Dear editor:

The Pet and Livestock Protection Act, which has passed the House but still awaits passage in the Senate and by the president, would delist gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act and eliminate the ability to challenge the delisting in court due to a clause in the bill barring the decision from judicial review. This bill gives states the chance to manage wolves within their borders. This state management would better meet the needs of local communities, ranchers, livestock and wildlife populations. Management dictated by out of state entities has no idea what damage the influx of wolves can do to regional areas. Our Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyoming, noted in a speech last year that “northern Minnesota is a dead zone due to wolves wiping out game animals in their habitat.”

Critics of the bill claim there is no scientific evidence to support the delisting, stating that the gray wolves have not fully recovered under ESA protections. If so, that’s only because the critics/judges keep moving the bar higher each time the wolves, or any other “endangered species,” reaches/exceeds that bar. The Humane World for Animals organization says the name of the act is laughable, claiming it lacks science and widely held public values on wolf protection. They claim wolves are still absent from most of their historic range. They also tear at the heartstrings of the uneducated or uninformed by saying, “They deserve a chance to recover, not to have their pack families torn apart for trophies and bragging rights by hunters.” Apparently, they haven’t seen what wolves do to other livestock or wildlife groups when searching for food. “Tearing families apart”? (See comment about Rep. Hageman regarding Minnesota above). The wolves that have been introduced are not the same size or type of wolf that originally ranged this country.

What is laughable is that Bradley Williams of the Sierra Club said that anti-wildlife lawmakers are again attacking the Endangered Species Act by targeting gray wolves. It could be said the Sierra Club is anti-wildlife if this is their stance.

Wolves are ANTI-WILDLIFE, not the lawmakers. With the good wildlife management rules in each state, deer, elk, antelope, buffalo and moose are prevented from being overhunted by wolves! He also states that “wolves are vital to the ecosystems like Yellowstone National Park, which suffered greatly from the absence of wolves before their reintroduction in 1995.” How did the ecosystem suffer before reintroduction? It could be said that a certain political party has a knack for coming up with very unscientific practices and ideologies. They thrive on emotional agendas. Mr. Williams continues: “For more than 50 years, the American people have overwhelmingly supported the Endangered Species Act” … Because those species don’t exist in their states and aren’t creating havoc with all living things. The uninformed and easily swayed populations in the country have no idea what disruptions wolves cause.

Wolves have a deleterious effect on most other wildlife as they are at or near the top of the predator chain. Letting the states manage their own wolf populations ensures that there will continually be wolves, but those wolves will not overtake all OTHER animal populations that don’t have killer instincts to match the wolves.

Toby Sheets

Powell