Missoula News

WILD BILL

The Most Pro-Wolf State of Them All

By Bill Schneider, 12-21-06

Mirror, mirror, on the wall.
What is the most pro-wolf state of them all?

What state has done more for wolf recovery than any other? What state made it possible to have twice as many wolves than even avid wolf fans expected? What state wants the feds to keep the wolf on the endangered species list for years longer than expected. What state prevented state agencies from unleashing aerial gunners to kill more than half of the wolf population? And most of all, in a wolf lover’s dream-come-true, what state is making it possible for the wolf to expand its range into Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Utah where it will be considered endangered for many years into the future?

My answer might surprise you. I think it’s the Cowboy State, Wyoming. I am not a person who goes to the Wolf Shrine every morning, but if I were, I’d be saying “with enemies like Wyoming, who needs friends.”

Wyoming purports to worry about having too many wolves and about the Big Dog expanding into an ever-widening range, but ironically, the state’s actions--or lack of actions--have become its self-fulfilling prophecy.

Right now, the Fish and Wildlife Service appears to be finally caving into Wyoming’s bull-headed attitude. The agency recently had closed-door meetings with Wyoming officials to offer a secret compromise that appears to accomplish almost everything Wyoming has always wanted--namely, the right to kill wolves almost everywhere in the state, but too late to avoid an even messier controversy than we’ve had so far.

During the past few years while the Nation of Wyoming has been pouting and wanting its way, the wolves have been rapidly expanding numbers and pioneering more and more habitat. With delisting at least a year away (and that would be quite optimistic) we can expect another 300 or more wolf puppies. Two years, a more likely timeline for delisting, another 300. You get the picture.

In New West, the wolf is all about political control, not science. Wyoming wants control, but what does the state do with it? Well, it seems like thee state’s actions belie its words and that it doesn’t really want control. Now, the state has the luxury of laying all blame on the evil feds, but when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the federal agency in charge of endangered species programs, hands off wolf management, we’ll see what happens. In recent news reports, Wyoming politicos say they want the feds out of their state, but wouldn’t mind them leaving their money behind so they can use it to “manage” wolves.

Meanwhile, the big issue really hasn’t hit the media fan, yet. Upon delisting, at least in Wyoming and Idaho, the states plan huge reductions in wolf numbers. And I mean huge! Wyoming plans to kill, probably with aerial shooters, roughly two-thirds of the wolf population--9 out of 16 packs outside the national parks. And Idaho plans to drastically reduce wolf numbers with the final count still under debate. Wait until that hits the network news!

So what’s the difference between the Idaho, Montana and Wyoming? Why can’t the three states work together and come up with a joint plan that accomplishes wolf recovery and allows delisting? That question has been bugging me for a long time, so I made some calls. Geographically, there isn’t much difference, of course, but politically, it looks like way too much provincialism and not enough common sense.

As currently proposed and made into state law, the wolf management plan proposed by Wyoming would designate the wolf as a trophy game animal in a small corner of the state, almost exclusively in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and contiguous wilderness areas, and a predator elsewhere. For the non-hunters among us, the trophy game status means the state will have a wolf hunting season, but not require hunters to eat the meat, as is required with most big game animals. The predator status means an animal can be killed on sight by anybody for any reason--reminiscent to the Old West when wolves and any other animal with canines were vermin.

I emphasized contiguous because the trophy game area where the wolf would have at least minimal protection would not include several wildlands not directly connected to the parks, such as the Wind River or Wyoming Ranges. I have spent many days hiking the wild backcountry of the Wind Rivers, and if there is any place in the country where we should have wolves, this is it.

Idaho’s plan might not be much better than Wyoming’s, but more politically astute apparently, since it won approval from the FWS. Suzanne Stone of Defenders of Wildlife, the green group that reimburses ranchers for depredation losses to wolves, called Idaho’s plan “a control plan, not a management plan. It’s incredibly vague, and I’m amazed the FWS approved it.”

Concerning the FWS effort to compromise with Wyoming, Stone said the new proposal only has “superficial differences” from the original plan that the agency rejected several times.

Robert Hoskins, president of the Dubois Wildlife Association, agrees that the FWS proposal only slightly expands the size of the trophy game area. Plus, he notes, most key winter ranges for elk, the wolf’s main prey species, are outside of the area, and wolves will follow their prey all year around. They might enjoy some protection in the trophy game area during warmer months, but the minute they step over an invisible line, they become predators.

“If Wyoming gets away with this,” Hoskins predicts, “the reintroduction will fail. We’ll be constantly whacking wolves, and what is the biological impact of this? Boxing wolves into one area and not letting them go anywhere else won’t work.”

Hoskins also believes the Wyoming plan is so complicated that it will be impossible to implement. “But it’s politically incorrect for anybody in the Game and Fish Department to say that.”

Montana’s plan takes a completely different approach than Wyoming’s proposal. It designates the wolf as a “nongame species in need of management” throughout the entire state, according to Chris Smith, chief of staff at the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Upon delisting, he notes, the Montana Fish and Game Commission will designate the wolf either as a big game animal or a furbearer. In either case, there will be “a regulated take.” That still means killing wolves, but at least not the onslaught we can expect in Idaho and Wyoming.

Smith agreed that Wyoming is delaying delisting, but that his department has finally reached an agreement with the FWS to proceed with delisting in Montana and Idaho by the end of January ‘with or without Wyoming.” This agreement hasn’t been made public yet and is something Idaho and Montana have been pushing for two years. To date, the FWS has refused, saying the original recovery plan required that all three states be joined.

So what has suddenly changed? Why is the FWS suddenly caving into Wyoming’s demands when many times earlier the agency said the approach failed to create a viable wolf population? Why is the agency suddenly reversing its long-stating opinion that all three states should have approved management plans in place before proceeding with delisting?

That’s an easy one to answer. We have a new kid in charge of the FWS, former Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne, appointed as Secretary of the Interior by President Bush last February and confirmed by the U.S. Senate two or three months later. And yes, he’s re-writing the rules to accommodate his agenda, with delisting being one of his highest priorities. The Wyoming concession (hard to call it a compromise) also has Kempthorne tracks all over it.

So what happens now? “They’re forcing it all into the courts,” Stone predicts. “Delisting is extremely premature because we have not addressed the issues that caused wolf eradication in the first place, such as not having good management plans in place.”

And we all know what will happen while a flawed delisting proposal mires in the court system, right? Hundreds of wolf puppies every year, and endangered wolf populations popping up in Colorado and Oregon and elsewhere to keep the controversy alive forever.

To me, watching the wolf war is like watching the Iraq war. Every time I say it can’t get any worse, it does. We had an opportunity, long ago missed, for the three state wildlife agencies, federal agencies, stockgrowers and environmentalists to sit down and work out a plan that accomplished everybody’s goal, wolf recovery and delisting. Too bad Wyoming botched it for every other stakeholder, including itself.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.