Art and Writing Gallery

In August 2013, on our Instagram (our main page), we held an art and writing contest. Kids could draw or paint based on any of our posted wolf photos (or their own original drawing). They were also to write and submit their own letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service against the removal of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List in the United States. Everyone has amazing and inspiring works of art and writing! Check them all out:

                   I oppose the proposal to remove gray wolves from the federal Endangered Species List. wolves are extinct in most of the country and the world. Under the Endangered Species Act, species cannot be taken off the endangered species list unless they are recovered - which gray wolves are not! If wolves are removed from the endangered species list, then each state will manage their own wolves. If this is to happen wolves are more likely to become extinct. With out wolves the vegetation will be gone because of the elk overpopulating and with them eating it all. Wolves not only help the environment but they also help the deer and elk population. When wolves hunt they go after the sick or injured, which would help the sick elk from passing on the disease. Many young people care deeply about this issue. I am a member of a group called Kids4Wolves. We work to educate ourselves, our peers, and adults about the truth of wolves - both the good and the not so good (but solvable). We also work to get other young people involved in the process, to keep the policy makers honest when they make these decisions. After all, my generation will have to be the ones to live with the benefits or consequences of whatever your generation decides today. It is critical that you consider all sides to this issue. Young people in the United States are perhaps the group to be most effected by your decision.  I implore you to reconsider your proposal to remove federal protection for gray wolves across the whole United States.
Thank you. ~ @allaboutwolves5

                         Wolves are my favourite animal without them I would be motionless because they are beautiful and majestic.With wolves deer would destroy plants and small trees and when I'm older I want to see wolves in the wild.Instead of taking the protection of wolves away why not increase it? ~ @wolfer_the_wolf

Dear Secretary Jewell,

        I'm writing to you today to demand that you do not finalize the federal government's plan to strip Endangered Species Act protection from most gray wolves in the United States.

The restoration of wolves has been hailed as one of the biggest successes of the Endangered Species Act since it was passed in 1973. But the important work of wolf recovery is unfinished. Delisting the gray wolf will halt four decades of progress in its tracks and expose America's wolves to unwarranted and unsustainable killing. If wolves were to be taken off the endangered species list it would respond in an ecosystem disaster that would affect far more than just the wolves, ourselves included.

Wolves are an iconic, native species that play a vital role in restoring healthy ecosystems by keeping prey species in balance. Places like the Olympic peninsula and the Colorado Rockies could benefit both ecologically and economically from the return of wolves.

Someday, when wolves have recovered throughout most of their historic range, and when states refrain from managing their wolf populations in a politically driven race to the bottom, then perhaps delisting is an option worth debating. However, we are far from that day, and delisting now would be an avoidable conservation nightmare.

I urge you in the strongest possible terms to not turn the clock back on one of America's signature wildlife conservation success stories. The future of full wolf recovery is in your hands. ~@icyox         

I oppose the proposal of FWS to remove wolves from the endangered species list. This animal has not yet made a full recovery, and removing them too soon could be disastrous for the remainder of the species. The grey wolf is a great American icon; legendary, like the buffalo and the bald eagle. Removing these endangered species from the federal list could mean the end of a true North American treasure. Please support wolves! ~@kodiakwolfdog

I oppose the proposal to remove gray wolves from the federal Endangered Species List.

     Wolves are still extinct in most of the states across the nation, yet if this proposal were to go through, wolves would be considered NOT endangered in those states. In the states of Washington and Oregon, only about 50 wolves exist, yet these would also be considered a not-endangered - "recovered" - population. Under the Endangered Species Act, species cannot be taken off the endangered species list unless they are recovered - which gray wolves are not! If wolves are removed from the endangered species list, then each state will manage their own wolves. States have a history of killing as many wolves as possible, often using inhumane and unscientific methods. There are still many habitats in the U.S. where wolves have the potential to thrive, but have yet to move into those areas; there is no science in removing protection in places where wolves have yet to recover - specifically the Pacific Northwest, California, the Northeast, and the southern Rocky Mountains. Wolves have sustainable populations in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota; federal protection has already been removed in those areas. The only thing that will be accomplished under this proposal is removing federal protection in states that don't yet have a recovered wolf population. This is illogical and goes against the available science (as many independent scientists have expressed). The decision to remove a species from the Endangered Species List is supposed to be based on the best available science (as you claim it is), but the scientists whose work is referenced in your proposal themselves voiced their strong disagreements (and I quote): "“Based on a careful review of the rule, we do not believe that the rule reflects the conclusions of our work or the best available science concerning the recovery of wolves, or is in accordance with the fundamental purpose of the Endangered Species Act to conserve endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.” Please base your decision on the actual best available science, not the best available politics.     Many people care deeply about this issue. I am a member of a group called Kids4Wolves. We work to educate ourselves, our peers, and adults about the truth of wolves - both the good and the not so good (but solvable). We also work to get other young people involved in the process, to keep the policy makers honest when they make these decisions. After all, my generation will have to be the ones to live with the benefits or consequences of whatever your generation decides today. It is critical that you consider all sides to this issue.

Young people in the United States are perhaps the group to be most affected by your decision.  I implore you to reconsider your proposal to remove federal protection for gray wolves across the whole United States.
Thank you. ~@druunita

Dear FWS,
         I speak on behalf the wolves, and I say you're making a huge mistake by going through with this law. Back in 1990 when wolves weren't protected, over 2 million were killed! This led elk, dear, caribou, and other animals that wolves eat to be come over populated. Taking wolves away disrupted the entire ecosystem. For example;
Since wolves were gone elk came down by the river. There they ate roots and grass. When that was gone, the elks hooves created erosion, so the soil went into the river, clogging up the fish (like trout) gills. This made the fish die. The coyotes ate all of the smaller animals like mice, voles, etc. They rarely went after elk since they were much to big. This made the birds of prey leave since they didn't have fish, nor other small animals that they normally eat. Smaller types of birds also left the forest, since the trees had died from their roots being eaten, so the smaller birds left as well. 

Once the wolves were reintroduced then the elk population was spilt in half, the grass and tree's grew again, The river was no longer dirty from soil, so the fish could live there, smaller animals like mice, voles, etc. all came back.
As you can see taking just one animal away from the ecosystem can disrupt all of it. This is why I feel this new law is a huge mistake. I feel that if this law passes then the same things are going to happen, once again. So why don't we think of what are actions can amount to, before we do them.
I do NOT agree with this law at all. And I hope you see what will happen if it does pass. ~@lovelival

Dear Sir or Madam,

My name is _________ and I am _______ in_________. I am writing to you because I disagree with the proposal to delist wolves of their endangered species status.

Imagine if the U.S. had no wolves. What would it be like? Would we miss them? According to current legislature, it is now lawful to hunt a wolf in the Midwest and Western areas. Although there are many different opinions on this issue, I think that wolf hunting is unfair and cruel. Their populations can’t support a hunt, and they are being murdered in awful ways.

Wolf hunting is cruel. Wolves are animals and deserve to be treated as such. “Wolves have been so demonized but in reality wolves are animals, the direct ancestors of our beloved dogs. There is no reason to assign motives to their behavior. They are doing what they were born to do” (“Howling for Justice”). In Wisconsin, wolves can be killed using almost any method, including traps, clubs, and guns including shotguns. “The wolf season opened on October 15, and by the afternoon of November 4, fifty-seven wolves had already been killed” (“Great Lakes Wolf Update and Take Action Alert”). Some hunts extend into breeding season and allow pregnant females and their unborn pups to be murdered. Why should we kill wolf pups? They are not born and unable to do any “harm” in the environment. Also, wolves can be hunted with packs of dogs, which not only is cruel to the wolf, but to the dogs too. A wolf trying to defend itself can easily injure or even kill a dog. “Wolves killed a hunting hound in Jackson County, Wisconsin” (“Howling for Justice”).

In addition, the wolf populations can’t support a hunt. “The wolf populations aren’t strong enough to support a hunt” (“Court Rejects Bid to Block Minn. Wolf Hunt”). They were just taken off the endangered species list, and there are not enough wolves for a hunt to take place. Thousands of wolves have suffered and died. “Over one thousand wolves have already died” (“Emergency: Stop the War on Wolves!”). The government was supposed to wait five years until considering hunting wolves after they were off the endangered species list, but some people pressed for a wolf hunt. They felt wolves were a problem to society and needed to be removed. However, Collette Adkins Giese, attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity and Howling for Wolves disagrees. “I’m deeply disappointed because this means hundreds of wolves will suffer and die” (“Collette Adkins Giese”). Also, the wolf hunts are not to control the population because the populations are not out of control. It is quite the opposite. There are too few wolves! “Instead it caters to game hunters, not livestock owners” (“Doug Smith”) The permits which allow a person to kill a wolf are not being sold to livestock owners who want to get rid of wolves for the sake of their cattle, but to hunters who would love nothing more than to unjustly murder a wolf for no reason.

There are also some cons of protecting the wolves. Some people claim that wolves are a threat to livestock, deer, and humans. Hunters complain that wolves “steal” deer. Yes, wolves kill deer, but for food. They need deer to survive. Why do we hunt wolves? For the sadistic pleasure of shooting a living animal. “Wolves kill to sustain themselves. Only people kill for sport” (“Do Wolves Kill for Sport?”). Wolves can keep the deer populations down naturally instead of humans interfering with nature, once again. “They have restored stability to the ecosystems they live in” (“How Wolves Help”). Farmers and livestock owners frequently complain of wolves killing livestock. These hunts were supposed to take care of this problem, but game hunters are killing off the wolves, not ranchers who actually have wolf problems. “In general, it’s harder for ranchers to live with wolves than without. But the conflict with hunters isn’t so well defined” (“Doug Smith”). There are also many methods to prevent depredation. “These include proactive techniques such as the use of sheep guard dogs, fladry, and range riders, as well as animal husbandry techniques such as fencing and pasture rotation. The use of fladry involves stringing flagging that acts as a visual deterrent. Fladry is being used successfully to deter wolves from entering pastures and, in some cases, has been electrified to increase its effectiveness”

(“Methods to prevent Depredation”).

According to “Wolves and Livestock”, livestock were five times more likely to be stolen than preyed on by wolves. Only five percent of all cattle loss in the U.S. was attributed to predators. Domestic dogs killed almost five times as many cattle as did wolves. Other people are afraid of wolves and insist that wolves eat people. Actually, wolves are afraid of people and if they can, they stay out of our way. “In the past one hundred years, there have only been two incidents in North America when wolves have allegedly killed a human being” (“Do Wolves Attack People?”). Lighting kills more people than wolves. “On average, 90 people are killed every year in the U.S. by lightning” (“NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-193”). Compare that to the two people killed by wolves in the last 100 years.

Furthermore, by removing wolves from the endangered species list will stop the recovery of wolves. In some states, wolves have not recovered from being endangered. “Wolves currently inhabit only a fraction of their former range, and this proposal will cut off wolf recovery from vast areas of suitable habitat out west where the species can still thrive” (“Jamie Rappaport Clark”). The wolves of the U.S. need time to recover. They only inhabit a fraction of their former range, and by allowing hunters to kill them off they will never reach sustainable numbers.

We should put a stop to wolf hunting and take a stand against this unfairness. Wolves are beautiful, strong, and majestic animals. There is no need to murder them. If all the wolves vanished from the U.S., it would not be home. We would never hear their clear, melodious howls or glimpse a fluffy grey pelt flash through the trees. Wolves are a part of us and we need to respect them. Please help save the wolves!

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I hope it helps you gain a better understanding of wolves. ~@art_by_tc

          I would like to oppose the proposal to delist grey wolves from the endangered species list. These animals are part of society. They help balance the ecosystem, providing a healthy life for all other animals. They kill off the diseased, injured, or elderly animals which in return makes the other animals disease free. They help keep other animals alive. Wolves also leave leftovers so other animals can eat too, such as bears and ravens. The scavengers won't go hungry because the wolves have left food for them. The entire animal that is killed does not go to waste. The thing is, is that if we delist the wolves, the ecosystem would most likely come crashing down. Hunters would kill every wolf they see, decreasing the wolf population by hundreds. There would be a higher risk for diseases and illnesses in game, which would lead to a decrease in game animals. Hunters would then again blame wolves for this, but it is really there fault for killing the wolves that kept everything in balance. There also wouldn't be much food for scavengers leaving them starving. Hunters believe wolves will wipe out big game, but if you compare 300 wolves to about 60,000 elk, I think there will be plenty of game for hunters.
 Wildlife groups, activists, and regular people have been working for years to bring with wolf population back to its original numbers and areas. Wolves use to live in almost every state for hundreds of years until hunters came and almost wiped them all out. If we delist wolves this may happen again. Years of tireless effort has gone into wolf recovery, and now it would go to waste if you were to delist them. Countless amounts of time and money have been spent so that our future generation can enjoy the beauty of wolves, and to eventually see them return to their original natural habitats. This could never happen if wolves are delisted.

 Farmers and ranchers are always blaming wolves for the deaths of their livestock. These people could do something about it though, but they think the easier way is just to kill the wolves. We could fund farmers and ranchers so that they could have an option as to protection of their livestock. There are many ways to keep out wolves such as blaring speakers (wolf howls), air horns, guard dogs or fladry which is usually very successful. Also if we want to keep wolves out, we need stop moving more into their land. A long time ago wolves used to be able to walk anywhere, but now its probably covered by a farm or ranch. Wolves can't help that humans are decreasing their roaming range drastically, leaving them no where to run or find food. So they have no choice but to resort to hunting livestock. Wolves would much rather go somewhere else to hunt, but they have no space left. This just leads to more killing of livestock and wolves.

 So in conclusion I would like to say it would be senseless to delist wolves from the endangered species list. There too few wolves left in the wild. With this removal, everything that has been done for wolves would go to waste in seconds. Please do not delist grey wolves from the endangered species list, we aren't done saving wolves yet. ~@wolfdrawings

           Staring across the Yellowstone River, into the eyes of the very beast I had only ever dreamed of seeing, I realized this was not the monster described in one of my favorite books, Jack London’s White Fang. The vast territory of the wolf once stretched across the United States, and began to diminish after becoming prey to man who hunted them down to the last wolf in 1943. In 1995 the gray wolf was reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park where packs began to flourish, making one of the most successful comebacks that the Endangered Species Act has ever experienced. But today, after what many thought was the end, man once again hunts the wolf for reasons similar to those that led to the extermination of this animal over 85 years ago. Ranchers and hunters alike have declared war on wolves, believing them to be ruthless killers greatly affecting both elk populations and livestock; however, I believe the wolf has been given a false image described as vicious and dangerous by the media, but they are truly timid animals, a key species to their environment preventing elk from over populating, and a key species affecting the entire ecosystem as a whole.

For years ranchers and hunters have found conflict with wolves, fearing for their livestock, there own families, and even big game supplies. Ranchers have always struggled to live in the presence of wolves because, as predators, they often come as a threat to livestock. “During 2008, wildlife agents confirmed 569 cattle and sheep deaths from wolves throughout the west,” (Chadwick 2). Ranchers are running a business not just a farm. Loss of animals to wolves is more then just upsetting; it’s also lost money. Not only do wolves just hunt the livestock but they can also affect the animal’s health by an increase in stress. In cattle this often results in a lower birth rate meaning even more livestock lost to wolves, “We had 85 pregnant heifers this spring, and 60 aborted,” (Chadwick 3). The stress can also cause other problems as well. Cattle often “come off the pasture on average about 100 pounds lighter than before there were wolves in the area,” (Kaufman 2). Rancher’s work becomes increasingly more frustrating with this growing presence of the wolf. Their first instinct upon seeing a wolf is to shoot. Old stories have lead them to automatically protect their animals, land, and family from this predator that once threatened their ancestor’s way of living. It’s a sort of “’shoot first, ask questions never’ policy” (Boyce 1), easily seen in Mr. Petersons case, he did not even pause before shooting the wolf he spotted on his property (Kaufman 1). People often feel discomfort knowing wolves are now sharing the environment. Some even say “they no longer feel as safe taking their families into the woods,” (Chadwick 2). Wolves overall harm a rancher’s business and sense of security, but when they are not causing “livestock deprivation” (Tabish 1), they are “ravaging game populations,” (Chadwick 2). Many hunters have complained “about wolves overrunning the place and wiping out elk and deer,” (Chadwick 6). So, to solve this problem, hunters and ranchers have pushed for wolf hunts, which are now underway, also allowing for trapping. After Minnesota’s first wolf season, “hunters killed 413 wolves. The DNR (Department of Natural Resources) estimates the state’s population to be ‘stable’ at 3,000,” (Tabish 2). By keeping wolf populations down hunters have more supply of game as well as a new species to hunt.

Maybe the reason hunters and ranchers have such a huge problem with the wolf is because they fear it, fear the way this creature could affect their surroundings. But this fear is dangerous; it blinds them to the simple reality, facts that show this animal is not a ruthless killer. In most cases wolves prefer their natural prey to ranchers livestock, “I’ve seen wolves walk right through cattle herds to stalk deer,” (Chadwick 4). However, when wolves do attack livestock, it is not as severe a loss as many believe it to be. “In 2010, according to the USDA, wolves killed 8,100 head of cattle… That’s only 3.7 percent of the total of other predators; coyotes… account for 53.1 percent, or 116,700 head of cattle… dogs (21,800 head)…mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx (18,900 head),” (Nosowitz 2). Also, wolves are blamed for killing off big game but “Northwestern Montana has at least twice as many cougars as wolves and twice as many grizzly bears. Together they kill more adult deer and fawns than wolves do,” (Chadwick 6). Killing off the wolves would not solve the issue of lost livestock or big game animals, but killing off these other predatory animals is not the solution ether; this would only cause further problems. But even if all animals were out of the picture they only make up a fraction of livestock deaths, but still wolves continues to be subject to the most criticism. In Oregon, “What started to happen was every single dead cow was of course a wolf kill ... further investigations were showing… that wasn’t the case… In 2010, fewer than a dozen cows and calves were killed by wolves compared to 55,000 lost to disease, weather and other causes,” (Petersen 2). Ranchers have not been left to deal with the wolf on there own. Programs have been established to help them by “offering them money and tools to fend off wolves without killing them,” (Kaufman 1), and also to provide compensation for lost animals. Groups like Keystone Conservation in Montana “are promoting husbandry techniques that allow calves to grow stronger in penned areas before grazing on the range,” (Kaufman 2). However, ranchers have been ignorant and unwilling to compromise in most cases. As Mr. Peterson put it, “a lot of my neighbors think I am wet behind the ears to take money from these people,” (Kaufman 1). But these tactics are working despite there resistance. In Montana, “the amount of livestock killed has shrunk since 2009... A total of 370 claims were filed… there were 175 claims in 2010 and 95 in 2011,” (Tabish 2). But even with the lower numbers of livestock deaths, ranchers and hunters have continued to push for hunting. Wolf hunts are now becoming more common and the number of wolves killed has been rising as well. The wolf has been pushed to, as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe put it, “bare-minimum-survival,” (The War on Wolves 1). Killing wolves is unnecessary. They are important to the environment and there is no need for them to be “subject to so much irrational slaughter,” (The War on Wolves 1). In 1949 Aldo Leopold wrote, “We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes… I thought that… fewer wolves meant more deer… no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view,” (Anderson 3). Killing wolves seems like a great idea to those who see them as frightening, but this creature is no monster. “Cristina Eisenberg is a five-foot-two-inch, hundred-pound answer to the question of how dangerous wolves are to people,” (Chadwick 6). Eisenberg has spent 4 years studying “ wolves, elk, and aspen in Glacier Park… among two large wolf pack, one with 20-plus members,” (Chadwick 6). She has never been attacked. Daniel MacNulty, a wildlife-ecology professor at Utah State University, explained that, “Most people don’t realize this, but wolves are wimps,” (Berlin 2). In Daniel’s “16 years of studying wolves in Yellowstone National Park,” he has “never been approached by a wolf or wolf pack,” (Berlin 1). However, in the cases found when wolves do attack humans nearly all the wolves were rabid (Nosowitz 3). But the number of wolf attacks is still incredibly low, none since 1995, and only 20 to 30 in the 20^th century with only 3 being fatal (Nosowitz 3). “In that same 100-year period, there were 71 fatal attacks from brown bears… and about 17 people die every year from dog attacks,” (Nosowitz 3). The wolf is not a creature we need to fear it is less harmful then many other species such as the coyote and much more helpful to the environment then many other creatures we let live.

During the years when the wolf was absent from Yellowstone National Park a discovery was made, the environment was dying without its most powerful predator. In the absence of the wolf, elk and coyotes took over the area. “Elk herds were destroying large tracts of vegetation, and coyotes had reduced second-tier predators,” (Kaufman 2). The beaver soon became extinct in Yellowstone because of lack of aspen and cotton wood trees needed to support a beaver colony. By 1996, Doug Smith, “surveying the huge northern range… turned up just one beaver colony… the lowest tally in decades,” (Chadwick 5). But after the reintroduction of the wolf, the vegetation started to make a comeback and by 2009, Smith recorded 12 beaver colonies (Chadwick 5). Beaver colonies are important to the ecosystem helping provide habitat for species such as “moose, muskrat, mink, waterfowl, wading birds, and an array of other wildlife,” (Chadwick 5). In Glacier National Park, aspen trees reveal the damage caused by the removal of wolves from their environment. “Its upper tier consists of towering trees that arose between 1840 and the 1920s, before wolves were eliminated. The bottom row, 15 feet high, is of saplings that shot up after wolves returned. There are no aspens in between. None got past the elk’s mouths,” (Chadwick 6). The wolf overall helps the elk population by keeping it in control, making them stronger. “Wolves prey on the weak and feeble; by culling the elk herd in this way, the remaining elk tend to be stronger and healthier,” (Nosowitz 3). Also, in the absence of the wolves, as a “second-tier predator,” foxes began to disappear from the park unable to deal with the growing coyote population. With the reintroduction of the wolf, these “big canines killed nearly half the coyote population,” (Chadwick 5), allowing for foxes to make a comeback. The benefits that the wolves bring don’t stop at the environment. “In Yellowstone alone, tens of thousands come to watch wolves each year, adding an estimated $35 million to the area’s economy,” (Chadwick 2). Leo Cottenoir responsible for the death of the last wolf in 1943 said, “I still think they ought to have wolves in there. They are a native animal, native to the country and something that has always been there,” (The Last Wolf 1).

Media has convinced the world that wolves are evil killing machines, ruthless when humans cross there paths, easily seen in Liam Neeson’s movie, The Grey, classic books, such as Jack London’s White Fang, and even children stories, like Little Red Ridding Hood and The Three Little Pigs. The wolves have been “caricatured throughout history as cunning, yellow-eyed monsters,” (Boyce 1) and never the powerful species that contributes so much to the health of its environment. The problem with a lot of the media is that most of it seems pretty real to the people who don’t know much about wolves. However, Jack London’s use of the wolf as a man-eater is explained by K.A. Applegate in the introduction to White Fang, “London’s wolves aren’t wolves as wolves are, they’re wolves as he wanted them to be, as he needed them to be… London’s people are like London’s wolves,” (London). The wolf has always played the bad guy because it makes a good story but the wolf also shares similar qualities with humans. Maybe the problem we have with wolves is because they are like us, strong and intelligent, powerfully affecting their surroundings, caring for their packs; they aren’t so different from us.

In 2006 I was present for one of the most memorable wolf watching experiences in the history of Yellowstone National Park. Standing across the river was the Hayden Valley wolf pack’s famous white wolf, alpha female 540F, accompanied by her pack and their 5 pups. 540F walked towards us, slinking out of the shadows to drink from the river, the whole time her eyes never left us. In those eyes I saw a powerful mysterious creature, but I also saw something almost human, the looming presence of fear and caution was unmistakable. Just as the ranchers fear for their business and family, a mother for her child, or even a hunter fearing the loss of his prey, this wolf feared for her pack. I saw a creature that was just as cautious as I was, not a monster. Hunters and ranchers do not need the facts to accept the wolf; they need the wisdom to see, to understand the other side of the story, and to acknowledge the importance of this majestic creature. Some ranchers may never be able to find peace with the wolf, but they must learn to try because we need the wolf to be here.

 

             The delisting of grey wolves is an act that should be talked about and taken action for with much more care. Because the lack of awareness by the wolf community I feel that more and more obstacles are being created for them. After reading an article by Ralph Maughan, it is stated that the New York Times and even other publications have begun to rethink the wisdom of those in charge of delisting the wolf. Through charts and reports by the US Fish and wildlife service, evidence clearly shows that the wolf isn’t really recovered. What it does show is that the existing state management is terrible and that those wolves that were labeled as the “recovered population” will soon end up declining to nothing but a tiny community. ~@okami02

Wolves shouldn't be removed from the endangered species list. if this occurs, wolves are more likely to become extinct and the population will dwindle rapidly. Just because the wolves recovered and was one of the success stories of the Endangered species act does not mean their existence still isn't threatened. States will manage their own wolves and most of them try to rid wolves from existing and kill as many wlves as possible. Grey wolves havn't recovered at all and if they are taken off the list there is a definite possibility we will be facing the extinction of wolves as we know it.

Wolves control their own population as many wolves are killed by other wolves. It's the circle of life and each population of animal is easily controlled by nature without nay human interference.

Humans invaded the territory of wolves first and need to deal and acknowledge that they are in the area where wild animals exist. That is not a reason to kill them because they are around. Thus, the killing of wolves needs to stop. They are beautiful animals and aren;t the stereotype that everyone claims that they are.

Dont remove another thing from nature and for the future generations to see. That would be a shame. Keep them on the endangered species list. There are only a few left. ~@jaimiehasnolife

I oppose the proposal to remove gray wolves from the federal Endangered Species List. Wolves are still extinct in most states, and in the states that they're in now they aren't fully recovered. Under the Endangered Species Act species cannot be taken off the Endangered Species List unless they are fully recovered - which gray wolves are not! I encourage you to reconsider taking wolves off the Endangered Species List. ~@world4wolves