Issues around the delisting of the grey wolf are not just about wildlife preservation. The public wants to know the Endangered Species Act works.
The grey wolf delisting debate tries to force us into one camp or the other-pro or anti wolf. But there is more to the debate than conservationists versus hunters and ranchers. In talking to people who are not heavily involved in conservation issues, the response tends to be ‘delisting is a good thing’. It means the species has recovered and, importantly, that the Endangered Species Act actually works. People need to believe that we can do, and have done, something to protect wildlife. They see evidence of the wolf recovering and think, ok time to move on. There are so many other species that need our help.
The peregrine falcon is an example of a species that has been delisted. The North Pacific population of the gray whale is delisted but the remainder of the species stays on the endangered list. The bald eagle is downlisted to threatened. These three different scenarios take into account the status of the entire species, distinct populations and/or slow but steady recovery, moving away from complete protection as is appropriate.
Yes, keeping a species listed as endangered protects them. But eventually we need to learn to live with these animals as part of our world. Allowing limited control is going to be necessary for the big predators as we continue to encroach into their environment. (for another view on delisting large predators see Delisting the Grizzly)
Finding a balance between complete protection and complete annihilation is the way to keep the average person supporting the ESA, and the money spent protecting endangered species. As with the boy who cried wolf, we must be careful not to alienate less rabid supporters by overstating our case.
