less abusively toward you and your other interests or projects; but, they still leave the question of Wyoming open, which ultimately opens a crack in the intent and foundations of the ESA in the process. Similarly, solutions that make these same people happy about local control in Idaho or Montana or Idaho and Montana may open the door to an eventual lowering of wolf numbers to a point below long-term genetic viability, which again ultimately weakens the foundations of the ESA in the process. The talk about 100 wolves just won't cut it and neither will snookering the courts to allow state management and then reducing numbers to that level.
I don't see wolves as sacred. I don't mind a bit of hunting and culling of the wolf population. But, I do stand firm that wolf populations and their management, whether by the federal government or the states absolutely must address the requirement to restore and sustain both physical and genetic populations, sufficient to maintain both population strength and genetic viability across their historic NRM range, which includes Wyoming. If people like Rehberg or Otter or whoever want to get this issue resolved, they need, first, to get their counterparts in Wyoming straightened out and, second, to set management policies that will ensure high enough populations to reliably sustain genetic viability over the long haul
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment