Scientists oppose the de-listing of grey wolves from the ESA (endangered Species Act)
Grey wolves have suffered immensely at the hand of humans throughout the centuries and they have fared not much better in the Great Lakes areas.
After being aggressively persecuted by both the states governmental authorities as well as the Federal agencies the numbers of wolves dwindled to about 750 wolves. Considering the numbers that were left the Federal Government decided to change from hunter to protector and in 1974 the Grey wolf was officially put on the Endangered Species List. Under the protection of the law the Grey wolf somewhat bounced back and some now feel the current numbers of around 3700(combined number) justify the lifting of the Grey wolf from the ESA listing. Recently protections were lifted and the states immediately launched aggressive hunting style "management". This resulted in an increase in stock depradation and "problem" juvenile wolves mainly caused by the indiscriminate killing of wolf packs causing severe pack trauma.
In December 2014 Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the Grey wolf in the Midwestern States be put back under the protection of the ESA until such time these states can show a workable plan to ensure the continued recovery of the Grey wolf.
Since then both state and federal government has been apealing the decision and currently bills have been drafted that will eliminate protections for the grey wolf nationally and again put them at the indiscriminate "mercy" of a small minority special interest group.
Recently the lifting of the protections and removing the Grey wolf from the ESA was supported by 26 scientists, in a letter to U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell urging the removal of their endangered status. Their view was that wolves were recovered enough in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota to be put to the hunter's gun again.
Yesterday 29 scientists disagreed with their colleagues saying that Grey wolves still fit the requiremint to be listed statewide and nationwide as they have not nearly recovered in sustainable numbers. They support the ruling of Judge Howell. Their main concern is the lack of proper scientifically based management plans other than hunting and trapping of the Great Lakes states.
The debate goes on.