Members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill Tuesday that would strip federal protections from wolves in the Great Lakes region and Wyoming, making the animals vulnerable to state-regulated trophy hunting and trapping. With language preventing any further judicial review, the bill would overrule two court decisions that found the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrongly removed Endangered Species Act protections for the wolf.

A gray wolf. (Photo: John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS)

A gray wolf. (Photo: John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS)

“The new Congress is the most extreme and anti-wolf our country has ever seen, and members wasted no time in attacking endangered wildlife,” said Collette Adkins, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This bill promises to undo hard-earned progress toward gray wolf recovery that has taken years to achieve. Without federal protection hundreds of wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan will once again suffer and die every year.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service removed protections for gray wolves in the Great Lakes region (Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota) in 2011, and in Wyoming in 2012. In both instances federal judges overturned agency decisions for prematurely removing protections, failing to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and ignoring the best available science.

Lawmakers have responded to these decisions by repeatedly attempting to remove protections for wolves. Since the 2011 passage of a rider abolishing wolf protections in the northern Rocky Mountains, there have been dozens of legislative attacks on wolves in Congress. Yesterday’s bill is the first introduced in the 115th Congress to strip federal protections from endangered wildlife.

“Wolf recovery should be allowed to follow a course prescribed by science, not politics,” Adkins said. “This shameful meddling is harmful to wolves, harmful to science and harmful to our democratic processes.”

The anti-wolf bill was introduced by U.S. Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.). Similar bills have passed the House in recent years but failed to clear the Democratic-controlled Senate and White House. This bill’s chances are considered much better with Republicans controlling the House, Senate and soon the White House.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One Response

  1. Clive Norman says:

    In my humble opinion, it makes more sense to preserve the wildlife that we have, than to destroy it for little or no reason. It may not seem likely now, but quite possibly the future of mankind may well be dependent solely upon the gene pool of the wild species of animals, birds, insects and fish that still exist today and that we haven’t yet extinguished, for one reason or another, from our little planet that could provide us with the protein we all need to survive. If the unthinkable were to happen, for instance and the humble bee were to be wiped from the face of the earth our vegetable source would become extremely limited and by the same token if our domesticated animals were to contract an unknown or uncontrollable disease were would we be then I ask myself?

    So, unless we want to go the way of so many so called civilizations that have gone before us, we had better all, as individuals and as questionably the most intelligent species living on the earth today, all sit up and take stock and start looking at the bigger picture – not in terms of a few years of one presidency say, but of hundreds of years to enable and guarantee our children’s, children’s children future lives in the sincere hope that they will live similar if not better lives than we live today.

Leave a Reply



Get the top stories from Planet Experts — right to your inbox every week.

Send this to a friend