Talking Points
On Why Stricter Animal Cruelty Laws are Needed
Wolves, like many other wildlife species, are subject to a complex web of federal, state, and local laws in the United States:
Endangered Species Act (ESA): Some wolf populations are protected under the ESA, which makes it illegal to harm, harass, or kill endangered or threatened species. But wolves are unprotected in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, where anti-wolf hatred is strongest. The status of wolves under the ESA has been subject to changes and legal battles. For example, the gray wolf has been delisted and relisted multiple times in different regions.
Animal Welfare Act (AWA): The AWA primarily regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. It does not cover animals in the wild, so it doesn’t directly protect wolves in their natural habitats.
The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act is designed to address extreme acts of animal cruelty and applies broadly to all animals, including wolves. However, the PACT Act focuses on specific types of cruelty, such as crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, impaling, or otherwise subjecting animals to serious bodily harm, particularly in cases that involve interstate or foreign commerce.
The PACT Act includes exceptions for legal activities such as hunting, trapping, fishing, and other practices that are legally conducted. Therefore, activites arguably related to hunting or management of wolves under state or federal wildlife regulations would not fall under the PACT Act's prohibitions.
On ESA Protections
Several coalitions of environmental and wildlife organizations have recently sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services for its failure to relist western wolves under the ESA.
If Western wolves were protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), any abuse or harm inflicted upon them would be subject to federal legal consequences.
Violating the ESA by harming or killing a protected species can result in significant fines. For individuals, these fines can reach up to $50,000 per violation.
In addition to fines, individuals can face imprisonment for up to one year for each offense.
Civil penalties can also be imposed, with fines up to $25,000 per violation.
Offenders may be required to pay for the restoration or replacement of the harmed animals or their habitats.
Any equipment, vehicles, or other property used in the commission of the violation can be seized and forfeited.
On Rep. Boebert’s cynically-named ‘Trust the Science Act’
The Trust the Science Act (H.R. 764, S.1895) introduced by Representative Boebert (R-CO) aims to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist wolves nationwide.
The bill would take the determination from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delists wolves from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections based on congressional politics, not science (as is required under the ESA), and without ensuring that wolf populations are stable and self-sustaining across their historic ranges. It also blocks judicial oversight by the court system.
There is a lack of broad scientific consensus supporting the delisting, suggesting that the decision is politically motivated rather than based on robust scientific evidence.
Previous attempts to delist wolves have led to increased human-wolf conflicts and population declines.
On Wolf Hate
Wolves were historically seen as a threat to livestock leading to widespread extermination campaigns in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Wolves are often misunderstood as aggressive toward humans, but they are typically shy and reclusive.
Some hunters believe wolves deplete game populations, but findings show that wolf removal fails to increase prey populations, and wolves play a crucial role in maintaining healthy ecosystems by influencing prey populations and promoting biodiversity.
Sensational media reports amplify fears and misconceptions about the frequency and severity of wolf attacks on livestock.
While anti-wolf factions promote wolf-killing as necessary to achieve “social tolerance” for the species in rural communities, scientific findings show that social tolerance decreases, and illegal poaching increases, when federal protections for wolves are removed and sport hunting is allowed.
On Ranchers
Studies show that wolves are responsible for an extremely low percentage of livestock losses compared to other factors such as disease, accidents, and weather.
There are effective non-lethal methods to protect livestock, such as using guard animals (e.g., dogs, donkeys), installing fencing, and employing range riders to monitor herds
Techniques like fladry (hanging flags on fences), noise devices, and lighting can deter wolves from approaching livestock
Many regions have compensation programs that reimburse ranchers for livestock lost to wolves, mitigating economic impacts, and some programs also provide financial incentives for ranchers who implement non-lethal wolf deterrence measures.
Public lands belong to all citizens, not just those who use them for grazing. Decisions about wildlife management on these lands should include the interests and values of the broader public and be based on scientific evidence and ethical and ecological principles.
On Ecosystems
Wolves are a keystone species, meaning their presence is crucial for maintaining the structure and function of their ecosystems.
The presence of wolves causes prey animals to alter their behavior, such as avoiding certain areas, which can reduce overgrazing in those regions
Reduced grazing pressure from herbivores allows young trees and shrubs to grow, leading to healthier forests and riverbanks.
Healthier vegetation along riverbanks reduces soil erosion and improves water quality.
Wolf kills provide food for a variety of scavengers, including birds, bears, and smaller mammals, supporting a complex food web.
Wolves often prey on the sick and weak, reducing the spread of diseases within prey populations and promoting healthier herds.
Healthy ecosystems with balanced predator-prey relationships are more resilient to climate change and other environmental stressors.