What isn’t legitimate is for Utah legislators to be making wild, unsubstantiated claims about the animals and those who seek to protect and recognize them as rightful residents of the western United States.
On Thursday, the Utah Senate voted 26-1 in favor of a resolution calling on the federal government to remove wolves from the Endangered Species Act list. The resolution cites millions of dollars of damage to livestock and decreased big-game hunting opportunities as the main reasons why “management” of wolves should be handed back to states. Based on proposals and attitudes I’ve heard in my recent western travels, “management” is usually code for “shoot on sight”.
In principle, giving states more control over wolf populations is not an inherently bad idea. Issues with wolves tend to be very local or regional, and the feds aren’t always in the best of touch with the day-to-day issues ranchers and hunters face.
My question is this: Why does the Utah Legislature feel the need to take a stand on this issue?
The sponsor of the Utah resolution, Sen. Allen Christensen of North Ogden, says there could be “hundreds” of wolves in the state.
Yeah, right.
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, which closely monitors wildlife populations in the state and has more of an interest than any other group in ensuring that Utah maximizes its hunting opportunities, said it is unaware of any wolves living permanently in the state.
The ludicrous claims echoing through the state Senate chambers didn’t end with Christensen’s comments during a recent floor debate. Some other gems included the suggestion that wolves kill for sport (and people don’t?); that they are nothing but killing machines; that they have driven elk herds around Jackson Hole, Wyo. to extinction; and that people who aren’t immediately and unquestioningly on board with removing endangered species protection for wolves are “extremists”.
Ranchers whose herds have suffered from wolf predation have some legitimate concerns, but remember who was there first. Also, there is financial compensation available to them for documented cases of livestock predation.
As far as wildlife is concerned, wolves have traditionally helped thin out the weak and diseased animals. In the long run, as just about any credible wildlife expert will tell you, this is good for big game.
I’m not saying states aren’t capable of managing wolf populations, but until I hear of something better than the “shoot on sight, no questions asked” policy advocated by many in the west, I have to remain skeptical.
In the meantime, Utah lawmakers are sending a bold message to the feds about an issue that isn’t really even an issue in their state. Based on the rhetoric coming down from our state capitol, one has to wonder if they would prefer a west without wolves altogether.
