It's already happening, but from the article I just read the population of gray wolves is barely over 1000 in any one state. To me this doesn't sound like a large enough population to say the species has recovered - I admit I am fairly ignorant about what is a sustainable population though.
What would you consider a reasonable population level to say the species will continue to survive, and do you think it makes sense to allow people to hunt gray wolves.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_re_us/wolf_delisting
2007-01-26 13:21:07 · 6 answers · asked by brooks b 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
No, they should not be taken off the endangered species list...you're right, their populations are WAY too low to survive trophy hunting season! I can't believe that they would delist them, usually takes YEARS of research and study to decide to de-list an animal from the list...seems like they are being very hasty with this decision. Sounds like a huge mistake that needs to be reconsidered after more research is done.
2007-01-26 15:32:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wrong. It is not President Obama's order that the gray wolf be de-listed, that was Bush's doing. Yes, Obama is environmentally sensitive. Seems you have an issue with politics more so that endangered animals.
2016-05-24 03:49:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Idaho they are already considering taking them off the list and hunting most of them out and leaving like a 100 left!
2007-01-26 13:29:37 · answer #3 · answered by God's_gift_2_women 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Selective enforcement is the practical answer. If they are over-populated and damaging livestock beyond what can be sustained, there must be an intervention.
2007-01-26 13:29:17 · answer #4 · answered by Joe Schmo from Kokomo 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
yes
2007-01-26 15:29:07 · answer #5 · answered by huh? 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it's a bit premature... I hope they don't just yet.
2007-01-27 04:05:05 · answer #6 · answered by trehugr4life 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋