Under a settlement reached between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and a coalition of animal rights’ zealots who sued, gray wolves in the western Great Lakes States have been temporarily put back on the Endangered Species List—again.

Earlier this year, and with overwhelming scientific justification, the USFWS had delisted wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. (Wolves were also delisted in several Rocky Mountain states and a separate lawsuit is underway to restore protection for them.)

Claiming a victory, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) boasted on their website that this court decision “would have allowed hostile state wildlife agencies to subject wolves to widespread and indiscriminate killings at the hand of state agents, farmers and trophy hunters.”

In truth, states are clamoring for the right to manage wolves, and by all wildlife management standards, wolves need to be delisted and control turned over to those states. And what’s most disturbing about this decision is that the delisting wasn’t stalled because of any scientific reason. The biological justification is there, and as USFWS spokeswoman Georgia Parham says, “The biology isn’t going to change.”

No, delisting was stalled because (Horrors!!) USFWS failed to hold a public comment period before announcing the removal of the Great Lakes wolves. This bureaucratic thread actually held up in court, despite the fact that pubic comments periods had been held in previous attempts to remove wolves from the list.

So, the process now begins again. USFWS will go back, look for any new information that applies, write another rule proposing that wolves be delisted—and then open up the rule for public comment. (We’ll let you know when the comment period opens.)

Of course, we certainly support public comment periods. But USFWS has tried six times now to delist wolves, and they’ve been stymied every time by radical animal rightists’ lawsuits. They don’t care about the comment period. They just don’t want wolves ever hunted. Indeed, Jonathan Loworn, chief counsel for HSUS, said, “This agreement will … hopefully put to rest the states’ reckless plans to start sport hunting and trapping imperiled wolves.”

HSUS and other animal rights’ groups no doubt think they are winning something by keeping wolves protected so far. But the fact of life is this: All the animals that share habitat with wolves—elk, deer, moose, sheep, cattle and even dogs—are affected by wolf numbers. By “affected,” I mean they get eaten, and the balance of their numbers can suffer. To me, that means the animal protectionists are defeating their own goals.

Wolves are certainly not the evil, indiscriminate killers some fools would have us believe. But they do kill to live and that’s a fact. Allowing wolves to populate far, far beyond the numbers needed for recovery is not a victory—not for the animal rightists, not for the game that shares habitat with wolves, and not for the wolves themselves. And ceaseless litigation that wastes taxpayers’ money and government agencies’ time is not a victory for anyone.

I have received a few comments from members who believe wolves should not be hunted. I urge them to review other articles we’ve written (see below) on the subject, or to research it independently. Even disregarding the toll that wolves take on livestock, the justification for managing them is similar to that for managing any other big game species—to keep a population at a healthy balance.

 Find Out More:

Research Offers 10 Reasons to Manage Wolves

Antis Howl Over New Wolf Rules

Wolf Reaction

Salazar Affirms Wolf Delisting

Do you think a normal part of a local policeman’s job should be to kill nuisance bears?

Do you believe the anti-hunting factions in New Jersey when they insist that humans and bears can co-exist peacefully, even as the bears overpopulate?

An incident that occurred in New Jersey in early June ought to answer both questions. According to the Daily Record, a 280-pound black bear that had tried to break into a resident’s screened-in porch had to be killed by Harding police.

Last year 37 bears had to be killed by state, local police agencies or farmers with permits. According to the Daily Record story, 71 complaints of “serious bear incidents, such as home entries or attempted entries,” have been received between January 1 and May 20 this year.

NRA, local hunters, and state game and fish officials have called many times for the revival of a black bear hunting season in New Jersey. So far, anti-hunting attitudes in the state have prevailed. While the wildlife science supporting a bear season is irrefutable, it seems to me that proper use of a police force is another point that has not been addressed in this issue. Law enforcement officers in New Jersey ought to be fighting crime, not killing bears. It actually cost taxpayers’ money to have police act as nuisance-bear control officers. A hunting season would not only help manage the bear population properly, it would generate revenue for conservation.

We received an interesting email last week from a member seeking more discussions on non-traditional types of hunting, such as falconry and hunting with terriers. Here’s the email from Kitty Carroll, a licensed master and eagle class falconer who performs live demonstrations with falcons and other birds of prey:

“I’m a life member of the NRA since 1992, NRA member since I was 18. I would like to see more discussion on ‘non-traditional’ types of hunting. More small game hunting discussions, too.  I am a falconer and hunt with raptors. I also have hunted with terriers for vermin, squirrels and rabbits. I also support all forms of hunting, from traditional firearm hunting, archery, terrier work (see www.terrierman.com), coursing with sight hounds, etc. Read the book: “A Sporting Chance” by Dan Mannix to see what I mean.”

While I’ve honestly never hunted with a falcon or a terrier, Kitty’s email got me thinking. How many others out there take part in more non-traditional types of hunting, like falconry, or would like to see more content on our site about it?