I haven't really posted anything to an FA journal, but there's an issue taking place at the moment that's gotten me worked up enough to finally post. *Hopefully* a few people on here have a significant interest in a battle that has been slowly taking place in the western states as well. I'm of course making reference to the legal battle surrounding Federal vs. State managed protection of Rocky Mountain wolf populations. In a time of (moderate) crisis for our nation when action needed to be taken, legislators, as they seem wont to do in this age, successfully attached a rider to the budget authorization bill that surrenders protective management in Montana and Idaho to the states, and blocks against future court action on the matter.

It could be argued forever online the pros and cons of state control, and I'm certainly not one to join a group that chants a mantra of blind protection of wolves with no scientific backing or legitimate reason to do so, however emotionally involved in the issue I may be. However, it is disconcerting that it is still an acceptable practice to place a decision over such a controversial issue in a bill that has such urgency as the recent need to pass a budget resolution. To me, this practice seems downright reprehensible, and belittles the concepts of democracy and legislative process that are so heavily championed by the American people.

As to the issue itself, while the Wolf populations in the western states have proven far more successful than was originally planned by the managers involved in the project, it is important to remember that this success was not achieved overnight, or with little effort. A phenomenal amount of money from US taxpayers has gone to the reintroduction, protection, and management of western wolf populations. This is to say nothing of the hard work and time investment of many dedicated individuals who are faced with the (believe me) incredibly daunting task of acting as a buffer between ranchers and other professionals who legitimately feel their livelihood threatened by the introduction of these predators, and the public at large which, though not as intimately involved, have a very legitimate say in the aesthetic value of our nation's natural lands and in what way these natural lands are used.

There is a lot of evidence that, because the issues of wolf protection are so high profile and so volatile at this time, that federal intervention is still required to maintain these viable populations, and that full surrender to state management will cause a complete collapse. Not only is this unacceptable to a population of the United States who place a very high aesthetic value on these charismatic predators, but it undermines the decade and a half of hard work and countless dollars that have gone into establishing these animals as part of the western ecosystem. That an issue as prominent, and most importantly DELICATE as this could be 'resolved' in an overnight resolution backed by the completely unrelated pressure of a country's efforts to maintain a functional budget and continue operating is to me unethical, deceptive, and inappropriate. I hope that in the future there is a way to continue running a functional government without having to stoop so low as to use these underhanded, 'dirty' tactics to achieve goals within our legislature. Shame on the individuals who used this tactic, and shame on those who have allowed this to become an acceptable and commonplace practice.

(Yes, this is heavily opinionated, No I'm not unwilling to hear rational feedback, by all means, discuss! I'm a specialist in wildlife, not in law:P)


one of several articles on the matter: http://missoulian.com/news/local/ar.....cc4c002e0.html