Rely on State plans, not federal protection
A New Path for Wolf Management
In the wake of a federal court's reinstatement of protection for grey wolves, it's clear that a new path is need on this ever-contentious issue. Where should the region go from here?By Michael Scott , Guest Writer, 8-05-08
 |
|
 | |
| Courtesy of Yellowstone National Park. | |
|
As the dust settles on a federal court’s reinstatement of Endangered Species protections for gray wolves, one thing is clear: we need to find a new path to achieve balanced, science-based wolf management by the states. At the moment we seem mired in endless conflict that is serving no one’s interests particularly well — not wolves, conservationists, state wildlife managers, landowners or anyone else with a concern for wolves.
So, where do we, as a region, go from here?
Though the Greater Yellowstone Coalition was not a party to this litigation, the federal court’s ruling points out some significant problems in the delisting decision. In a clearly worded opinion, the court expressed its concern that Greater Yellowstone’s wolves are genetically isolated from wolf populations in central Idaho and around Glacier National Park, which could result in a long-term decline in the health of wolves. The decision also identified Wyoming’s laws and plans directing wolf management — especially the Predator Zone, where roaming wolves can be killed at any time for any reason — as an impediment to delisting.
The three states and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service face an important choice: fight this injunction decision and prolong the court battle or begin fixing the flaws in the state-management plans. Fixing the plans now won’t change the outcome of the litigation, but it will give the states a head start at getting it right, hastening the day when delisting can finally occur. Now is the time for leadership, not a return to the anti-wolf and anti-federal rhetoric that seems to dominate this issue.
Montana and Idaho have a critical role to play in addressing the lack of genetic exchange among Northern Rockies wolf populations. Wolves need to be able to move between Yellowstone and central Idaho without being killed. This landscape, which includes Montana’s Madison, Centennial and Big Hole river valleys as well as the Centennial Mountains, Italian Peaks and Beaverhead Range in Idaho, is a working landscape where wolves travel across both public and private land on their daily travels. Connecting the Northern Rockies wolf populations across this region presents a complex management puzzle requiring agencies, landowners and conservationists to work together to tackle the challenge.
Most of the wolves in this important connectivity region die because of conflicts with livestock. Collectively, we need to redouble our efforts at using non-lethal tools to reduce these conflicts. We also need to get creative and develop new ways to mitigate livestock-wolf conflicts while fairly compensating producers who suffer losses.
Idaho and Montana should also reconsider their proposed hunting seasons in this critical area. While hunting will be a part of wolf management once delisting occurs, ensuring connectivity means we can’t add to the mortality of wolves trying to move between Greater Yellowstone and central Idaho. Idaho in particular planned an aggressive hunting harvest in this crucial corridor along the state line. The two states need to coordinate their management to establish and maintain connectivity between these wolf populations.
The best long-term solution for wolves is to have good state plans that manage wolves as an integral part of our wildlife heritage, so they don’t need to be kept under federal protection. Fair, balanced state management plans that are based on science and take into account the interests of all those with a stake in wolf management — from wildlife enthusiasts to ranchers, hunters and conservationists — will best serve both wolves and the public.
Instead of continuing to fight this decision, the states should get to work, involving all the stakeholders, to fix the problems identified in the court’s decision. The alternative is that wolves remain on the Endangered Species list far into the future. If that’s the answer, there’s no question that we’ll all be losers.
It’s time to take a step onto a path less traveled. It will likely make all the difference – especially for the wolf.
Michael Scott is the Executive Director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Oregon also has a first time breeding population of moose, which have never been present as a sedentary breeding population. Both wolves and moose have pioneered into Oregon, which begs the question as to really how crappy has the environment become, and, in light of global warming, why are these cold climate species establishing more southern territories? My guess is the moose swam the Snake River just to get away from Idaho wolves. And, damn, the wolves swam the river, too.
If the wolves begin to target the moose, which species will prevail in the regulatory market? Which is the more charismatic and deserving of human intervention? Is Shiras moose an endangered species in Oregon, as the wolf is now classified? Less than a hundred individuals would seemingly make that case.
If Idaho wolves have now encamped on Oregon, and Nevada is sure to see them soon, is the genetic exchange with Yellowstone wolves going to drive the process in those states? Or, as can sometimes the case, the environmental zeal more important than biological reality? It appears the wolves are outrunning the ability of Yellowstone to be of importance in the genetics of wolves, and we must remember those genetics are imported from the MacKenzie River basin of the far north. Add those genes to the out migration of Minnesota wolves, Canadian wolves coming south, and perhaps Mexican wolves moving north, and maybe the issue is moot, or contrived.
Hunting of charismatic animals like wolves generates public distain in many areas, and reasons not to are many. But are those reasons important biological reasons, or just matters of controlling human actions not liked by some? Biology vs Emotion. That is what ruined the public land timber industry, and is the reason we have larger and more intense fires destroying the trees and the soils that were preserved from logging. Emotions prevailed and the biological loss is more than huge.
If that is the case, I say welcome to the party...however late you may be!
I would appreciate your response regarding GYC's "current" position on the issue of wolves.
"No genetically effective immigration has been found in the closed Isle Royale (IR) wolf population for 50 years, yet the population
persists at the same range of levels (12-50, average about 25/per year) as it has for 50 years. In fact the Isle Royale wolf population is informative for several reasons.
Contrary to the 3 NRM wolf populations it was founded by only 1 female and 1 or 2 males (Wayne et al. 1991) and has inbred for 50 years. The IR wolves look and act like any other wolves, prey successfully on one of the species’ largest prey animals, the
moose (Alces alces), and survive at as high a level as any other wolf population."
Give me a break. Dave Mech is telling the truth.
This is just another cheap stunt by Judge Molloy to legitimize some of the more bizarre social-engineering tenets of the "conservation biology" ideology. Sorry, but a wolf that eats cattle shouldn't be left alive to put its behavior patterns in the gene pool.
If it is just ducky to import Canadian wolves to "augment" an extirpated population, then we ought to import them across the whole of the landscape if only to ensure genetic diversity is addressed by anthropogenic means. Maybe there ought to be a wolf artificial insemination group from USFWS to make sure that diversity is always addressed. And for grizzly bears and polar bears, also. That would be a macho man sport, no? Showing my age, I can just see Kitty Carlisle guessing "What's my Line?" for some handsome buffed out guy. "Oooh! You are a grizzly bear artificial insemination group leader. I read about you in the New York Times."