Bipartisan Sportsmens Act Proposes Wolf Delisting
The landscape of a wolf population survey area. Photo courtesy of Genevieve Adamski

Bipartisan Sportsmens Act Proposes Wolf Delisting

Recently, a bill has been introduced to Congress that would delist the gray wolf in Wyoming and the Western Great Lakes Region, including Wisconsin. Wolves in all of those regions, except Minnesota, are currently listed as “endangered” under The Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Wolves were hunted to extinction in the state of Wisconsin in the 1960s. In recent years they have returned to the state with a rising number in population.

Back in 2011, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted wolves from the endangered species list. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources later issued a wolf hunt, as many believed the wolf population was becoming too high. The hunt went on for three years, the WDNR website estimates around 650 wolves were harvested.

On Dec. 19, 2014 a federal court ruling placed wolves back under the protection of The Endangered Species Act. This took management of the species away from the state, and the wolf hunting season was discontinued.

Courtney Cordova, senior wildlife ecology major supports this move “Because we are now just beginning to understand how it effects the ecosystem, it should still be listed on the Endangered Species List.”

The purpose of the amendment in the Bipartisan Sportsman’s Act of 2015 is “To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules relating to listing the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.”

The question remains, what is a recovered or stable population?

Biologists, hunters, outdoorsmen and farmers all seem to have contrasting views on what wolf pack numbers should be.

The WDNR formed the Wolf Advisory Committee, which is filled with scientists, sympathizers and anti-wolf interests. The committee decided that a suitable wolf population for the state of Wisconsin would be around 350 animals.

Dr. Eric Anderson, professor of ecology and member of WDNR Wolf Advisory Committee, stated that “the animal isn’t changing in numbers at all; it’s just the politics surrounding it.”

He believes that it is in the best interest of the wolf to be under the control of the state. With the wolf under federal protection, it becomes managed with the same protocols that wolves are managed in other states, which may not be the best management practices for Wisconsin wolves specifically.

Ethan Robers, junior ecosystem restoration management and wildland Fire Science major, values wolves as an important aspect of healthy ecosystems.

He believes negative views of wolves emerge because “It’s a thing of fear, we haven’t had to be around wolves for most of our lives, and we don’t understand them, so we are frightened of them.”

In addition to the debate on whether or not wolves should be protected, there have been questions concerning the bill’s constitutionality.

The bill states that “Such re-issuance shall not be subject to judicial review” (S. 659 Viz 2-10). This would prohibit the courts, from intervening.

Dr. Edward Miller, professor of political science explained, “there is no legal reason they couldn’t do this. There is no direct reference in the constitution to what the courts can and cannot do.”

Some people endorse the move to take wolves off the ESA, but not the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act itself, as the bill holds many controversial amendments that have questionable impacts on the environment.

One such amendment in the bill would allow lead to be used in fishing lures. Lead, which causes brain damage in humans and animals.

Lead has been banned from fishing tackle in many states, including Wisconsin.

The bill was passed in the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee on Jan. 20, but still needs approval in the Senate, as well as a signature from the president before it becomes law.

About pointer

Avatar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*