What is Utah's responsibility to save the Mexican gray wolf?
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert joined governors from the other Four Corners states in pushing back
against the federal government's latest effort to revise a recovery
plan for the wolves, whose numbers in the wild are down to about 100
animals.
In their letter to Interior Secretary Sally
Jewell last month, one key argument of the governors is that the
subspecies of wolf never roamed as far north as Utah and Colorado before
they were eradicated, so the states are not appropriate for taking them
now. The Utah Wildlife Board has reiterated that in its own letter.
The governors are arguing that the scientific
deck is stacked against them in the recovery plan because it includes
scientists who dispute the argument that Mexican wolves never made it
here. It's likely wolves were in Utah at some point, but it's hard to
know which sub-species.
Further, when the intent is to save a species,
the federal Endangered Species Act does not require that it can only be
saved on land where it had historically roamed. If the science shows
that land is suitable for a recovery effort, the feds can consider it
for recovery.
The effort is severely complicated by the fact
that, historically, half or more of the Mexican gray wolves were in
Mexico. As a result, the governors are pushing for a recovery effort
that is more centered on Mexico. The effort should be international, but
it's also a reality that Mexico does not have the laws or the political
will to take wolf recovery as far as the United States can.
What's more, with or without wolves, the
habitat is not standing still, and that is due to climate change. The
temperature-associated changes that have begun and will continue may
indeed make the U.S. more of the wolves' future range, even if it
wasn't their past range. In other words, the historical argument may be
just that, history.
No comments:
Post a Comment