Scientists find flaws in plan to lift US wolf protections | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Scientists find flaws in plan to lift US wolf protections

Associated Press
1237196_web1_1237196-9e39a65089cd4dd0b1e3591bcc2c78e3
FILE - In this July 16, 2004, file photo, a gray wolf is seen at the Wildlife Science Center in Forest Lake, Minn. Government officials say they are reviewing a report from a scientific panel that faulted plans to lift protections for the animals (AP Photo/Dawn Villella, File)
1237196_web1_1237196-22c934f0ec9b4c269c91fbecbef7f485
FILE -In this Dec. 4, 2014 file photo released by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, a wolf from the Snake River Pack passes by a remote camera in eastern Wallowa County, Ore. Scientists tasked with reviewing the government’s plans to lift protections for gray wolves across most of the U.S. say the proposal has numerous flaws. (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife via AP, File)
1237196_web1_1237196-318f835bada343fca80332cf2ed6fe87
FILE - This Feb., 2017, file photo provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife shows a gray wolf of the Wenaha Pack captured on a remote camera on U.S. Forest Service land in Oregon’s northern Wallowa County. Scientists say a plan to lift proposals for the species across the Lower 48 is flawed. (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife via AP, File)

BILLINGS, Mont. — Scientists tasked with reviewing government plans to lift protections for gray wolves across most of the U.S. said in a report released Friday that the proposal has numerous factual errors and other problems.

The five-member scientific panel’s conclusions were detailed in a 245-page report delivered to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

One reviewer said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appeared to have come to a pre-determined conclusion, not supported by its own science, that wolves should come off the endangered species list.

“It looks like they decided to delist and then they compiled all the evidence that they thought supported that decision. It simply doesn’t support the decision,” said Adrian Treves, an environmental studies professor at the University of Wisconsin.

Treves said a chief concern is poaching: Without protections, illegal killings of wolves could rise, he said.

The findings could undercut the government’s contention that gray wolves across the Lower 48 have recovered from near extermination.

Federal officials have been under increasing pressure to put wolves under state management, which is already the case in parts of the Northern Rockies where hunting and trapping of the animals is allowed.

Prohibitions on hunting elsewhere have fueled resentment against wolves among livestock owners who must deal with attacks by the predators. Also, some hunters see wolves as competition for big game animals.

After being nearly wiped out in the Lower 48 early last century, more than 6,000 gray wolves now live in portions of nine states. The decades-long, government-sponsored recovery effort for the animals has cost roughly $160 million.

Yet gray wolves remain absent from most of their historical range. Critics of lifting protections say the move would be premature and worry that more hunting will reverse the species’ rebound.

Wildlife service spokeswoman Vanessa Kauffman said officials were still going over the scientific report and had no immediate response.

Members of the review panel questioned the agency’s treatment of a basic issue: whether gray wolves in the Lower 48 states are biologically the same or consist of more than one species.

Daniel MacNulty, an associate professor at Utah State University, said the proposed rule had “demonstrable errors of fact, interpretation, and logic” and its description of where wolves presently range is fuzzy.

Five years ago, a similar report helped convince federal officials to temporarily shelve plans to lift wolf protections. That report, too, questioned the science used by federal officials.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.