subject: The Idaho Gray Wolves [print this page] The Idaho Gray Wolves The Idaho Gray Wolves
In 1974, the Fish and Wildlife authority recognized the need for the protection of the gray wolves. Due to the existing rule at the time, the grey wolf could be hunted and killed on sight. This brought their numbers to an all time low. In 1995, the grey wolf was introduced in the Yellowstone National Park in an attempt to restore their numbers. Today, their population is said to be well over five thousand. This prompted the Fish and Wildlife authority to scrap the grey wolf from the list of the species in danger. Clearly this move is ill-advised. A lot of debate has been going on, and a lot of research has been conducted in an attempt to establish whether the Fish and Wildlife authority made a prudent decision. The argument mainly has two sides. On the one side are those in favor of the decision, who not to mention are mainly interested in the Elk population, and on the other hand are those who are interested in conservancy. These two groups have for quite sometime now been conducting research, while others speculate. It is said that president Obama negated the decision to remove the animal from the list of danger shortly after assuming leadership. In all of this, one cannot but realize that the Fish and Wildlife authority has lost it. This paper is interested in finding out why? Why the Fish and Wildlife authority has lost this argument. To this end, this study reflects on a few facts. The argument against the protection of this animal is largely tied to the reduced numbers of the Elk. The opponents of the protection of the wolves, which is the argument of the Fish and Wildlife authority, under the Endangered Species Act argue that with the increased numbers of the wolves has put the existence of the Elk, on which many rely for their meat supply during winter, in danger. They argue that the number of Elks in Idaho has reduced to a little over eleven thousand, which they say is an all time low. What most of them do not tell us however, is that the removal of this animal from the list of animals under protection means that people will be free to kill it wherever and whenever they want.
The Protective Role of Fish and Wildlife Authority
Before the Fish and Wildlife authority comes in to protect the animal, about two thirds of the animal should be extinct. Why should people kill these animals in order to come around again and attempt to protect them? It is important to realize that the wolf plays an extremely important role in the ecology of the whole of North America, and indeed all the world. The Fish and Wildlife authority seems not to have done its homework because studies have shown that even in areas that have very few or no wolves or other predators at all, the numbers of the Elk has gone down. It is not clear under these circumstances, what causes the reduction in numbers. The Fish and Wildlife Authority did not seek to understand why this happened. What is most surprising is the fact that the Authority has scientists. These seem to agree that the idea of scrapping the protection status of the grey wolf is prudent. One cannot but wonder whether these scientists advised the Authority based on knowledge or with ulterior motive. Naturally, the required balance in the chain of relationships among all living things does not need the intervention of man. Nature has it own way of controlling overpopulation, and everything that exist. The Authority should not just look at the human beings as being at the center of existence, because this view makes it consider how the increase in population affects human beings. They should once and for all realize that wolves help in ensuring the Darwinian survival of the fittest. They do so by ensuring that the weak and old Elks are eliminated from the system, leaving only the strong and healthy to subsist. The Fish and Wildlife Authority does not have the capacity to do this; theirs is just management, and regulation. The Authority should avoid extremes in doing whatever they are supposed to do. If wolves are killed in order to protect the elks and other herds, the converse effect is the overproduction of the Elks, which puts strain on the food chain; this will consequently affect everything else on that line. The weak animals will still survive, and will therefore have the possibility of mating. This means that the vitality of the Elk will be at stake because weak animals will necessarily produce weak animals. This could even trigger the end of the species, because weak animals will not be better prepared to deal with harsh climatic conditions. One wonders whether our learned scientist see this at all. If say they license private individuals to shoot the animal, and so many people have already expressed interest, how will they keep an eye on the wolf population? How sure are they, that when they license someone to kill only one they will stick to that one? These are some of the challenges that are not yet addressed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The chairman was quoted saying however, that the individual states would be expected to ensure that the killing of the animal is done in a reasonable way. One thing that he seems to forget is that if you put hyenas as judges on matters of the jungle, the antelopes will never ever see justice. In other words, the people who are being allowed to shoot these animals have their own motives of doing so. This motive seems to be informed by selfish interests. What then would make them want to spare what they consider as a threat to them? The chairman of the service said that they would come in swiftly to re-protect the animal incase it is killed excessively. It seems that this is just a form of public relation. The individual states license people to kill because they are interested in money, and no one ever seems to have enough of it. So if there are wolves, kill them for the money.
The Grey Wolf-a Threat or a Form of Irrationality?
Several people still think that the Wolf poses a serious threat to the human person. The hunters are particularly obsessed with this view. Perhaps one thing that informs this kind of thinking is the social life of the wolf. Wolves like to stick together during their hunt. This makes them better disposed to have whatever they set their eyes on, unfortunately sometimes including farmers' livestock (Peacock, 2009). But to say that human beings cannot find a way of dealing with this without necessarily having to kill them is an exaggeration. If humans can create all manners of sophisticated equipment, why can't he say, fence the habitat of the wolf in order to keep it off people's property? After all it is being done even in poorer countries! This culture of finding the easier way out should not be applied to the grey wolf, or any other animal for that matter (Peacock, 2009). There is need to realize that even as the hunters and other wild lovers go into the wilderness, they need to experience the challenge of having to watch out for those guys.
