How are wolves on the endangered list?

[MuleyFever]

I didn't look into the specifics but my understanding is that wolves in the lower 48 are listed as endangered leading to constraints on hunting. If I am wrong please correct me and this point is moot.

My question is how do they qualify for the endangered classification? In North America they are not. If we applied the same logic to elk we could say elk in WI or other eastern states are endangered based on numbers in that state. How do the courts say wolves can't be hunted but elk in the east can be. Is there an opportunity for lawsuits that expand on this premise?

Or is it just that the anti's have more representation and hunting groups can't get together to play the legal game as well?

 

[UpNorth89]

From my understanding it's because they haven't expanded from Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan far enough. BS I know

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[MuleyFever]

From my understanding it's because they have expanded from Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan far enough. BS I know

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So, I could almost understand the premise that native packs are expanding on their own and they should be protected. Most of the packs in NA were introduced though just like elk back east or sheep/goats to certain ranges

 

[UpNorth89]

That's the underlying idea but the fact is that Minnesota has more wolves than the rest of the lower 48 combined and we still don't have a season. They're never expand much beyond the great lakes region because it's vast open farm land all around.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

I think your first idea was spot on. Liberal legislators, judges, and voters keep them on the esa. Heck I think they got a fed judge out of Cali to stop hunting in one of the western states that took a while to get overturned. Law suits take forever, cost a boatload, and the anti’s have deeper pockets and are more dedicated to keeping their pet wolves from being hunted.

I like your reasoning though, seems like sound logic

 

[wapitiwilly]

The Northern Rocky Mountain population is not protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), it was delisted back in 2012. That is why you are able to hunt them in Idaho. There are Recovery plans for each sub-population set forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that sets a benchmark for recovery of the species in each region. Once that is met then they theoretically shouldn't be considered a threatened species and could be removed from ESA and effectively managed through hunting. Problem is these environmental groups have a lot of pull, and getting them de-listed has proven difficult, especially in more liberal areas like Washington State.

 

[JohnB]

The Northern Rocky Mountain population is not protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), it was delisted back in 2012. That is why you are able to hunt them in Idaho. There are Recovery plans for each sub-population set forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that sets a benchmark for recovery of the species in each region. Once that is met then they theoretically shouldn't be considered a threatened species and could be removed from ESA and effectively managed through hunting. Problem is these environmental groups have a lot of pull, and getting them de-listed has proven difficult, especially in more liberal areas like Washington State.

Wolves are delisted in the eastern half of WA as well. The boundary that is used is highway 97. WDFW is in the midst of attempting to remove their state listing as well. Lawsuits pending of course.

 

[5MilesBack]

Because this is all part of the liberal agenda, that's why. Oh, and it's "moot".

 

[MuleyFever]

Because this is all part of the liberal agenda, that's why. Oh, and it's "moot".

 

[wapitiwilly]

Wolves are delisted in the eastern half of WA as well. The boundary that is used is highway 97. WDFW is in the midst of attempting to remove their state listing as well. Lawsuits pending of course.

Thanks for the correction. Makes sense, there are a lot of wolves there, especially the northeast corner.

 

[Marbles]

They once were endangered, they now are not, however the issue has been made political and appropriate and proper management has nothing to do with it.

 

[ropeup79]

They’ve never been endangered. There has always been a healthy population in Canada and Alaska.

 

[carsonkeys]

I know you’re asking for the biological reason(s), but as others have stated - there aren’t any.

The ugly truth is that the anti-hunting orgs are much better funded. Additionally, as much as they tout the science their boards are interestingly devoid of biologists, but chalk full of attorneys.