Our Best Act

To say the Endangered Species Act (ESA) brings out the best in people would be an understatement.

On this date forty years ago, the ESA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. Along with signing the Clean Water Act of 1972 and proposing the Environmental Protection Agency, signing the ESA was probably the best thing Nixon ever did with his presidency and his life.

Truth be told, the environmental oversight achieved during the Nixon years is probably the finest hour the entire human society has had in terms of its relationship with the environment. By responding to serious pollution threats and rapid declines in many species, the environmental movement of the 1970s put in place key standards for how we should act toward the environment.

Both the spirit of the ESA and the act itself will be needed as we move forward to address issues like global warming and other threats to ecosystems and species. We'll have to be at our best once again.

A Range of Options

The simplest answer isn't always the right one.

In dealing with wolves, we can take the easy route and exterminate them again, or we can look for solutions that allow us to live with them. The second option is infinitely more complex in terms of both its challenges and its opportunities.

Living with wolves requires planning and work, but it also has impacts that reach far into our ecosystems. For example, the presence of wolves decreases bank erosion along rivers because they keep elk from eating all the vegetation beside the streams.

Here's some news from Conservation Northwest that shows living with wolves is possible if we embrace more developed ideas. To sum it up, the article talks about the use of "range riders," who are individuals that watch over livestock herds. The strategy virtually eliminates predation by wolves.

The easy road is to ignore science and delist wolves, turning them over to state governments whose intention is to kill wolves, not manage them.

We have more and better options though, and it's in the interest of both humans and wolves that we choose them.

What a Contrast

See? It's not really that hard.

Two days ago, I blogged about the approach taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in deciding whether to take away the protections wolves have as an endangered species. The main issue was that FWS had removed top scientists from its decision-making panel. As a contrast to that, take a look at how Metro Parks of Summit County in Ohio has made science the centerpiece of its approach to living with coyotes:



It is clear that science is the key to how Metro Parks deals with fears about coyotes. By comparison, FWS appears rooted in a fear-based approach. The difference is stunning. Using Metro Parks' method, people learn about coyotes and the best ways to handle relationships with them. Also, listen to the language used by Metro Parks' agents. It is based on the idea of connecting to and understanding the environment. FWS, on the other hand, has excluded the sources of information needed for such understanding.

Scientific information is crucial to developing our connection with our environment and making the best decisions for the entire system. Metro Parks of Summit County sets a great example, showing it can be done.

Silenced Science

To make the best possible decisions, we must listen to those who know most about the issues.

With this basic fact in mind, one must question whether the United States Fish and Wildlife Service really wants to make the best decision when it comes to wolves. As the following interview from the California Wolf Center shows, wolf experts were recently removed from a panel that is to help decide if wolves should have their protections as an endangered species removed. Listen to the interview by playing the YouTube video:



It turned out that objections to the removal of the scientists caused FWS to rethink its approach to the decision-making process. However, its initial decision to remove the scientists undermines the agency's credibility on this issue. No one genuinely interested in doing what is right for wolves would think of silencing those who study the species for a living.

Click here to comment on the proposed delisting and tell FWS that wolves still need protection.

Wolf experts say the species should not be delisted. This scientific perspective should lead the decision-making process, not be excluded from it.

Rally Time

We know their sound well, but wolves rarely get heard as far as environmental policy is concerned. The National Rally to Protect America's Wolves in Washington, D.C., on September 7 hopes to change this.

Wolves were nearly wiped out in the lower 48 states by the 1970s and received protection under the US Endangered Species Act in 1974. Now, less than 20 years after their reintroduction to the American West, they are being hunted in high numbers again, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed removing their ESA protection.

The idea of pulling federal support from wolf recovery at this point raises the question of why the government even bothered to reintroduce them in the first place. Doing so has simply given people yet another thing to kill.

In response to the current political climate, the organizers of the wolf rally are bringing people together to show support for wolf recovery and for protecting the animals under the ESA. For more information about the rally, click here.

Giving wolves a political voice now is important to ensuring their sound remains a part of this world.