An independent review panel found out that the proposal to remove the gray wolf in the protection list was based on insufficient scientific research.
This discovery is a major setback for federal wildlife officials who claimed that the gray wolves should be removed from the endangered animal list since its population is already recovering. The gray wolves were added to the list in 1975 after a rigid campaign by the government which sponsored poisoning and trapping programs. Hunting wolves is legal in areas around the Northern Rockies and the Great Lakes since 2011. This year's winter recorded more than 900 animals that were caught or shot by hunters.
The review panel consisted of five members from different institutions and they agreed unanimously that the proposal cited researches which are not conclusive and sufficient to make their case.
Panel member Steven Courtney, a scientist from the University of California's National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, said to the Associated Press, "The process was clean and the results were unequivocal. The science used by the Fish and wildlife service concerning genetics and taxonomy of wolves was preliminary and currently not the best available science."
The findings of the review panel stirred the public's discussion about the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal. The proposal already received more than one million comments, with majority expressing their opposition to the proposal arguing that protection should be continued for wolf habitats across the country.
One member of the opposition is Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio, who has called upon the environmental agency to withdraw their proposal after the decision of the peer review panel.
However, the other side of the issue, which consists of hunting groups, agricultural interest groups, and Republican lawmakers, argued that the population management for wolves is imperative to ensure the optimum quantity for the farmers' annual harvests. According to them, wolf attacks on livestock and produce have been a bane for agricultural industries.
These new findings may further delay the announcement of the final decision, which was originally set to be done this summer. Other than the peer review, delays in finalizing the proposal were also attributed to the government shutdown which happened this fall.
