Endangered status still hot issue

By JIM MANN/The Daily Inter Lake

As frustrations build over the stalled implementation of a Montana wolf management plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Service is on the verge of issuing a new rule for delisting wolves that is likely to face another legal challenge.

Wolves were temporarily removed from the protection of the Endangered Species Act this year.

But in September, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula put wolves back under legal protection, citing issues raised in a lawsuit filed by a dozen environmental groups.

The Fish and Wildlife and Service responded by withdrawing its rule for delisting, with the intent of developing a new rule that would attempt to address concerns raised by the plaintiffs and the court.

The agency received 280,000 public comments on its proposed rule and could release a final decision before the end of the year.

"We are certainly looking at doing the best job we can to improve" on the initial delisting, said Ed Bangs, the service's wolf recovery coordinator.

Bangs stressed that the agency's basic position has not changed for wolves in the Northern Rockies, a recovery area that includes Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah.

"The Fish and Wildlife Service has the position that the wolf population is fully recovered," he said.

The minimum threshold for recovery has long been 30 breeding pairs throughout Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, a mark that has been far exceeded for several years.

The service estimates there are nearly 1,500 wolves throughout the recovery area, including 74 packs in Montana.

But it's the minimum population thresholds in the delisting rule and in state management plans that are of major concern for Defenders of Wildlife, the lead plaintiff in this year's litigation.

"They are looking at the minimum number required in the region, which can also be regarded as the maximum under state management," said Suzanne Asha Stone, a wolf specialist for Defenders who is based in Boise, Idaho.

Stone acknowledged that wolf populations easily exceed the recovery goals currently, but the minimum population thresholds outlined in management plans are "the only ones that are guaranteed."

The terms for delisting require that a population of just 300 to 400 wolves be maintained across the entire recovery area, and that leads to another claim raised in litigation. The plaintiffs assert that population would not be genetically viable or sustainable over a long term, Stone said.

Bangs said the upcoming rule for delisting will attempt to better address the issue of long-term genetic exchange.

"Right now, everybody will agree that the Rocky Mountain wolf population is very genetically healthy," he said. "The dispute is over what might happen in 50 years."

Another major issue is Wyoming's approach to wolf management, which the plaintiffs consider to be nothing more than a wolf eradication program.

Stone said Defenders is expecting that Wyoming may be excluded from the upcoming delisting rule.

That would be perfectly acceptable to Vic Workman, who serves on the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission representing Northwest Montana.

"I would like to see Idaho excluded also," said Workman, who is "absolutely frustrated" over delays in delisting Montana wolves.

"Out of the three states, we put together a very conservative, thoughtful wolf hunt, where in the other states, frankly, they are still calling for every wolf to be a dead wolf. That's only going to keep the wolf lovers and the liberals pumped up and rocking and rolling," Workman said. "Montana shouldn't be punished, and that's effectively what is happening."

Montana developed a wolf hunt that would involve changing quotas based on population sizes within a series of established districts. The state was ready to implement its plan this year.

Bruce Tutvedt, a Kalispell area rancher and newly elected state senator, served on a task force appointed by the governor to develop the state's wolf management plan.

"I think we've been very professional and we've played by the rules and we haven't been rewarded," said Tutvedt, noting that the task force represented buy-in from diverse interests, including Defenders of Wildlife.

Tutvedt said there was interest in Montana seeking delisting on its own, but Defenders and other wolf advocates "always kind of wanted to hook us at the hip" with Wyoming and Idaho.

That's still the case.

Stone said excluding Wyoming from the delisting rule "degrades the proposal because the Fish and Wildlife Service told the states Montana and Idaho several years ago that (delisting) would not be legal until Wyoming had an adequate management plan in place."

While Workman says he is "absolutely frustrated" over the delayed delisting, Stone said, "I think that frustration goes all the way around."

And she contends it's the fault of the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to compel state management plans that will ensure sustainable wolf populations.

"I think the court told us in the last go-round we have to start treating wolves as a wildlife resource and not just a pest," she said.

Stone believes the upcoming delisting rule will be as flawed as the last one, and it's likely to be challenged in court as well.

"It's the same plan that we fought before," she said.

Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com