Culling/Protection of Rocky Mountain wolves

Several quarters have challenged exploitation of wildlife. Some of the arguments are philosophical and moralistic in nature. For instance, there are those who hold the philosophy on feeling reverence for life and have believes according to which they associate harm to wildlife or everything that hinders them in their life to evil.Advertising We will write a custom case study sample on Culling/Protection of Rocky Mountain wolves specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Another philosophical thinking against exploitation though holding a pro-hunting view is that wanton destruction of the works of another man is vandalism, but in the works of God, it becomes sportsmanship. Classical responses against strong stand on hunting view man as a predator in the natural communities and that for any creature to stay alive, it has to take life. These diverse views are visible in the politics of wildlife conservation that requires the intervention of to p decision-makers (Barringer Broder, 2011; Robbins, 2009). The animal rights ethics maintain that humans should cause no pain, suffering, or death to creatures that are capable of experiencing pain. This prioritizes the right of individuals as key over the other issues, such as the conservation of ecosystems, communities, and animal population. For instance, in the land ethics of Leopold, a renowned conservationist, it is permitted to hunt though it is not the case in the animal rights ethics. Moreover, it is expected when wildlife compete for resources with humans, the latter has an edge (Kaufman, 2011). Continued rivalry between humans and wildlife culminates in conflicts which is a threat to healthy interaction between the two (Barringer, 2012). In an ideal natural habitat setting, nature has a way of self-regulating and self-sustaining, thus balancing species density and richness. Overexploitation of wildlife may speed up extinction or irreversible loss of valuable species. End ing the protection of wolves from hunting by the Congress may open up the threat of uncontrolled exploitation (Boxall, 2012). Irreversible loss of species does not only pose the challenge of declining biodiversity but also causes a decrease in the niche for the particular individuals wiped out through direct human means. By having in place the Endangered Species Act, wildlife that was initially at risk of loss is under strict protection from any exploitation by human beings (Robbins, 2011). From ethical perspectives, protection of wildlife is focused not only reducing exploitation and declines in numbers, but also safeguarding from direct human interference which affects the natural habitat and ecosystems. It demonstrates that wildlife bred under captivity will soon adapt to a domestication (human-dependent) way of life and weaken its ability to care for itself after setting free to live in the wild. In other words, continued human interference in wildlife could result in change of animal behavior.Advertising Looking for case study on environmental studies? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Successful reintroduction of species that were initially at risk is commendable but there is need to consider the ethical issues of human interference in the natural behavior of animals in the wild. The decline in numbers of the gray wolves poses a risk because human exploitation implies a strong human interaction that may lead to the evolution of the species’ behavior and adaption to interference. Strict conservationists refer to this as a bottle-neck effect which has a deep impact not only on the present generation but on the future since the existing few members of the species pass their DNA imprints to the succeeding generation as the numbers recover. As explained by Editorial of The New York Times (2012), such an effect can affect conservation of gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains. References Barringer, F. ( 2012). Wyoming: Federal Protections End for Gray Wolves. The New York Times. Web. Barringer, F., and Broder, J. (2011). Congress, in a First, Removes an Animal from the Endangered Species List. The New York Times. Web. Boxall, B. (2012). Court upholds Congress’ act that ended wolf protections. Los Angeles Times. Web. Editorial. (2012). Uncertain Future for the Gray Wolf. The New York Times. Web. Kaufman, L. (2011). After Years of Conflict, a New Dynamic in Wolf Country. The New York Times. Web.Advertising We will write a custom case study sample on Culling/Protection of Rocky Mountain wolves specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Robbins, J. (2011). Hunting Wolves Out West: More, Less? The New York Times. Web. Robbins, J. (2009). Gray Wolf Will Lose Protection in Part of U.S. The New York Times. Web. This case study on Culling/Protection of Rocky Mountain wolves was written and submitted by user Seth Dunlap to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.