I could tell you that with Act 169 in Wisconsin, many stakeholders, including the tribes and environmental advocacy voices were removed from any sort of decision-making process. The science committee was disbanded and tribal and university biologists were replaced with hunting lobby groups. The law makes any sort of compromise impossible because it restricts discussion of protection of the wolf. A few key tenets are missing such as core habitat protection areas, refuges and buffer zones, which are critical for long term sustainability of wolves in the Great Lakes.

I could tell you we may agree that the population trajectory of wolves in the Great Lakes has been going in a positive direction over the last few decades under ESA protection but, it may be premature to delist the wolf from the ESA at this time, where meaningful discussion between stakeholders has been disallowed and scientific discussion has been replaced by anti-wolf agendas. It is irresponsible not to consider the social issues that drove wolves to the brink of extinction in the past.

I could also tell you human intolerance has been the greatest threat to wolves and continues to express itself through politics and the extremely aggressive wolf killing management plans that seem to presumptively be part of delisting. Basing wolf recovery on plans that set benchmarks for the lowest viable numbers is dated and irresponsible.