Agency to delist animals in Idaho, Montana
Feds To Move Forward With Wolf Delistment Without Wyoming
By Brodie Farquhar, 1-29-07
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Photo courtesy USF&WS. | |
|
Top Interior Department officials declared Monday that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to manage the gray wolf inside Wyoming, unless the state legislature “stepped up” with a wolf management plan acceptable to Interior officials.
This nugget of news was embedded within the larger context, that the Service was removing the western Great Lakes population of gray wolves from the federal list of threatened and endangered species and proposing to remove the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves from the list.
“Today, through this action, we recognize a comeback of the wolves,” Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett said in a conference call.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director H. Dale Hall explained that delisting western Great Lakes wolves (4,000) would be underway 30-days after the delisting plan was published in the Federal Register.
He said the Service was prepared to delist the Northern Rockies wolf in Montana and Idaho, based on the adequacy of those state’s wolf management plans.
All he’s waiting for, is the Wyoming Legislature and state officials to come up with a wolf management plan that is acceptable to the Service, during this legislative session.
Should that not happen, he warned, the Service will proceed with delisting the wolf in Montana and Idaho (as well as the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north-central Utah) and continue to manage the wolf in Wyoming.
The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves for three consecutive years, a goal that was attained in 2002 and has been exceeded every year since – now numbering 1,200. The Service believes that with approved state management plans in place in Montana and Idaho, threats to the wolf population will have been reduced or eliminated in those states.
Hall said the Service had amended its requirements last months, in hopes Wyoming would embrace it. Hall presented a revised Wyoming wolf management proposal to state officials last month that calls for expanding the trophy game area in northwest Wyoming—from Cody south to Meeteetse, around the western boundary of the Wind River Indian Reservation down to Pinedale, west to the Alpine area and then back north to Yellowstone National Park.
Outside that area and Yellowstone National Park, wolves would be classified as predators and could be shot on sight. Trophy game animals are managed by Game and Fish, while predators are managed by the Department of Agriculture.
The federal government in 2004 rejected the state’s original wolf plan and the state has filed a lawsuit, now pending in federal court, over the issue.
Livestock interests in Wyoming have long contended that they don’t trust Game and Fish to manage wolves and want the state’s Department of Agriculture in charge – specifically predatory animal control districts, with local boards that direct control efforts.
“I want to be clear,” said Hall. “Our central position is unchanged, and we have not waivered from our 2004 position,” which expects Wyoming to manage wolves so as to ensure the survival of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves. Hall endorsed the concept of Wyoming managing wolves as trophy animals.
Wyoming’s plan – trophy status in wilderness areas surrounding the park and predator status everywhere else—would allow 16 out of the existing 23 packs of the wolves in the state to be killed on sight. To accomplish this goal, the state would authorize poisoning, trapping and shooting on 90 percent of the wolf’s current home range outside the national parks.
Asked what will happen to wolf numbers in Wyoming, should the federal agency continue to manage the wolf, Hall said management would continue has it has in the past – removing problem wolves as needed. However, there was no statement that federal wildlife would eliminate excess wolf packs in Wyoming – which means wolf populations could continue to grow, if there’s no deal from the Wyoming legislature.
State lawmakers are crafting two bills, one in the House and one in the Senate, to change existing wolf management laws. Key lawmakers have expressed some optimism about reaching a compromise with the federal government before the legislative session ends in early March.
Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal expressed several concerns about wolf management, in the following statement:
“Regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service*s hopes to reach some agreement with Wyoming to alter our existing plan, I remain concerned
about the amount of private land that would be included in the proposed trophy game area, as well as the definition and number of wolves that
would compose a breeding pair. The ultimate question, though, is whether or not Wyoming will be given the flexibility to manage wolves
that are causing an unacceptable impact on our elk and moose populations.
“I am delighted by the potential for progress in Montana and Idaho, although it seems to be of limited value for wildlife. I am also
pleased that Fish and Wildlife believes the populations in Idaho, Montana and Yellowstone National Park are sufficient for delisting
without the other Wyoming packs. This raises the interesting question of whether any packs outside Yellowstone in Wyoming are even
necessary.”
Despite being protected by federal law for over 30 years, gray wolves in the lower forty-eight states presently occupy less than five percent of their historic range. When measured against the definition of “recovery” outlined in the Endangered Species Act, the effort to recover wolves has a long way to go. In fact, the law requires that listed species (e.g. wolves) must be restored to “all or a significant portion of their former range” before being removed from the endangered species list. Yet, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service today announced that five percent is more than enough for wolves. Moreover, the agency’s announcement underscores a glaring double standard for wolves, when compared to similar decisions for other wide-ranging species that remained protected until they again occupied nearly all of their historic range.
The government has a proud track record for recovering wide-ranging species within the mandate of the law. The Brown Pelican, the American Alligator and the Peregrine Falcon are prime examples of recovered species that now occupy nearly all of their historic range. Yet, because the livestock industry refuses to tolerate wolves, the government has set the bar much lower, and moved much slower. In sum, the government has turned its back on wolf recovery, and is ready to abandon the fate of wolves to institutions that believe it is still 1870. The nation’s progress toward wolf recovery will grind to a halt under this plan.
For more info: http://sinapu.wordpress.com and http://wolves.wordpress.com
Aside from Rob's comments,which are well put and accurate as to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the only comment I have is that the Fish & Wildlife Service has so badly bungled the delisting process that the best thing it could do is scrap all it's done up til now and start over again.
Specifically, I recommend that a National Research Council panel be convened to assess wolf recovery and to develop a model plan for managing wolves sustainably that all three Rocky Mtn. states would be required to follow before delisting can occur. The science so far has been so heavily politicized--from the poorly done "peer reviews" of the 3 state plans to Wyoming's so-called "Petition to Delist," which was a travesty of scientific reasoning--that any discussion of delisting lacks credibility and is very premature.
Since the Fish & Wildlife Service won't follow this reasonable advice, there really is no option but to sue.
Like Rob, I'd like to see wolves occupy the entirety of their former ranges. The reasoning behind delisting, as I see it, is that the wolves are recovered within that given area--in this case Montana and Idaho (and Wyoming if the state stopped being unreasonable), and the Great Lake states of Minnesota and Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Delisting in Minnesota and friends would have occurred earlier, except the administration insisted that recovery in those three states somehow meant that the wolf was recovered in the entire Midwest and Northeast, a ridiculous assertion. I for one would love to see wolves return to my home state of Illinois, for example. The deer population in the Midwest is just out of control.
Right now I'm most concerned with the recovery effort for Mexican Gray wolves down in Arizona and New Mexico (a region I've called home before). Ag interests have made the recovery effort down there into far less than a success. At least, in spite of the political blowhards, wolves in this region (I live in Missoula) have had a chance to repopulate. As Bill Schneider has pointed out more than once, the current gridlock with the government of Wyoming is actually permitting wolves to proliferate further. The reintroduced wolves down in AZ and NM aren't even getting that chance right now.
If de-listed, Idaho's wolves will be back to square one within a year. Butch Otter has already declared the wolf "public enemy number one," and the state is contemplating selling a $26.50 wolf tag. How long will the wolf last when Idaho's "sportsmen" and politicians don't want any wolves -- 30 breeding pairs be damned?
This is a disaster in the making.
Friends, when the Northern Rocky Mtn population of wolves are delisted, despite what may seem as a setback, it may finally mark the beginning of a change in how wolves are viewed. When wolves are finally managed like other wildlife and limited tags are distributed, despite the death of an unlucky few, wolves will finally be a resource instead of a liability. It will then become poaching instead of resisting big government, a crime against wildlife instead of some machismo act of resistance. Finally wolves will become a valued resource and managed in perpetuity by the states. Because let me tell you, if they are not managed properly and numbers drop below the minimum agreed to in the management plan, than the fed's will be right back in to take control once again. No wolf hater wants that, because it was never about the wolves, it has always been about control. Fret not my friends over their delisting, it may actually mark the begining of something positive for both wolves and how they are viewed by those who oppose them. Wolves are and always will be here for good.
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 1-30-07What Matt asserts is what we would like to happen, in theory. However, as long as the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association remains in control of the Wyoming Game & Fish Department, and as long as the State of Wyoming insists upon classifying wolves as predatory animals, open to being slaughtered anywhere, anytime, anyhow in most of the State, no one with any knowledge of wolf recovery could claim success for wolf recovery.
What I hear from Matt is, "collaborate and capitulate." This has been the policy of the large environmental groups for some time now, collaborate with the livestock industry, and capitulate. Untold damage has been done to wildlife conservation as a consequence, e.g., the State of Montana's egregious bison mis-management policy, or the State of Wyoming's egregious elk feedground mismanagement policy. We still can't lessen the impact of cattle on grazing allotments, even in drought.
Collaborate and capitulate: not one material concession has come from the livestock industry on protecting land through collaboration. Not one. It's all smoke and mirrors; conservationists can publicly claim we've come to an agreement with the livestock industry. Look at all the good will. What you need to look at is the agreement. Promises from the livestock industry; capitulation from conservationists in favor of the status quo.
I'll say this: the livestock industry is very savvy politically.
Matt is very correct about one thing, the problem is and always has been about control, control over the lives of people who live in the three state are by those who live far away and have absolutely no responsibility or the policies they put into place. Neither do they have to live with the results
Control without responsibility is the biggest problem there is with the ESA.
Wolves are bad and need to be slowed down. Before they completly destroy all the deer and elk in Idaho and Montana as well as everywhere that they are. As a local of Idaho since berth I have seen the land and animals without them and with them. And it is farley depressing has happened to them.
Comment By Devonna Preston, 10-05-10After reading all the view points which by the way are very interesting! Only one thing keeps coming to mind.....Nature taking care of it all... including us. No matter who believes what.... wolves are a part of Nature and all creation. Nothing man can do will stop the wolf...i have seen it all in the west and the east.... hiked most of it ..loved animals my entire life....helped with protection issues on this wonderful animal for 20 yrs...i even had one in my jeep and slept with a wolf and nothing any of you say or do will change what Nature will do....animals were here first and will survive it all. It is man that should be hunted and taken out for there evil thoughts and big brain ideas and stupid ways. Animals do not need to be managed just like rivers do not need to be dammed up. The earth will survive but mankind will not ...it is written and will come to pass.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/feds_chide_wyoming_over_wolf_delisting/