The Grey Wolf (Habitat)

      When people consider the need to preserve our ecosystem, there is hardly debate as to whether protective measures should be to protect the planet. However, when it comes down to the actual execution of environmental friendly legislation, the issue can become more complex. One example was found following the endangered species act passed in 1973. After the bill passed, the reintroduction of the Grey Wolf to the United States became a topic of discussion. Eventually it was decided to reintroduce the Grey Wolf to the national parks of Idaho. The American voters found no flaws in this decision, being the environmentally aware citizens that they are. However, the residents of Idaho had objections when the wolves started to prey on the cattle in the region, financially affecting the ranchers in the region. The issue then became one of state vs. national jurisdiction, as the state and national voters developed distinct personal agendas.

      In our system of government, and in democracy in general, the majority rules in almost all cases. In this situation, the majority is in favor of the wolf’s reintroduction Idaho, while the minority is not. However, the minority is more intimately and directly involved in the result of the decision made by the general public. Many residents of Idaho, being the minority, actually suffer from the reintroduction of the wolf into the state. This creates an ethical dilemma, as it becomes important to consider whether the majority should always get its way, even when it is negatively affecting minority groups. Certainly, this cannot always be the case, or the minority could always be trampled upon, and abused. However, in the case of the wolf issue, the majority should have the final say in the decision because environmental protection is a national issue, and the whole country should decide the fate of national lands.

      Much of the land in the state of Idaho is owned by the national government. This same land, while being national park, is the land that ranchers use to let their cattle graze. The ranchers can obtain grazing rights to this land and make a living off the cattle industry. The fact that the federal government owns this land, however, means that the citizens of the United States, rather than the citizens of Idaho control the land. If the general majority of the country feels that the preservation of our environment and the reintroduction of native species are more important than using national lands for the use of cattle grazing, then it is in the rights of the country to have this done. The ranchers have no real rights over the land because they do not privately own it. The issue would be a different one if the wolves were reintroduced and where adversely effecting cattle on private land.

      Ultimately, the whole nation has a say in the way national land is used. The country is responsible for its welfare, and environmental protection is certainly an important issue that many people unite on. If the country cannot preserve the ecosystem and create legislation to protect its destruction on a national level due because ranchers using national land in Idaho will be negatively affected by the reintroduction of an endangered species, then democracy is not working. The voters have called for nation-wide environmental legislation, and the will of the majority should be carried out. The nation has decided that preservation of the planet is more important than inexpensive beef, or preserving the vitality of the ranching way of life in Idaho. The government should maintain control of all national lands, and use the land in the way the majority sees fit. The federal government should maintain control over the national parks in Idaho, and the Grey Wolf should be permitted to live in its natural habitat.