Groups sue to keep gray wolf on endangered species list in Great Lakes

post 1032

This is regarding the delisting in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. The parties suing are the Human Society of the United States, the Animal Protection Institute, and Help Our Wolves Live.

Groups sue to keep gray wolf on endangered species list
Minnesota Public Radio (AP)

St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) – Three animal advocacy groups sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Monday over its decision to remove gray wolves from the endangered species list in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.




, ,




  1. Moose Avatar

    “Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president of litigation for the Humane Society, said the state plans were inadequate and could lead to hunting, trapping and significant reductions in wolf numbers.
    ‘Under state management, the species declined almost to extinction’, he said.”

    Wolves have recovered in the Upper Great Lakes and it is time for the various states to take over management of wolves – just as they have been successfully managing the deer, bear, turkey, bobcat, etc. populations.

    I would like to see a limited hunting season on wolves (no trapping) to determine the efficacy of controlling wolf numbers in certain parts of their range. I would also like to see a reduction in available licenses for any confirmed poaching or illegal shooting of wolves…i.e., if there are 50 licenses available for hunting wolves in a year, that number would be reduced by 5 for every episode of illegal killing of wolves.

    We are at different place in our conservation ethic, and to say the state can’t be trusted to maintain the species becuz of what happened in the early 1900’s is ludicrous….Mich/Wisc/Minn are not Wyoming.

  2. Alan Gregory Avatar

    This is a mistake. It would be far better to accept — and even advocate for — controlled hunting of wolves while pushing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state fish and game departments in certain states (Maine, New York, New Hampshire, for starters) to continue gray wolf reintroduction into other parts of the species’ historic range where suitable habitat remains or can be restored.

  3. chris Avatar

    The article states there are 4,020 wolves in MI, MN, and WI. Under the approved management plan these wolves will not be hunted or trapped for 5 years after delisting. So why are these groups suing? Because they don’t want wolves (or any animal for that matter) to ever be hunted or trapped.

  4. Howard Avatar

    The only thing this lawsuit will accomplish is that it will “prove” that conservationists can’t be trusted and are using endangered species as clubs to be wielded against the states. The comments above are, I believe, fully correct… the problem these groups have is not that the state management plans will reverse wolf recovery, but that it will allow wolves to be killed some times. This is animal rights advocacy masquerading as conservationism. Ironically, the worst thing for wolves is to have organizations that want to ban hunting advocating for them. I think it’s very important for conservationists to publicly applaud and endorse the sane and sensible wolf plans put forth by Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. It’s a great example of how the ESA is a success, and how the wolf “issue” really doesn’t have to be much of an issue at all if cool heads are allowed to prevail.
    This will not be the first instance of Animal Rights conflicting with conservation. For example, as a conservationist who has seen what white-tailed deer have done to the forests of several eastern states, I say we need MORE deer hunters in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey—not fewer. I’ve also heard of Animal Rights advocates fighting for feral cats, which kill untold millions of native songbirds, shore birds, reptiles, small mammals, and invertebrates every year.

  5. Ralph Maughan Avatar

    Thanks Howard,

    The difference between animal activists or animal rights groups and conservation groups is that the former focus on the individual animal, with little or no thought about the effects on anything else.

    Conservation groups look at the big picture, at animal and plant populations and the interactions between them.

    Single species hunting groups or single species protection groups are similar to the animal activists in this respect — focus on just one thing. No concern for secondary effects.

  6. JEFF E Avatar
    JEFF E

    It seems to me that groups that refer to themselves as animal rights groups are operating under what I call the disneyfication of animals in that animals somehow possess human attributes and therefore should be accorded equal status. Most of these groups have agendas that include the total banning of all hunting and fishing and not having any laws that regulate wildlife. Conservation groups should not only distance themselves but make it absolutely clear that it is not okay for so called animal rights groups to piggy back on legitimate conservation groups efforts.

  7. mike Avatar

    I agree with Howard full on.

  8. Steve Avatar

    I would say that i disagree with groups suing to prevent delisting, but I am leaning towards changing my mind considering the downright scary anti-wolf comments coming from officials in idaho and wyoming. I feel that delisting should occur only when the states involved can demonstrate that they are adult enough to ensure that a species will not immediately become threatened again because of poor management…

  9. be Avatar

    i wish i knew the legal point of contention – i admire the groups’ willingness to take heat from both sides – i hope it is for a legal principle regarding the ESA that is worthwhile —


Subscribe to get new posts right in your Inbox

Brian Ertz