Should Minnesota's wolves be removed from protection as an endangered species?
Posted at 5:00 AM on September 16, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(33 Comments)
Filed under: Environment/Energy, Science/Technology
The federal government is again considering whether to remove the gray wolf from its protected status in some states. Today's Question: Should Minnesota's wolves be removed from protection as an endangered species?
Comments (33)
I find every animal better then humans! Animals are sorta smarter then us in way.. at least, they could find out how to put down a damn gun! Also, if you love dogs, what kind of a dog-lover hates wolves? Saying you hate wolves oh most says you hate (most) dogs. I'd really die for a wolf... just one wolf that might even die right after me! Wolves were here first and hopefuly, they'll out live the human race. To tell the truth, WE'RE the problem, not them. We build on the land they live on! They'd be scrared of us, but thats hard to be scrared of us if they see us alot! We are also easy pray to. As long as we're editble, we're food. An wise man told me this before "God planned every thing when we were born. When we die, he knew that we were going to die. When I die, i'll respect that. As long as it's living thing, it needs respect. All is one and one is all".
"Up at our cabin, we get to see them frequently enough to make me believe they are at sustainable numbers. "-Wade
If you can kill em the way they would to you(Your "Claws" and "Fangs"), your cheating. I don't even see the point in killing them, what did they do to you? Also, you can't forget the whole pack! They'll come after you if you mess with them. The only why out of that is killing them all with you "Fangs" and "Claws" of showing your the "Lower-rank wolf". If you can't do that, you on your own.
"Ted Nugent could base his hunt from my home anytime. Ted has done more to help young hunters succeed than any anti-hunter can appreciate. Just think of all the young minds that are now focused on life-long success rather than dulled by drugs or video games."-James
There is more them drugs, video games and killing ya know. I' 14 and i will work at a job for money to donate to an animal shelter, NOT DRUGS OR VIDEO GAMES!
As long as government is Elected by the people and strives for people, the same right that My Wife has, towards me, seeing my e-mail, or any mail, or otherwise, of me, or as of my Best Friend, for that Matter, has.
Absolutely not. Wolves should NOT lose endangered species protection. I hope we get serious about preserving nature soon.
Doesn't the fact we're asking this question reveal we as a nation didn't have high hopes for the wolves' recovery in the first place?
Well if we are protecting the Vikings and Twins why the hell not the Timber Wolves...
Wait.... you mean actual Wolves?
If they are on the endangered species list, why would they be even considered taken off the to be shot at???
THat makes as much sense as opening up hunting season on the Bald Eagle. And I know a lot of people would also love that.....
How about a serious question?
Or has some MORON actually been pushing for this and some how its going forward?
Lets open up hunting season on their hides!
(The morons planning on hunting something endangered...)
Grant, I have more admiration and respect for animal kind than a good lot of human kind.
Animals are predictable, savage and pure.... a true gift from god.
I meet a preacher/hunter one time while hunting... his sermon was "God put these animals on this planet for man to enjoy... I am enjoying them."
DTOM
NO! The horrors people inflict on wolves as detailed in "Shadow Mountain: A Memoir of Wolves, a Woman, and the Wild" will start right back up if wolves are de-listed. If they are removed, we will have to re-list them again in a few years. Let's avoid the paperwork and only harm the wolf population through deforestation, pollution and suburban sprawl.
No, I do not believe that the grey wolf should be removed from Federal protection. Even at some 3,000 in the state the wolf is barely getting re-established. The state has already proven that it can not care of our natural resources and certainly can't be trusted to watch over the wolf. Lets leave Federal protection in place.
Keep the wolves protected. Good lord, they have barely sprung back.
If you are still afraid of "The Big Bad Wolf", get your facts straight:
http://www.wolf.org/wolves/index.asp
Better yet, go visit the International Wolf Center in Ely, MN
James,
Three choices in life: drugs; video games; killing for fun.
You are gifted.
The only question I would have is, what would the market response be to the legalized hunting of wolves, especially in the global market?
While I believe the wolf population is at a sustainable level, if, for example, demand in asia for wolf "parts" and pelts creates a high economic incentive to illegally hunt them, it could take years to regain control over the population. The temptation would be too great and DNR resources would be too limited to police it.
No no on, Eagle tastes more like Trumpeter Swan.
Jamex,,, they taste more like Loon.
Why would you hunt a wolf? I can't imagine it would taste that good.
I have no issue with hunting when the animal is used as food and/or for its skin. Hunting strictly for sport - that is, killing something and then leaving it to rot or taking it to the local taxidermist so you can show off how much of a man (or woman) you are - is idiotic.
As for the wolf: if its population is sustainable and/or growing, and they no longer meet the criteria to be classified as endangered, then they should be removed from the list. If you want them to not be hunted, that needs to be approached by some other means.
BTW, when does Bald Eagle season start? I've always wanted to eat one of those, I bet they taste like chicken.
I cannot understand the need to hunt the wolf with it's extremely small population in Minnesota.
Hunters are a confusing lot with the need to hunt something into extinction. We almost lost the wolf to ignorance and just plain stupidity with the past 200 years of hunting the wolf.
The wolf was here long before we were. We are on their land. We have stifled there natural habitat and range the wolf once had.
To delist the wolf would be a crime.
Yes, The old notion that wolves prey on the weak and the sick is perhaps true to the point that the prey isn't too sick. Also there are far more hungry wolves in MN than we have weak and sick prey to feed them. The result is that wolves are taking the majority of the annual deer harvest in Northern MN forest areas.
We have had a cabin within one of the Northern State Forests for the past 45 years. In my opion the wolf population is at the highest population ever.
I am a firm believer that the future for healthy populations of wolves in MN is to clasify them as a game animal where they are under full protection of the state. The MN DNR is in by far the best position to manage wolf populations in the state.
They are a true wilderness animal and that is a compliment to the state...however they are only a wild animal like many others that are present in this states habitats....
No I live in northeast MN and this year I have seen more wolves than moose. When the wolves run out of room they will spread out. When they hit the MN river valley they will think they have died and gone to heaven.Deer deer deer.The wolves have never bothered us.. I keep and eye on my dogs but they were here first.
JBlilie:
Hunting with a spear is illegal in the state of MN. That would be awesome though. Until then, it's good old stick and string (Bow and Arrow).
Not sure how stalking to within 30 yards of a prey animal and beating it's senses making a clean shot is cheating.
Of course you are as likely to find me in line waiting for that latte as I am to run into you in the deep woods.
Grant, DTOM is an acronym not an emoticon..... Try and keep up:-)
Here is some help for the not so gifted:
http://www.acronymfinder.com/DTOM.html
Ted Nugent could base his hunt from my home anytime. Ted has done more to help young hunters succeed than any anti-hunter can appreciate. Just think of all the young minds that are now focused on life-long success rather than dulled by drugs or video games.
DTOM
yes so the wolves can populate and spread without a threat of extinction and wolves provide part of the animal species!
yes so the wolves can populate and spread without a threat of extinction and wolves provide part of the animal species!
Wade:
"Up at our cabin, we get to see them frequently enough to make me believe they are at sustainable numbers. "
Good thing science doesn't proceed by anecdote.
If you can take that alpha male using only a spear and a knife, then I would respect the act. Otherwise, you're cheating.
DTOM,
Worst use of an emoticon I've ever seen.
No. Until I can hear them howling at night on the edges of the northern suburbs of the Twin Cities, there aren't enough of them yet.
If the following conditions are met with good confidence (matching results from several data sources), then you have an argument for de-listing:
1. The population can be shown to be growing, for several years running
2. The number of wolves killed each year by hunters, farmers, DNR, animal control, etc., can be shown to fewer than the number of wolves produced each year that survive to breeding age, for several years running
3. You can show that habitat is not being reduced
Without these sorts of data to support the delisting, then it's politics, not biology driving the decision.
Americans have subjugated nearly all of the US to our economic desires (not needs). I don't understand why the last few scraps of wild land and wild animals cannot be preserved.
NO! If we take them off the endangered species list people will kill them like crazy and we'll have to put them back on again! WHY BOTHER?!
NO.
Do we want nutjobs (Ted Nugent comes to mind) coming to Minnesota for the "sport" of hunting and killing them? How about limiting animal farming and other human development in their habitat instead.
The point of protecting "charismatic megafauna" (gray wolves, bald eagles, bison, African elephants, mountain gorillas, koalas, Siberian tigers, whales, etc.) is not merely the sentimental value of having those extraordinary animals available to sightseers, but that the health of their populations is an indicator of the health of the ecosystem. Yes, there comes a point when a species is numerous enough that it doesn't need the special protection of endangered or threatened species status, but let's not forget that we need to be good stewards of the entire ecosystem. An ecosystem healthy enough to support those special critters is healthy enough to support us.
Yes, they should be removed and managed. Up at our cabin, we get to see them frequently enough to make me believe they are at sustainable numbers.
Not to mention I've got a special place in my trophy room for a big black alpha male.
I agree with Gary as well, the whole point of the list is to get animals off it. This issue just exposes a complete lack of Federal oversight and competence, much the same way the Arizona immigration issue does. People say that the wolves can't be de-listed in the Great Lakes states because it will adversely affect the neighboring states who do not have the levels needed to remove protection.... well with no clear guidance or a cohesive Federal plan on what is needed for wolves to be removed you wind up with contention and confusion. If the Fed doesn't have a plan, the states will forge their own way, whether that be with endangered species, immigration, or healthcare, etc.
Every time I have encountered wolves in the wilderness, it has been an extraordinary experience. The kind of experience that makes one's hair stand on end. I would like everyone to have the opportunity to experience that. Our wolf population has come back, but it certainly is not where I would like to see it.
Another reason for keeping wolves on the endangered species list is that they prey on the weakest and most vulnerable (and often least healthy) deer and moose and thus keep those animal populations strong and healthy.
Yes, I need a new rug:-)
DTOM
This is utterly amazing. Mark the day! I actually agree with something Gary F wrote.
At some point or benchmark ALL animals should be removed from the endangered species list. That means the list works and species is up to sustainable levels.
| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock