Feds skeptical of piecemeal wolf delisting
By Bob Anew
Associated Press ý Aug. 19, 2004
HELENA, Mont. ý The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is willing to discuss delisting the gray wolf on a state-by-state basis in the Northern Rockies, but is skeptical such a move is possible under federal law, an official said recently.
Ed Bangs, Rocky Mountain wolf coordinator for the agency, said the service is concerned about the precedent that could be set for other endangered species recovery efforts around the country.
“We’re talking about national policy,” he said. “Does it make sense to start making these kinds of exceptions? Once you do it for one (recovery project), you do it for everybody.”
Bangs’ comments came in response to Montana’s threat to sue the agency unless it agrees to discuss possible ways to delist the wolf in Montana without waiting for Wyoming to develop an acceptable wolf management plan.
That message was included in a recent letter from Jeff Hagener, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks director, to Steve Williams, director of the federal wildlife agency. The agency should consider state boundaries in its delisting decisions, Hagener said.
“We are prepared to argue that wolves can, and should, be delisted in Montana, regardless of their classification under the (endangered species) act in other states,” he wrote.
Unless the agency is willing to discuss such a policy, Hagener said, “I see no other course of action than for the state of Montana to initiate independent legal action to compel the service to consider this alternative.”
The federal government began reintroducing wolves in this region in 1995 and the populations are sufficient in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to allow the animal to be removed from the endangered species list.
Federal officials said they will do that once each state has submitted an acceptable management plan.
Montana and Idaho have done so, but the fish and wildlife service rejected the Wyoming proposal, which would remove protections once the animals leave national parks and adjacent wilderness areas. It also did not meet the federal requirements to ensure at least 15 packs will remain in the state and include an acceptable definition of a pack.
Wyoming has sued the federal government over rejection of its plan. Bangs said resolution of that lawsuit could take five years.
Hagener called the impasse unacceptable and said further delay in delisting the wolf in Montana could erode political support for the state to assume management of the animal.
Separating states with adequate management plans from those without “responds to the biological, political and legal facts of a successful wolf recovery, avoids the political and social risks of delay, and gains a deserved and crucial measure of public credibility for the positive accomplishment of the Endangered Species Act,” he told Williams.
Bangs said he agrees with Montana’s rationale for state-by-state delisting. “Biologically, I think it’s warranted. The states that do the right thing should be rewarded.”
However, he said the same argument was made in Midwest wolf recovery efforts and the service concluded such “decoupling” of states could not be done under existing law and policies.
“So far we haven’t found a way to do this,” Bangs said.
The policy governing delisting in the Northern Rockies lumps the three states together, requiring at least 30 breeding pairs of wolves, equally distributed in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, he explained.
Jim Caswell, administrator of Idaho’s Office of Species Conservation, said his state wants the wolf delisted as soon as possible and would join any talks between Montana and the federal wildlife agency.