New West News
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Initiates ‘Flex’ Plan for Wolves in Wyoming
Gov. Matt Mead touts agreement for dual status, with some wolves protected and others that can be shot on sight. Sportsmen back the plan, conservationists deride it and wonder if any plan between Wyoming and the feds will hold.By Brodie Farquhar, 4-13-11
![]() |
|
Wyoming and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are exploring an idea whereby Wyoming could gain state management over wolves, retain the wolf’s dual status of trophy and predator and reduce wolf numbers outside of Yellowstone, down to 10 breeding pairs and 100 animals.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead spoke of the plan’s details during a Tuesday press conference.
“We’re trying to get out of this stalemate,” Mead said.
The key to the plan, which was originally suggested by USFWS, is what Mead called a “flex line” adjustment to the current boundary line separating trophy wolves in and immediately around Yellowstone, and the rest of the state where wolves are regarded as predators and can be shot on sight.
The flex line would extend the trophy boundary south about 90 miles from the current line near Jackson, down to Big Piney, including Sublette County and much of Star Valley in Lincoln County. But the flex line extension would last only for five months of the year, November to March.
“U.S. Fish and Wildlife tell me that that would open a winter migration route for wolves to disperse,” said Mead. This dispersal is critical to genetic exchange to and from wolf populations in Idaho and Wyoming, he explained.
Mead explained the new flex area wouldn’t have livestock scattered in the woods and vulnerable to attack by wolves. Predator status would be reimposed for the rest of the year, whereby wolves could be shot on sight.
The payoff for Wyoming, explained Mead, would be that the state could retain multilevel designation and management while reducing wolf numbers outside Yellowstone, estimated at more than 300 today.
Mead said he wanted to hear from livestock producers and get their buy-in. Any agreement reached by Wyoming and USFWS would still need to be approved by the Department of Interior and Congress, Mead added.
When asked whether the plan had the approval of any conservation groups, Mead said hunter groups like Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) like the plan, and they consider themselves to be conservationists.
“Some conservationists like the plan,” the governor said.
SFW has long been a critic of the federal reintroduction of wolves into the northern Rockies, and has blamed declining elk herd numbers on wolf predation. SFW members and leaders have been among the most strident of anti-wolf critics over the years.
Other conservationists are dismayed by the flex line concept.
“Wyoming is trying to manage wolves like Montana manages bison – shoot ‘em,” said Mike Leahy, Rocky Mountain Director for Defenders of Wildlife. “This is a disaster for the wolves and undermines the tradition of free-roaming wildlife.”
Leahy said the concept is cruel because it will simply lure young dispersal wolves to come down to the Big Piney area, mate and have pups – all exposed to extermination for the rest of the year.
Doug Honnold, an Earthjustice attorney based in Montana, blasted the plan.
“So, basically, wolves have no place in almost 90 percent of Wyoming, but a handful of individual wolves get a chance to sprint through the gauntlet zone for a couple of months,” he said.
“Won’t do anything for creating a sustainable wolf population in Wyoming, and is unlikely to have an appreciable effect on genetic connectivity.”
Robert Hoskins, a Crowheart-based conservationist, called the flex line idea a sham. The area’s predator status for seven months out of the year would make it a mortality sink for wolves, he said. Hoskins also blasted the secrecy of wolf meetings around the state – which were first publicized last week when a Cody Enterprise reporter stumbled on a meeting and was locked out.
The Plan’s Genesis
The point man for the flex-line idea has been Steve Ferrell, former director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and now policy advisor to Mead.
Ferrell said he’s had 11 meetings around the state, talking to local politicians, legislators and especially those who are impacted by wolves – ranchers and outfitters. He said he has a meeting later this week with Wyoming conservation groups, including the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.
Ferrell was reached for a telephone interview Tuesday night, after he had met with interest groups in Lander.
“I guess the genesis of this whole thing would start with Judge Johnson’s decision, when he told the (Fish & Wildlife) Service that their insistence that Wyoming have statewide trophy status for wolves was ‘arbitrary and capricious,’” Ferrell said.
In 2008, the service rejected the state’s duel-status plan for wolves. Last fall, U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson in Cheyenne ruled that the service was wrong and needed to return to negotiations.
“The service came to us a couple months ago,” said Ferrell, “and said that by extending the trophy boundary line south, they could get better dispersal and therefore genetic exchange between Idaho and Wyoming wolves.”
Ferrell said audiences have been cautious about the flex-line concept, wondering whether any agreement can stick between the state and the federal agency.
Ferrell said he viewed the plan as good for everyone. Wolf supporters get enhanced connectivity and a sustainable wolf population.
“It’ll help hunters. We’ll get delisting and state management of wolves, and we’ll be able to manage our ungulate herds better as well,” he said.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
Funny how no wolf supporters were invited any of these secret meetings to express how this plan is ((good for them))
Well, the big question now is, will the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the Defenders of Wildlife, and other groups that participated in the now rejected wolf settlement agreement sell out wolves twice in this still young year?
RH
It is a HUGE leap to equate recovery of legal expenses under EAJA (Equal Access to Justice Act), to a huge money-making machine for environmental groups. Logically, if green groups are winning cases, it is because they've proved to judges and/or juries that the government has done something wrong under the law.
Ergo, if federal agencies stop violating federal laws, the agencies won't lose cases, because cases won't be brought.
You don't mention the reality that green groups also lose cases and eat those expenses.
Nor do you mention the incredible stacking of conservatives throughout the judiciary that has taken place all the way back to Reagan and Nixon.
Nor do you cite any report by accountants that show HUGE profits from EAJA.
I think you guys are just blowing a lot of smoke. For the educable in NewWest readership, here's a brief definition of EAJA:
The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (5 U.S.C. § 504; 28 U.S.C. § 2412) provides for the award of attorney fees (up to $125 per hour) and other expenses to eligible individuals and small entities that are parties to litigation against the government. An eligible party may receive an award when it prevails over the government, unless the government’s position was "substantially justified" or special circumstances make an award unjust.
To recover under EAJA, a claimant must show that it is a "prevailing party." Parties are considered to be prevailing parties when they have been successful on any significant issue in litigation that achieves some of the benefit the parties sought. A party must also show that the lawsuit was a material factor in bringing about the desired result and the outcome was required by law and was not a gratuitous act by the government. Finally, whether a party is a small entity for purposes of EAJA is determined by a unique size standard included in the act. Compliance with the size standard is a threshold requirement for an award of fees under the act.
and along comes altered reality to lap it all up
USDA APHIS Wildlife Services confirmed it issued a decision (a Finding of No Significant Impact) on March 29, 2011 on its response activities to Wolf Damage in Idaho.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/revised-idaho-wolf-ea-fonsi.pdf
Wildlife Services decided it would continue its current program, with an allowance for taking control actions to benefit ungulates as well as control actions to address threats to livestock, domestic animals and humans. The official alternative selected after NEPA analysis was “Continue the Current Program, Plus Assist IDFG with Ungulate Protection.” USDA’s decision applies whether USFWS or IDFG is responsible for managing wolves in Idaho
"Add in a corrupt judge like Molloy..." Another one of your highly qualified assumptions. You have offered support to a convicted poacher, assumed that the Middleton research that concluded climate changes might be affecting important elk forage, thus the elk population, was funded by organizations such as Ralph Maughan, when in fact it was funded by organzations that were largely hunting organizations,one of which you are a paying member, and you would not turn in one who poaches wolves, thus making you no better than the poacher. Now you accuse Molloy of being corrupt.
Why would anybody believe anything you write?
Before becoming a judge in 1996, Molloy was working a case for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, or TLPJ. TLPJ’s website brags it was “founded in 1982 at Ralph Nader's urging [no kidding]” to pursue litigation that would, as Nader biographer David Boller wrote, “forge new public policy in the process.” To translate, TLPJ’s lawyers don’t practice law, they re-write it in court.
Max Baucus & Bill Clinton put him in there because they knew he was a sociopathic squirrel cage that woul make the most extreme anti human rulings pandering to the UNESCO globalist agenda. Did Molloy get paid ? Unknowable, unless DOJ comes in after 2012. Is he representing the interests of a vast majority of people in the 9th Circuit? Beyond a shadow of a doubt, no.
What's worse, and not yet widely reported as fact , is Mead is all but demanding the USFWS revert the Wyo wolf plan to managing for only 10 breeding pairs and no more than 100 wolves total outside of Yellowstone, basically the long ago preliminary objective c. 1987 . This card that Mead feels he can play now because of all the undue pressure on USFWS now, both in the general budget climate and the lame cheat of the Tester-Simpson Wolf Riders in the yet-to-be approved federal budget deal, plus Congressional heat and noise aimed at USFWS and the Endangered Species Act. But all of that is illegal at worst and merely misfeasance at best. Wolf Rider and defunding NPR/ Planned Parenthood is a deal breaker? Has Congress gone truely mad ? ( Short answer: apparently so. Delirious from deficit fever has caused them to hallucinate on non-budget issues )
So, this new compromise " flex" plan is actually worse than what Wyoming had before, en toto. I'm downright angry with USFWS if in fact they did suggest the token seasonal " flex" boundary for the trophy zone, but I'm mad enough to go to War with he Mead initiative because of the secret closed door meetings and utter disregard by not inviting the real stakeholders to any policy meeting at all. There's certainly more diverse input to be sought than petty lord cattle barons and the elitist hunting lobby groups , but neither Ferrell a former Wyo G&F;Director nor MEad, a former US Attorney feel it incumbent to have openness and inclusiveness in their backdoor attempt to break the logjam on developing a suitable Wyoming wolf plan.
The means by which Mead and Ferrell are conducting their wolf policy outreach is as Hoskins has also keenly described it, " ty[pical Wyoming steamroller politics". I do not recall that steamrollers or even politics appear in the toolbox of the ESA.
Wyoming's lame " new" wolf plan is still dead, All they are doing is dressing it in a nice suit and tie and applying some face makeup. But it's still a cadaver, waiting to be buried.
*
*
[Personal Opinion now: the less we hear from Fanning, and the rabblers of the likes of (Un)Reality 22 , the better.]
The mad scramble continues, anything to quiet down the rabble and protect the precious Endangered Species Act.
The state of Wyoming, as all other states, should have the right to put boundaries on wildlife, especially pest species that function as unregulated poachers on huntable species, and as rustlers upon livestock.
Yes, I know that's a fundamental concept, one which the Green team refuses to accept....but most other people do accept the idea, every day. Ya set boundaries on ants, flies, snakes, even deer, right?
It has taken almost 40 long years for the impacts of political abuse of the Endangered Species Act to spill beyond its direct victims, but we are at the point Ben Franklin warned about -- justice never being served until those not affected are just as outraged as those who are.
When are you going to file the 4YR in the making majic lawsuit, bobby?
I read recently you are from south chicago. the new pick-up will look good back in the hood, p.
1. States have SOME rights with respect to species, but not universal absolute rights to all wildlife within their boundaries. For one thing, the animals themselves are often trans-state. And NOT state has full authority over ANY endangered specie.
2. One man's " pest" is anther man's revered creature. E.G. Bald eagles, which take hundreds of lambs in Wyoming annually. Who are you to say ?
3. Ants flies and snakes are Mesopredators. As are Coyotes, and my house cat ( See point 2 above) . Wolves, bears, cougars are Apex Predators. Perhaps when you learn the difference we can possibly begin to have some real informed discourse here.
4. The term "Predator" unfortunately has two definitions. One is the lawyer's ( and some bureaucrat's) definition. The other is the biologist's ( and other bureaucrat's, if they are doing their job well. ( See point 3 above).
Your entire run-on last sentence , besides being disinformative , is beneath the dignity of a response ( See all the above). Ben Franklin is not happy with you, either, he who was a firsthand witness to the beheadings of the French Revolution and being an envoy to the crown did nt really know which side to side with, peasants or Louis, because he lost either way...
And quit using the faux-Nazi dialect. It only makes YOU look like one of them , not me. It's a bad ploy that never works, except in tacky sit-coms. Which come to think of it....
Not bitter at all, just calling a spade a spade. You can make up all the titles you want, but someone who illegally kills a federally protected animal, whether you believe it should be protected or not, has broken the law. He/she is a criminal. The unsupported assumptions you make, particularly the Middleton study, relegate your opinions, once again, to lint.
Immer, as of friday it wont be federaly protected. Game over.
Skinner; "It has taken almost 40 long years for the impacts of political abuse of the Endangered Species Act to spill beyond its direct victims, but we are at the point Ben Franklin warned about -- justice never being served until those not affected are just as outraged as those who are." Awesome line. The outrage is so thick that you can cut it with a knife. It took a lot longer than expected but it is documented with the super majority passage of HB 343 in Id & SB 414 in Montana this month.
Dewey; the political process is now complete.It was like a big impacted stool that is passed. Now you get to hear from me a lot. "Restitution", "restoration", "harm", RICO, bad faith dealing, breech of contract, criminal intent, disgorgement,breech of fiduciary duty,fraud, punitive damages ...........with words like that it's no wonder you dont want to hear from me but it's my turn now. Payback is a bi--h.
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/index.php?utm_source=B_Version_NoFlash&utm_medium=Top_Nav&utm_content=NW&utm_campaign=HP_AB_Round2
I'm not talking about NRM states in my reply to Reality. Games not quite over in those states.
Doesn't matter though, breaking the law, was breaking the law, and the guy I'm referring to is in jail, counting every last second. Game is certainly still going on for him. Any man or woman who wantonly and willingly kills a protected animal, or an animal out of season, is a criminal.
http://www.defendersblog.org/2011/04/montana-wolf-kill-bill-stopped-in-its-tracks/
It's spelled "weep" Rick.
Youre a useful idiot Rick. Get back to Mike Lahey for me on this.
It's old news. I appeared as a proponent in the Senate. We won on SB 414 by a Super Majority there. I then let my guard down base on the Senate vote. Rep Mike Phillips ( D )got after it and did in fact get a 51-49 vote 2 days ago.
I re inserted myself into the fray yesterday morning.
My efforts to get the House to reconsider its failing vote on our
wolf control bill, SB 414, WERE SUCCESSFUL. The motion to reconsider passed by 62-38. We turned 13 votes.
I am still batting 1,000 at the Montana House after 11 years even when Ted Turner puts his best pitcher in thats six legislative sessions.
Immer, I bet you are a classic beauty in the realm of Bassinger, Bergman , Binoche, Bellucci...smart & articulate too. Want to go to dinner? {assuming that you're available.}
Do you cheat at poker, too ? Blackmail people ? Win the local Liar's Contest at the Moose hall ?
The Tester-Simpson wolf rider attached to the federal budget deal was just that : a cheat, blackmail, and success determined by the ability to deceive. For your camp, a pyhrric victory at best. For wolf advocates, all the proof we need to show your camp could not win a fair fight, by which I mean an open debate in the chambers of Congress strictly on the merits of wolves and the ESA, on those topics exlcusively, without a budget axe about to fall or attaching frivolous legislation out of context.
Could you win a debate on the issues alone ? No, I don't think so.
There is nothing for you to be proud of here today ,let alone gloat over it, unless you want to stand naked and admit you are a willing overt partner to cheating and blackmail.
The wolf rider was NOT due process. It was a sham , a deceit, the coward's way. Right down there in the muck alongside Planned Parenthood and defunding NPR.
Be careful about your choice of words and your less veiled threats, to wit: "Restitution", "restoration", "harm", RICO, bad faith dealing, breech of contract, criminal intent, disgorgement,breech of fiduciary duty,fraud, punitive damages ... " since you may have to eat them.
We do not take you serious, Bob. The more you use abusive language and threaten and gloat , the more you pump steeljacketed rounds into your own feet and rump.
Gloat on . You are only talking to yourself now. We've given up on you here .
The pathos, the pathos...
In all my replies to you, I have always been respectful. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I am correct. We have what you might consider rabble on either side of the wolf fence. I try to avoid the vitriole that so many fall prey to, and again, have always been civil toward you. How about you?
Personally, you know almost nothing about me. Your last comment can be construed as both sexist and foolish. I've replied to you before, that if you would like to discuss an issue, then, let us discuss the issue, and avoid the childish responses.
Pretty verbose. Meaningless and irrelevant but verbose none the less. It's a win , everything else is noise son.
FYI there is no such thing as "steel jacketed" FMJ is copper.
RE "abusive language" charge; "victims have power", you ain't my victim, you de' perp, you de' suspect son.
The victory celebration has me a little giddy.
Again, a pyhrric victory for the Anti-Wolfers at best. Nothing to be proud of or giddy about. Not at all.
I'm checking out of this thread now. Brad will likely shut it off soon anyway...