I feel like our country is going completely insane, and I'll have more to say about that at a future date, but I just thought I would briefly address the plight of this blog's namesake species. If you read the article provided with the link, you probably won't be surprised. The US's puritanical roots have yet to shed the "man vs nature/order vs chaos/good vs evil" mandate, and ranchers hating wolves is an old story. But we have to keep addressing it because the balance of our ecosystem is off and will continue to be until we accept that we are part of nature, not above or removed from it.
If wolves decrease livestock, I understand the economic concern for ranchers, but as a country that provides ludicrous subsidies to other agriculture interests, including corn farmers (that is a whole other story for another time), we should be able to make accommodations. The meat industry is already a heavy burden on the environment because Americans stubbornly demand high quantities of beef for their diet and we insist on eating a non-native species, when in fact we should be embracing the more eco-sustainable and healthier option of native buffalo (you know, that animal our gun-crazy fore-fathers nearly wiped off the earth). Again, I find myself introducing another debate. But the issue is that complaints of reduced livestock are overstated and provide a weak argument when trying to defend the destructive way of life that is our agricultural industry.
Hunters that complain of wolves reducing game-stock? Less prey makes hunting more difficult, so are they afraid of a challenge? Modern hunting is so lacking in honor-ability with all the tech available and game preserves that this concern lacks any substance.
I don't know if this is a problem Obama can address, but if Idaho gets its way, it will feel like he hasn't set the right tone for environmental issues.
UPDATE:
Indeed, according to an NY Times editorial, under the Obama administration, the Interior Department had been upholding Bush era doctrine that removed wolves from federal protection in Montana and Idaho.
But the good news is that a federal judge has ruled against this policy and so wolves will in fact remain protected for the time being, reversing the fears laid out in the earlier article from Reuters which is linked at the beginning of this post. However, they won't be safe forever, since public policy wavers with every regime change, and apparently Obama is not on the side of the environment, or at least not on the side of the wolf. Disappointment persists.
No comments:
Post a Comment