killing wolves

[komodo20]

I think this is a serious topic that needs I mean must be talked about. These magnificant creatures are all going to be gone soon if some of us (EX: govoner of montana) need to get our acts together and help save the wolves!

here is the information on the killing of these beautiful creatures

Spoiler

Today the wolf is starting to come back, but as its population increases so does the conflicts with humans.

There is a great emotional debate about wolf control, some want the wolf destroyed, while others think wolves should never be killed, the answer may be somewhere in the middle of these positions.

Ranchers and Farmers worry that wolves will eat their livestock - cows, sheep, pigs . Today in the areas where farmers and ranchers come into conflict with wolves, there is some killing of problem wolves by the federal government.

Today there is a strong anti-wolf lobby, Some judges and political leaders in these areas are feeling pressure to side with this lobby.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "wolf predation of live-stock; sheep, poultry, and cattle does occur, but it is uncommon enough behavior in the species as a whole to be called aberrant"

To save the wolf there may have to be a few problem wolves destroyed to save the species as a whole, there must be agreement from both the wolf conservationist and the ranchers and farmers, the alternative will be the return to the days of wolf bounty hunting. In the United States and Canada wolves are for the most part protected from unrestricted hunting, but in others countries such as Russia, and parts of eastern Europe wolf bounties are still paid. More and more wolves and man come into conflict with each other, in poor rural areas of russia for example hunting of deer and other wild game has increased causing competition between man and wolf. With less game to hunt wolves look for other food sources such as domestic sheep and cattle.

Modern reindeer husbandry also conflicts with healthy wolf populations. Consequently, populations of wolves are low in central Beringia. For example, in 1989 the number of wolves on the Seward Peninsula was estimated at only 50 to 150 individuals. In Chukotka recent decades have seen an official policy of shooting wolves from helicopters to protect reindeer herds, but there seems to be a shift away from this policy. It is said that in olden times wolves and people worked out a balance, with wolves taking what they needed from the herds, and Chukchis hunting only individual wolves that had become wasteful killers. Is it possible that such balances as these can be reestablished, not only in reindeer husbandry but all human endeavors, so that the song of the wolf will always be heard in Beringia?


Growing Human Population

With the growing human population the wolf is coming into conflict with people in areas where they have not been seen before. Wolves need lots of land, away from humans, to live and raise their families. As our population has grown, the amount of wilderness where wolves can live has gotten smaller.

The wolf has been exterminated in most of Europe in the past four centuries. pockets of wolves survive in mountainous Spain, France, Italy, and forested Finland. The wolf population of Asia has been equally decimated, although substantial numbers remain in remote corners of the Middle East and on the Russian and Mongolian steppes.

The wolf has been exterminated in most of Europe in the past four centuries. pockets of wolves survive in mountainous Spain, France, Italy, and forested Finland. The wolf population of Asia has been equally decimated, although substantial numbers remain in remote corners of the Middle East and on the Russian and Mongolian steppes.

A wolf is neither good nor evil, it seems Myth still out lives the wolf, but now many understand their nature.

And now many Ranchers and others are now seeing through a real understanding of the wolf and through some preventive measures on their part (Checking herd regularly, removing carrion, having guard dogs, etc.), Both the wolf and man can live together.

There are extremist on both sides of the wolf debate, Most ranchers don't hate wolves, but sometimes they kill their livestock, some on the other side think that wolves should never be killed for any reason, no one wants to see a wolf killed, but when man and wolf come into conflict usually the wolf will loose. It is then better for a few wolves to be put down then have a back-lash against wolves and see unrestricted hunting legalized, a compromise must be reached to save the wolf as a whole, it is unfortunate that the wolf through no fault of its own has come into conflict with us, but the reality is that with the ever shrinking wilderness that if there is no compromise the wolf may once again be on the brink of extinction.

To help protect the wolf, we will need to help protect the wilderness that is left.

Today we understand the science of the wolf, but the soul is lost. this once crafty hunter revered and respected is now seen as vermin and a danger to livestock.


The Future?

Wolves are wild animals, meant to live out their lives in freedom. When human beings interfere in the lives of wild animals, it becomes their responsibility to provide what the animals cannot provide for themselves - a healthy environment in which to live.

We must also reach a balance with those who want to see the wolf controlled, thier concerns must not be dismissed, they must become part of the conservation debate

For some wolves live in the imagination as shadows of evil, fueled by fallacy and fiction. Will they forever remain a thing of darkness or will the wolf emerge in the light of understanding?

Is the cry of the wolf a mournful farewell? or does it announce his return. Will we grant him a place to live? and in turn give ourselves something more valuable? We all must work together to ensure that the songs of the wolves will always be heard in all the wild places of our earth.

The wolf has been part of the natural balance for thousands of years, in less than 100 years man through ignorance and misinformation has almost made wolves disappear forever.

[DoomedDaphnia]

Depends on the type of wolf you're talking about. the Grey/Timber Wolf is of least concern on the endangered species list. I have a feeling that the EPA won't let them decline to endangered levels again after all the time and effort spent to recover the population.

There are other wolf species that are in need of help that actually are endangered, such as the Ethiopian wolf which is loosing habitat.

Any hunting of the Grey/Timber Wolf is strictly population control. As with all hunting seasons, hunting animals outside the dedicated seasons is considered poaching and is illegal.

I just hope that this thread doesn't turn into a place where people will start insulting hunters. Hunters =/= bad people. President Theodore Roosevelt was a hunter and he established many areas of conservation in the US for animals he did not wish to see disappear. To see them, follow this link

[Synchronized]

Why are wolves more important than other creatures, to you? Like FrozenFire said, most grey/timber wolves-- which are pretty much the only wolves people tend to think about-- are NOT endangered.

I'm more worried about defenseless animals hurt horribly by invasive species-- such as the Kakapo, a ground-dwelling parrot that has only about 80 individuals left in the wild, most of them male.

[ShenziSixaxis]

^ Exactly.

What I want to know is what people are going to do about the countless rattlesnakes that are killed every year in the Texas roundup. Some female rattlesnakes in that area only reproduce every 3-5 years or so, and while some species may have large litters/clutches, some don't, and seeing as most young animals don't reach adulthood, that's pretty interesting. It's clearly obvious that they'll become endangered, if they aren't already, with the demand for their meat. Are they not worthy of protection? And no, this isn't just because I love snakes, it's because there's a legit threat to them, and they do plenty for rodent control, which can spread diseases that are transmitable to other animals and humans, such as Hantavirus.

And what about illegally imported animals? Off the top of my head, I know crested geckos are very popular, but they are a threatened species and were thought to be extinct until about 30 years ago. What about animals like that that are imported for pet trade from the wild? Ball pythons, exotic birds, even chimpanzees and big cats are all imported illegally.

Ethiopian wolves and the kakapo are wonderful examples of animals TRUELY in need of some help. Most wolves, however, are fine, and need no help. I'm more concerned with rattlesnakes, wild dogs, large parrots/macaws, ect ect.



This should probably be a topic to discuss wildlife preservation.

[TxCat]

The problem with classification of animals according to endangerment is that it can be influenced by various organizations. For instance, our manatees have been de-listed as endangered animals because having to curtail activities in the waterways is costing the government toursim dollars. Meanwhile, the active population of manatees is only 600 and it's still in decline. They have already established that this is not enough of population for genetic diversity to take place and for the animal to continue to prosper. Habitat shrinkage continues to occur as more lobbyists are able to pay the politicians to back bills which favor development and sports concerns rather than the animal.

Often, humans interpret a shrinking range as still being okay/healthy for the animal. When one compares where the timber wolf used to live to where it now ranges, the 'least concern' label looks a little silly:

Current and former range of the grey wolf

One also needs to take into consideration policies which indirectly endanger the animal. In most of the states where wolves are still found (and note, with the exception of the wolves re-introduced into Yellowstone the US no longer has them) the hunting of coyotes is also allowed. Few hunters and farmers take the time to differentiate between the two animals and many of the practices used on coyotes (such as poisoning the dens) are equally detrimental to wolves and to other animals throughout the ecology.

There's also a lot of misinformation regarding the grey wolf which has led to it being delisted as an endangered species, namely the fact that it is to blame for cattle maimings and killings. There have been several studies conducted regarding the habitat of the grey wolf and its prey preferences. Even in a pack, the wolves are generally not strong enough to bring down cattle (or deer for that manner). In the mid 1980s people were worried about their impact on the caribou herds. The studies conducted there (Disney made a movie about the man who conducted them) proved that the wolves generally exist on small rodents and voles with the occasional rabbit or seal thrown in. The only time they were seen to bring down a caribou was with an old, injured, or young and weakened specimen. The study also proved that if --- and this is why habitat reduction is so crucial --- the wolves' natural prey were readily abundant they would not willingly seek out cattle or other livestock.

It would be more appropriate to say that the wolves are regionally endangered, meaning that they either have been exterminated from certain areas or that their population is critically reduced in those areas.

The brown bear is another example. It is not endangered in the US in general...but it's listed as an endangered species, hunted almost to extinction, here in Florida and enjoys protected status because of that.

Eliminating even one animal in the ecology can have cascading effects. Here in Florida we have the critically endangered gopher tortoise. In part, it fell to that status because its habitat is being occupied or disturbed by human activity. Also, they reproduce very slowly and under very specific conditions. A small adjustment in their habitat can destroy entire generations of creatures. The Florida mouse is also endangered...because it uses the gopher tortoise burrows for its home. Fewer burrows means fewer places for these mice to live and therefore fewer mice.

The big concern with the wolves is that their population can't really be considered recovered. Look at the habitat map. If hunting them becomes allowed, they'll never re-establish. Look also at who is backing the desire to have them hunted and why: traditionally cattle raisers and farmers do not like to share the grassland with the predators even if it can be proven, which it has, that the animals will not bother herds or flocks.

Thus it's a cascading concern and one which ought to be watched closely.

Also, the abundance of an animal does not guarantee abundance forever. The passenger pigeon was once so numerous that you literally could not raise a gun without shooting one of them. They're gone now, hunted to extinction. The same is true for the original bison. Within less than twenty years human beings virtually wiped out this creature from the plains it inhabited.

[DoomedDaphnia]

While the wolf population may not be considered "recovered," it is certainly more stable than it previously was before recovery programs. There is a stable breeding population in areas where it is allowed to hunt wolves (i.e. In Alaska there tends to be a population anywhere between 7,000 to 11,200), and there are limits on how many wolves can be killed each season (in Alaska, that's 250 per season). In areas where the populations are down, it is illegal to hunt them.

I'm not saying that the wolf population is up to par with what it was years ago (200,000 in 57 countries now compared to 2 million in earlier times link ), but how would we get those numbers back up? Relocating animals is expensive, and due to human expansion, they can't have all of the room they used to have. You can't just go up to people and tell them to move because wolves used to live where they do. We would have to find some sort of equilibrium.

As for farmers, the most one could do to prevent unnecessary shooting is through education. Teach ways to repel wolves and coyotes alike from farms, fire warning shots before actually shooting the animal to try and scare it away, raise multiple guard dogs or even better multiple guard llamas. The problem with this is that a lot of people just don't want to listen to reason.

Honestly, though, if you compare that map of wolf population with a map of tiger population link, there are other animals that need much more help than the wolves. Wolves should still be monitored, but there are other animals that need far more help than they do.

[Misttt]

While the wolf population may not be considered "recovered," it is certainly more stable than it previously was before recovery programs. There is a stable breeding population in areas where it is allowed to hunt wolves (i.e. In Alaska there tends to be a population anywhere between 7,000 to 11,200), and there are limits on how many wolves can be killed each season (in Alaska, that's 250 per season). In areas where the populations are down, it is illegal to hunt them.

I'm not saying that the wolf population is up to par with what it was years ago (200,000 in 57 countries now compared to 2 million in earlier times link ), but how would we get those numbers back up? Relocating animals is expensive, and due to human expansion, they can't have all of the room they used to have. You can't just go up to people and tell them to move because wolves used to live where they do. We would have to find some sort of equilibrium.

As for farmers, the most one could do to prevent unnecessary shooting is through education. Teach ways to repel wolves and coyotes alike from farms, fire warning shots before actually shooting the animal to try and scare it away, raise multiple guard dogs or even better multiple guard llamas. The problem with this is that a lot of people just don't want to listen to reason.

Honestly, though, if you compare that map of wolf population with a map of tiger population link, there are other animals that need much more help than the wolves. Wolves should still be monitored, but there are other animals that need far more help than they do.

Thank you.
So many people get hung up on protecting wolves because they're so well known and loved, but their population is no longer shrinking, so, logically, they are only of least concern, as opposed to other endangered species.

[TxCat]

Thank you. So many people get hung up on protecting wolves because they're so well known and loved, but their population is no longer shrinking, so, logically, they are only of least concern, as opposed to other endangered species.

You may want to re-read what I have said in the thread and you may wish to do more research. The labeling of an animal as 'least concern' does NOT mean it has a viable population nor does it mean that efforts should not be continued to protect the animal and its habitat.

Examples:

Manatees

These animals have been de-listed as endangered in spite of biological and ecological data to the contrary.

A second article from the Times explaining how little we really know about these creatures, which are nearly gone from their habitat:

Mantees

The Endangered Manatee

This article, from an outside source, gives an overview of the animal and its numbers.

In 1990, 218 manatees, which comprised 12 percent of the United States' manatee population, were killed in boating accidents, and many more were injured. A recent project to capture, tag, and release manatees revealed that many bore the scars of encounters with speed boats.

...

Residential and commercial development along rivers and waterways has also affected the manatee population. Habitat destruction has damaged the estuarine seagrass communities on which manatees depend. In addition, chemical pollution has impaired the immune systems of marine mammals, and the manatees may have become more vulnerable to infection as a result.

Recent mass deaths among marine mammals have been traced to greater disease vulnerability due to chemical pollution. In 1988, over 10,000 harbor seals died in Denmark and Sweden from a virus related to canine distemper. PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyl) in the water contaminate the fish that the seals eat. The PCB's accumulate in the seals and make them more susceptible diseases.

Other pollution-related mass deaths have occurred recently in bottle-nosed dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico (1988) and striped dolphins in the Mediterranean Sea (1991).

Sadly, manatees seem to be experiencing an epidemic too. Since the beginning of 1996, more than 250 manatees have been found dead in southwestern Florida. With their population already severely reduced due to other causes, a single epidemic such as this could push the manatee beyond the point of no return, into an extinction vortex.

Manatees No Longer Endangered

This article lists the numbers as 'climbing', but take a look at the statistics:

In public hearings prior to its vote, the commission noted more than 3,100 manatees now live in Florida, up from roughly 1,200 in 1991. Moreover, computer modeling indicates no chance of the species going extinct during the next 100 years.

"I believe the manatee has recovered," commission chairman Rodney Barretto told the press after the vote. "We should be rejoicing."

If you look at the first article in the Times I listed, you'll notice two things: the removal of the manatees from the endangered species list is motivated by political and economically backed lobbyists and the creature is still listed as endangered. Pay attention also to the total population: 3100 is NOT a viable population for recovery. The most endangered species of tiger has more of a population than these creatures do...and yet, they have been delisted in one of the only places in the States in which they have habitat.

Of note also is this article, which lists 13 animals recently driven to extinction. By that, they mean that mankind had a hand in it.

Classification of endangerment is NOT universal and there are several systems and several laws used, depending on what country one is in. That alone is part of the problem. This article explains in part what an endangered species is, how it obtains that classification, the various systems of classifying endangered species, and methods of conservation.

Another problem with the listing species is its effect of inciting the use of the "shoot, shovel, and shut-up" method of clearing endangered species from an area of land. Some landowners currently may perceive a diminution in value for their land after finding an endangered animal on it. They have allegedly opted to silently kill and bury the animals or destroy habitat, thus removing the problem from their land, but at the same time further reducing the population of an endangered species.[8] The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act, which coined the term "endangered species", has been questioned by business advocacy groups and their publications, but is nevertheless widely recognized as an effective recovery tool by wildlife scientists who work with the species. Nineteen species have been delisted and recovered[9] and 93% of listed species in the northeastern United States have a recovering or stable population.[10]

Currently, 1,556 known species in the world have been identified as endangered, or near extinction, and are under protection by government law (Glenn, 2006, Webpage). This approximation, however, does not take into consideration the number of species threatened with endangerment that are not included under the protection of such laws as the Endangered Species Act. According to NatureServe’s global conservation status, approximately thirteen percent of vertebrates (excluding marine fish), seventeen percent of vascular plants, and six to eighteen percent of fungi are considered imperiled (Wilcove & Master, 2008, p. 415-416). Thus, in total, between seven and eighteen percent of the United States’ known animals, fungi, and plants are near extinction (Wilcove & Master, 2008, p. 416). This total is substantially more than the number of species protected under the Endangered Species Act in the United States.

Here's an article which explains the qualifications of an endangered animal in the US:

What Qualifies an Animal to Be Endangered

According to those guidelines, the wolf meets the criteria and yet it's listed in the US as 'least concern'.

In point of fact, according to this article, the wolf remains on the endangered species list and therefore should NOT be hunted:

Grey Wolf Facts

Endangered Species Act (ESA): wolves throughout the Lower 48 United States are listed as endangered except in Minnesota where they are listed as threatened. In Alaska, wolves are not listed under the ESA.

In Wyoming and portions of the Southwest wolves are designated as non-essential experimental populations, which isolates geographically-described groups from other existing populations and offers broader management regulations.

Current status under law and why wolves need to remain on the list

News and information on recovery status

Data on the Mexican wolf, which has just been reintroduced into its habitat

In 2008 the grey wolf was returned to the endangered species list after being de-listed

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups, including the Humane Society of the United States. District judge Paul Friedman in Washington, DC, said the US Fish and Wildlife Service could not remove wolves from the endangered species list in the Great Lakes region while wolves remained endangered in other parts of the country.

Look again at the population statistics:

The estimated population of wolves last winter was 537 to 564 wolves, according to the DNR. The agency's goal for recovery has been 350. In 2000, Wisconsin had fewer than 250 wolves.

Again, regardless of higher numbers, that is NOT a viable population for the continued survival of the species.

Another site supports the fact that it is impossible to declare an animal recovered or stable when it is still disappearing from its habitat:

According to IUCN's Red List, gray wolf populations have been determined to be stable in many parts of the world, including Asia, Europe, and northern North America. However, the gray wolf is very vulnerable in some areas, due to loss of habitat, trapping, shooting, and poisoning.

In Egypt, gray wolves are at extreme risk for becoming extinct, with only 30-50 wolves remaining. Despite this fact, no legal protections exist there.

Once numerous throughout Mexico and southwestern United States, the Mexican wolf (a gray wolf subspecies) is now limited to a region of about 17,700 sq. km (6800 sq. mi.) in east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico known as the Mexican Wolf Recovery Area. Wolves that leave this area are captured and returned. Therefore, these wolves can never expand their boundaries and will remain isolated.

They can never expand their boundaries. This creates an artificial surplus because the animals are confined to a specific area which will only support a certain number of the creatures. It is on these artificial surpluses that the decision to de-list and hunt many creatures, including the grey wolf is made. It is therefore not a true picture of the animal's recovery and population.

This article admits that in so doing, they are attempting to sidestep the protections offered by the Endangered Wildlife Act.

According to that article, written in early 2011 they are STILL on the endangered species list in the US.

They are also attempting to do the same thing with the grizzly.

Claiming that one animal deserves more attention than another is a logical fallacy. The individual ecologies are interdependent upon one another. When you lose one animal or plant species, regardless of who or what it is, you lose not only an opportunity to learn about them and a global heritage but you also lose health in the environment. Every animal, plant, living thing has an ecological niche and a job to perform in that niche. If you disturb the balance too much or try to create a set number of animals in an area for human convenience, you damage the ecology permanently.

No, it isn't just the wolves that need help. They are, however, one of the spearhead species over which this issue is being repeatedly fought out in the courts in the US. As they go, so go the other protected species. It's a loophole these animals don't need and one that we, as human beings, really can't afford.

[Synchronized]

Thank you. So many people get hung up on protecting wolves because they're so well known and loved, but their population is no longer shrinking, so, logically, they are only of least concern, as opposed to other endangered species.

You may want to re-read what I have said in the thread and you may wish to do more research. The labeling of an animal as 'least concern' does NOT mean it has a viable population nor does it mean that efforts should not be continued to protect the animal and its habitat.

I think you misunderstood Misttt; they weren't talking about the "official" ruling of whether something is least concern or not, and rather them ACTUALLY being not much of a concern compared to other animals, such as your point on Manatees.

People just get hung up on wolves because they're so ~beautiful and majestic desu~. Pop culture or whatever. When it comes down to it, Manatees would take logical priority over wolves because wolves are not currently in danger of extinction. Though, I have to admit-- I've never heard of anyone speak of Manatees as NOT being endangered. Even Seaworld has a lot of education and such going towards trying to help them out.

[TxCat]

People just get hung up on wolves because they're so ~beautiful and majestic desu~.

Perhaps because of my age, I cannot speak to that. I understand that the loss of ANY animal or plant is a tragedy which could have a profound impact on global ecologies and the well being of humans --- we are still part of the ecology and animals as well, whether we want to admit it or not --- further down the road. I'm an active advocate of conservation in general, not just wolves or whatever creature happens to be most popular with the younger crowd because of anime or cartoons or literature.

Again, you've missed my point: in the areas in which the hunt is scheduled in the US and in which they are advocating de-listing, the wolf is still endangered. The population numbers are simply not there to support a viable population. Furthermore, those areas without the larger predators are now seeing an increased rate of disease and starvation among their deer, elk, and other animals which were formerly prey. Even the issuance of hunting licenses for those animals has not significantly reduced the pressure on the populations; the balance has already been upset.

In turn, the elk have become somewhat of a rare sighting in the southwest, as have the antelope. Only twenty years ago, when I was still in high school, you could see great herds of antelope on the mountain desert between my town and the nearest big city. When I went back in 2000, there was a herd of about 15 left, deep in the hills, and we were lucky to see them. Of the elk which had formerly come down into the valley and which frequented the Black Canyon so much that they were a tourist attraction themselves...nothing. I checked the Fish and Game and BLM records to see what had happened; for that area, there's not enough forage and too many of the creatures. At first, many of them starved. Now there aren't enough to sustain the population.

All because a single predator was removed through human interference from the food chain.

Manatees would take logical priority over wolves because wolves are not currently in danger of extinction.

The resources I found beg to differ; they've missing and presumed extinct from their Egyptian habitat and no longer resident populations in the US where they were once found throughout it. Furthermore, they're still listed on the federal endangered species list.

It's not about who takes priority; it's about maintaining ecological balance. The idea that one animal deserves conservation more than another or that there are 'plenty' of an animal right now is short sighted; if we keep going as we are, that 'plenty' is going to turn into 'non-viable' or none. There were once 'plenty' of the tiger species too and 'plenty' of the snow leopards and 'plenty' of the passenger pigeon. The buffalo were once so thick that you couldn't travel across the plains without encountering herds in the millions. All gone now, because of the assumption that there were 'plenty'.

The bottom line --- and the point people are missing here --- is that ecological preservation needs to be important for all animals, whether cuddly or not, whether there are 'plenty' or not. A casual attitude toward the animals which are listed world-wide as endangered is what caused them to be endangered in the first place. Protect one and you set a precedent for respect and preservation of them all.

I've never heard of anyone speak of Manatees as NOT being endangered. Even Seaworld has a lot of education and such going towards trying to help them out.

That's California. I live here in Florida, where they were de-listed, along with the bald eagle. The educational facilities and animal advocates recognize them as endangered but the general public and the politicians do not. They were delisted so that wider use of the waterways for boaters could take place and so that further development could be done along those estuaries they frequent. It's a prime example of what I'm talking about with targeted numbers: they've been delisted simply because there are more of them now than there were. It doesn't matter that there aren't enough to sustain the population.

In the past twelve years I've lived here, I've seen a slow but steady disappearance of the 'no wake' zones which are supposed to protect these animals. I've seen the canals and estuaries dredged, which removes the vegetation they typically eat. The Disney facility at Epcot always has no less than five of the critters who have been critically injured by boat rotors.

But the developers have to have their seaside and lake side properties and they can pay the politicians to overlook the law for them.

This debate is STILL going on here. The Sun-Sentinel is one of our larger regional papers, based out of Orlando and this editorial was written March 13th of this year:

Do What's Right for Florida Manatees

Indeed. The absurdity of this statement speaks for itself. The hypocrisy is that although interacting with manatees in any way is illegal and garners a large fine in much of Florida, at Crystal River, because it is a big time money maker for the local hotel and tour operators, it is not illegal. Swimming with them and handling them is freely encouraged, and charged for. Where is the "save the manatee" crowd in Crystal River?

That particular tourist attraction mentioned has been in operation for over twenty-five years, but it's only been the last two years or so that they've allowed boats into the manatee habitat and allowed people to swim with them. All that has occurred since they began the process for delisting them here in Florida even as they remain on the national endangered species list.

Even on the federal level, they're still listening to the lobbyists and not the facts. This article is from 2010:

Feds Agree with Conservationists but Delay Protection Measures

The manatee, by the way, has been delisted in Florida since 2008.

This article explains why and highlights some of the problems I previously addressed which apply to conservation of all animals, namely the fact that there is no universal standard of classification and that the classifications can change at the drop of a hat according to political leanings.

Again, it's not a matter of who is cutest or who needs protection more. A more generalized and far-reaching outlook needs to take place, one which includes impact on the environment and species which may appear stable or which may not appear to need protection at the time they are surveyed.