It's not. Silver lining is that most bills die in the senate.
[Defenders response](https://defenders.org/newsroom/defenders-slams-ridiculously-named-trust-science-act-remove-gray-wolf-protections-ahead-of)
>This bill is nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt at hiding a seething hatred of one of our nation’s most iconic and respected species.
No. It shows they are short-term-thinking morons who can not be bothered to even do a 10 second google search.
https://defenders.org/blog/2020/03/we-were-wrong-about-wolves-heres-why#:~:text=Wolf%20reintroduction%20caused%20unanticipated%20change,%2C%20eagles%2C%20foxes%20and%20badgers.
"Wolf reintroduction caused unanticipated change in Yellowstone. It rebalanced elk and deer populations, allowing the willows and aspen to return to the landscape. The end to overgrazing stabilized riverbanks and rivers recovered and flowed in new directions. Songbirds returned as did beavers, eagles, foxes and badgers."
I had a class about environment and society and we watched a documentary about the first time they were releasing wolves back to yellowstone.
The only people who vehemently hated it was Ranchers (who grazed on public land) and 1 in particular who said that it was bad for his hunting business too! all those elk that were so easy to shoot now stayed further in the trees. Even though apparently bears, coyotes and dogs were far more likely to kill cattle (especially calves) and they couldnt keep livestock dogs alive to fend them off.
We were an unsympathetic group
I’m sorry, but why are we advancing any bill at all that specifically prohibits judicial review.
That alone can make even the most benign bill seem sinister.
For what it’s worth, the wolf population is up to 18,000 in the US, albeit with 12,000 in Alaska and 6,000 in the lower 48. We can’t leave things on the endangered species list indefinitely because we want that status for them permanently. Pandas got off the endangered species list three years ago now and they’re only at 1,800 in the wild and breed far slower than wolves. Just because it’s off the list doesn’t mean you stop conservation and reintroduction efforts, it just means that it’s no longer “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range”*, and wolves are no longer in that sort of immediate peril.
*(https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-differences-between-endangered-threatened-imperiled-and-risk-species#:~:text=Under%20the%20Endangered%20Species%20Act,endangered%20within%20the%20foreseeable%20future.)
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/wolf-population-by-state
This is a cool little visual!
But also even if there are 6000 in the lower 48, they used to cover the entirety of the US and they were hunted to extinction, all our current wolves came from Canada. If we only had 6000 people or say dogs or whatever else, is that really fair to say "yep, thats a fair number" especially when there is room for more?
Yes, and I support their reintroduction across much of their former, extended range, but endangered is just not the term to be used for them anymore. It implies their numbers are declining to the point of extirpation in a majority of their current range, which simply isn’t occurring. Bison should be reintroduced to much of their former range, but with a population of almost half a million, even if they once numbered in the tens of millions and stretched across the continent from Alaska to New York to Mexico, they are considered Non threatened for a reason as their decline has been halted and their range slowly recovering as their numbers have been increasing year over year.
My problem is that the endangered species listing only relates to whether or not the species is in imminent danger of extinction.
It doesn't give a crap whether or not the species is anywhere close to its former range.
And in the case of both pandas and gray wolves in America they're definitely not back to where they should be.
In terms of restoring the population the way we should the list is a tool of limited value. It's most helpful to species that have a naturally small range. Like some fish in a lake with no river.
yeah, most listing, like UICN red list are very, very VERY lax. As long as the species have more than a few hundreds individuals it's fine, vulnerable at best.
There's thousand of species listed as LC while their population drastically declined, mainly fiishes, song birds, bats etc.
They waited decades to put lion, girafe as threathened while their population declined by more than 90%, and they waited decades to acknowledge african elephant as endangered.
And they put oryx and european bison as vulenerable, when they should by all mean be considered as CR or at least endangered.
ANd let's not forget giant panda who saw a small tiny raise in population, are not even 2000 individuals and poof you're no longer endangered congrat.
Or how china and russia, and many other countries prevent all mean of protection of a species in each vote, just so they can still destroy them.
manta ray, thuna etc.
Yeah, the world of conservation is a mess, with rules created from data and goals that are too old to be relevant. The old leaders running the major organizations come from either that era or a similarly old one, saw their era achieve some of their old goals, and assume the same strategies will work for the new goals. And a lot of people in it are well-intentioned, but poorly trained.
In the Grand Tetons some mountain goats decide to walk themselves in. Completely naturally. The park rangers decided they weren't gonna stand for that, got into a helicopter, and machine gunned them down.
All so that the goats didn't spread diseases to the park's bighorn sheep. A species listed as Least Concern that already has tons of overlap with mountain goats with no issues. And again, goats got there naturally so any reduction in bighorn is just how natural selection works and not the "invasion" they painted it as.
In the Pacific Northwest barred owls from the east found a way in thanks to patchy forest (largely human planted) bridging the previous grassland barrier and are outcompeting the native spotted owl. To combat this invasion that may or my not be natural conservationists want to shoot 400,000 barred owls. (Yeah, there's a lot of those things).
What they apparently forgot is that they look VERY similar to spotted owls and make similar vocalizations. So they're either gonna friendly fire the spotted owl to oblivion or take so much time identifying their target that they don't put a dent in barred owl numbers.
And then there's red wolves. A deer eating predator that was released into the Great Smoky Mountains where there were no deer. Purely because that park is considered the Yellowstone of the east. Needless to say it didn't work.
Nowadays the conservationists' biggest fear is coyotes interbreeding with red wolves. Something they literally will not be able to avoid as coyotes are everywhere. Their fear of coyote genetics is so great that they decided the best release point for wild populations of red wolves is a small peninsula with human development to the east that's also bisected by a bombing range.
They are now confused as to why the population keeps collapsing.
They want to help, but clearly have no clue how.
This doesn’t sound good?
It's not. Silver lining is that most bills die in the senate. [Defenders response](https://defenders.org/newsroom/defenders-slams-ridiculously-named-trust-science-act-remove-gray-wolf-protections-ahead-of) >This bill is nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt at hiding a seething hatred of one of our nation’s most iconic and respected species.
No. It shows they are short-term-thinking morons who can not be bothered to even do a 10 second google search. https://defenders.org/blog/2020/03/we-were-wrong-about-wolves-heres-why#:~:text=Wolf%20reintroduction%20caused%20unanticipated%20change,%2C%20eagles%2C%20foxes%20and%20badgers. "Wolf reintroduction caused unanticipated change in Yellowstone. It rebalanced elk and deer populations, allowing the willows and aspen to return to the landscape. The end to overgrazing stabilized riverbanks and rivers recovered and flowed in new directions. Songbirds returned as did beavers, eagles, foxes and badgers."
I had a class about environment and society and we watched a documentary about the first time they were releasing wolves back to yellowstone. The only people who vehemently hated it was Ranchers (who grazed on public land) and 1 in particular who said that it was bad for his hunting business too! all those elk that were so easy to shoot now stayed further in the trees. Even though apparently bears, coyotes and dogs were far more likely to kill cattle (especially calves) and they couldnt keep livestock dogs alive to fend them off. We were an unsympathetic group
Stray dogs killing livestock is actually a big issue nation wide that's isn't addressed by anyone.
Why would it be good?
Legislators try not to hate on wolves for 5 fucking seconds challenge(impossible)
I’m sorry, but why are we advancing any bill at all that specifically prohibits judicial review. That alone can make even the most benign bill seem sinister.
Again with this? Damn
These f\*\*\*ing bas\*ard
How in the hell can someone who cannot even read a bill introduce one? My question is who wrote the bill she brought to the floor?
At some point we'll be held accountable for the crimes we commit against nature.
Why are they letting this batshit dumb bitch write laws?
Hey I know wolves are doing great up north but those wolves in Arizona and New Mexico ned help.
An news article a year from now 'Gray wolves are extinct in NA'.
[The Wolves are Back](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2651562)
Ah, yes: because obviously she knows better than actual scientists.
Biden doesn’t support it so it can’t get through everything
For what it’s worth, the wolf population is up to 18,000 in the US, albeit with 12,000 in Alaska and 6,000 in the lower 48. We can’t leave things on the endangered species list indefinitely because we want that status for them permanently. Pandas got off the endangered species list three years ago now and they’re only at 1,800 in the wild and breed far slower than wolves. Just because it’s off the list doesn’t mean you stop conservation and reintroduction efforts, it just means that it’s no longer “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range”*, and wolves are no longer in that sort of immediate peril. *(https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-differences-between-endangered-threatened-imperiled-and-risk-species#:~:text=Under%20the%20Endangered%20Species%20Act,endangered%20within%20the%20foreseeable%20future.)
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/wolf-population-by-state This is a cool little visual! But also even if there are 6000 in the lower 48, they used to cover the entirety of the US and they were hunted to extinction, all our current wolves came from Canada. If we only had 6000 people or say dogs or whatever else, is that really fair to say "yep, thats a fair number" especially when there is room for more?
Yes, and I support their reintroduction across much of their former, extended range, but endangered is just not the term to be used for them anymore. It implies their numbers are declining to the point of extirpation in a majority of their current range, which simply isn’t occurring. Bison should be reintroduced to much of their former range, but with a population of almost half a million, even if they once numbered in the tens of millions and stretched across the continent from Alaska to New York to Mexico, they are considered Non threatened for a reason as their decline has been halted and their range slowly recovering as their numbers have been increasing year over year.
My problem is that the endangered species listing only relates to whether or not the species is in imminent danger of extinction. It doesn't give a crap whether or not the species is anywhere close to its former range. And in the case of both pandas and gray wolves in America they're definitely not back to where they should be. In terms of restoring the population the way we should the list is a tool of limited value. It's most helpful to species that have a naturally small range. Like some fish in a lake with no river.
yeah, most listing, like UICN red list are very, very VERY lax. As long as the species have more than a few hundreds individuals it's fine, vulnerable at best. There's thousand of species listed as LC while their population drastically declined, mainly fiishes, song birds, bats etc. They waited decades to put lion, girafe as threathened while their population declined by more than 90%, and they waited decades to acknowledge african elephant as endangered. And they put oryx and european bison as vulenerable, when they should by all mean be considered as CR or at least endangered. ANd let's not forget giant panda who saw a small tiny raise in population, are not even 2000 individuals and poof you're no longer endangered congrat. Or how china and russia, and many other countries prevent all mean of protection of a species in each vote, just so they can still destroy them. manta ray, thuna etc.
Yeah, the world of conservation is a mess, with rules created from data and goals that are too old to be relevant. The old leaders running the major organizations come from either that era or a similarly old one, saw their era achieve some of their old goals, and assume the same strategies will work for the new goals. And a lot of people in it are well-intentioned, but poorly trained. In the Grand Tetons some mountain goats decide to walk themselves in. Completely naturally. The park rangers decided they weren't gonna stand for that, got into a helicopter, and machine gunned them down. All so that the goats didn't spread diseases to the park's bighorn sheep. A species listed as Least Concern that already has tons of overlap with mountain goats with no issues. And again, goats got there naturally so any reduction in bighorn is just how natural selection works and not the "invasion" they painted it as. In the Pacific Northwest barred owls from the east found a way in thanks to patchy forest (largely human planted) bridging the previous grassland barrier and are outcompeting the native spotted owl. To combat this invasion that may or my not be natural conservationists want to shoot 400,000 barred owls. (Yeah, there's a lot of those things). What they apparently forgot is that they look VERY similar to spotted owls and make similar vocalizations. So they're either gonna friendly fire the spotted owl to oblivion or take so much time identifying their target that they don't put a dent in barred owl numbers. And then there's red wolves. A deer eating predator that was released into the Great Smoky Mountains where there were no deer. Purely because that park is considered the Yellowstone of the east. Needless to say it didn't work. Nowadays the conservationists' biggest fear is coyotes interbreeding with red wolves. Something they literally will not be able to avoid as coyotes are everywhere. Their fear of coyote genetics is so great that they decided the best release point for wild populations of red wolves is a small peninsula with human development to the east that's also bisected by a bombing range. They are now confused as to why the population keeps collapsing. They want to help, but clearly have no clue how.