Odd editorial in today’s NYT. On the one hand, it lays bare the hypocrisy and bloodlust behind the wolf hunt in the Northern Rockies. For example, after several wolves were killed just outside of Yellowstone (outside the park boundary, you can kill them), Montana’s wolf program director said, ““We didn’t think wolves would be that vulnerable to firearms harvest.” Yeah, right. Then, in Idaho, when hunters just couldn’t kill enough wolves in time, Idaho extended the season to March 31st.
On the other hand, the editorial claims that environmental groups have lost the argument that endangered grey wolves had not yet reached a sustainable population in the region. It says that the groups are regrouping around the idea of a hunting moratorium until stronger state management plans can be formulated. This characterization seems both premature and overstated.
Last I heard, the lawsuit against the wolf hunt was still in progress and the court had made plain that that the plaintiffs would likely prevail. Granted, it’s a complicated issue and the chance of an unalloyed victory seem slim (see my post here and a related one here). But the district court’s as yet unissued decision is not necessarily the last word on the subject. Let’s not throw the wolves to the hunters just yet.
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal law, environmental law, wolves Tagged: | animal advocacy, animal law, animal welfare, endangered species, Endangered Species Act, environmental law, ESA, grey wolf, hunting, wolf hunting, wolf-delisting, wolves