THE SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT WOLF DELISTING SO STOP SAYING IT DOES
Columnist Dennis Anderson has written another wolf article for the Star Tribune, this time titled "Minnesota's path isn't so clear after wolves become delisted." As usual Anderson's piece has a pro delisting slant with his opinion being passed off as fact in the very first paragraph.
Let's look at what he says.
"Within a couple of weeks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to once again remove the gray wolf from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. In most similar cases, this action would be considered definitive and conclusive. Not so with wolves.
That's because, notwithstanding the science and, many would argue, common sense upon which the service's delisting is founded, lawsuits from those opposing delisting - among them the Center for Biological Diversity headquartered in Arizona - are likely, if not guaranteed."
The underlined portion is absolutely NOT true!
What does the science say about wolf delisting?
In 201…
Let's look at what he says.
"Within a couple of weeks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to once again remove the gray wolf from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. In most similar cases, this action would be considered definitive and conclusive. Not so with wolves.
That's because, notwithstanding the science and, many would argue, common sense upon which the service's delisting is founded, lawsuits from those opposing delisting - among them the Center for Biological Diversity headquartered in Arizona - are likely, if not guaranteed."
The underlined portion is absolutely NOT true!
What does the science say about wolf delisting?
In 201…
