No reasonable deed goes unpunished, eh? That must be how wildlife managers or advocates who actually want to resolve the wolf-delisting impasse must feel.
In my Oct. 6 column I criticized left-leaning plaintiffs in the lawsuits for pushing too hard, too long and turning fence-sitters and most Western politicians into the anti-wolf camp and possibly endangering the integrity of the nation’s most powerful environmental tool, the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Now, the pendulum has swung to the far right. Energized by newfound support from basically every Western politician, anti-wolf groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife not only want extreme “solutions,” but incredibly, also want to keep agencies and greens from even talking to each other.
If you followed my commentaries on the wolf issue, you know I have frequently and fiercely urged stakeholders to sit down and work out a deal. I’ve even fantasized about being in charge of negotiations, so I could order stakeholders into a room with a sleeping bag and a stack of pizzas and stay there until they agreed on a solution.
The wolf delisting controversy is much more than numbers, but the number of wolves does seems like a major sticking point for a lot of people, so let’s clear it up.
Anti-wolfers don’t want “surplus wolves” around eating elk and deer, so they insist that the original recovery goal of 300 wolves (100 animals or 10 breeding pairs per state for Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) is all we need, period. Well, guys, that goal isn’t even close to reality.
The 300-wolf figure is the “minimum” recovery goal. Yes, the original recovery plan states 300 wolves constitute a “viable population,” but it doesn’t say states should manage for that population level. Montana’s plan, incidentally, already calls for maintaining a wolf population of 400-450.
The final delisting rule written by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists three “triggers” which require a “status review,” or actual relisting, under the ESA:
1. If wolf numbers in any state fall below 100 wolves. (In other words, Montana could have 500 wolves, but if Idaho’s population fell to 90, the wolf would probably be relisted.)
2. If wolf numbers fell below 150 in a state for three consecutive years.
3. If a state passed a new law or approved a new plan that could create a significant threat to the wolf population.
Yet, anti-wolfers insist on only 300 wolves? At the least, that’s totally self-defeating. Having only 300 wolves (or even only 100 in any state) would virtually guarantee the FWS would relist wolves.
Even managing at 150 wolves per state would be “knife-edge management.” Any other factor could come into play, such as a canine disease, and put the wolf back on the endangered species list.
Under any scenario, we’ll have more than 300 wolves in the northern Rockies. If hunting groups can’t back off this extreme position (and stop calling it “moving the goal posts”), we’ll never get into the end zone.
A few weeks ago, the plaintiffs in the lawsuits and the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department actually started talking about a settlement. Proposals and counterproposals were made. Suddenly, it seemed like something good could happen.
I’m not sure how such a settlement might be affected by Judge Donald Molloy’s Aug. 5 ruling relisting the wolf, but let’s find out. So keep talking.
Two things I’m sure will be in any settlement are: (1) a minimum, sustainable Montana population level way north of 100 wolves per state and (2) plaintiff assurances that they’ll help Montana be exempted from the current court ruling and hence restore state management.
Then, out of the blue, comes a missile from the three hunting groups. In a letter to Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and FWP Director Joe Maurier, they say stop negotiating with those evil animal rights groups.
I often agree with the policies of these hunting groups, but this time, they need to be called out.
They criticize FWP for talking about something other than “science-based wolf management plans,” which, incidentally, Montana already has – and I’m sure wouldn’t consider anything less. Yet, on the other hand, these same groups want a political solution. As I write this, they’re pushing Congress to amend the ESA to disallow listing of the gray wolf in all 12 states where the species occurs, even in states with obviously endangered populations – and, I might add, with zero scientific basis for doing so.
They criticize FWP for “closed-door settlement talks” at the same time emissaries of these same groups are just back from Washington, D.C., where they had closed-door talks trying to tack a midnight rider on a Continuing Resolution to remove the wolf from being protected under of the ESA.
They criticize FWP for leaving other stakeholders out of settlement talks and not having “public comment periods,” but again, these same guys are back in D.C. lobbying for a midnight rider without including other stakeholders such as representatives of wildlife agencies or agricultural groups, let alone pro-wolfers.
They criticize the plaintiffs for using the wolf as a fundraising tool and to sell memberships, but they do the same thing. I doubt it hurts membership sales and donations for hunting groups to stay on the soapbox publicly ranting about “surplus wolves.”
I could go on, but you get the point. No wonder it takes us forever to get nowhere.