Protect wolves, and manage them

Inter Lake editorial

It's not a stretch to predict more livestock kills as Montana wolf numbers grow, and those trends will make the recently derailed delisting of wolves seem all the more wrongheaded.

After all, many Montanans had come to support a state wolf management plan that would allow livestock owners and other stakeholders to have a hand in managing the species. That's right - a management plan that would allow for actually managing a predator that can rapidly reproduce and expand into new territories.

Wolves were delisted earlier this year, and ranchers were rightfully empowered with the ability to defend their livestock.

But that was shortlived, because of litigation from conservation groups challenging the delisting.

Since then there have been recent livestock depredation incidents in the Fortine area and west of Kalispell.

Make no mistake, the risk of future depredation will rise as new packs establish themselves in areas previously unoccupied by wolves. That has been the trend in Montana, with the state recording a 34 percent increase in the population from 2006 to 2007. At the end of last year, the official count was 1,500 in the Northern Rockies and 422 in Montana, and state and federal wildlife officials readily acknowledge those are minimum counts.

We are optimistic that delisting will come some day and that Montana's responsible management plan can be effective when it gets a chance. This year's legal challenge prompted U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy to issue an injunction that effectively reinstated protections for wolves. That wasn't necessarily a defeat for delisting; it was a temporary ruling until the court case is ultimately decided.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife took steps to officially reinstate the listing - a move that is intended to give the agency an opportunity to address concerns raised by the judge and the plaintiffs. Basically, the agency will attempt to bomb-proof its next attempt at delisting. It's an unfortunate step that seems to be more common in environmental litigation. But in this case, the state should be doing whatever it takes to reach a sound delisting decision that can pass legal muster.

We have said before that conservation groups really aren't carrying the burden of protecting wolves. Sure, it may be full-time work for them, but it is the livestock owners who actually incur the costs and the headaches of having wolves on the landscape. They should at the very least have the ability to defend their animals when they are imminently threatened by wolves, rather than being forced to rely on reactive government control actions at the expense of taxpayers.