FWS calls for changes in Wyo wolf law
by Cat Urbigkit
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wolf Coordinator Ed Bangs sent his agency’s
official comment letter on the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s draft
wolf plan. That letter attempts to cut the WG&F commission out of some
decision-making, bucks the intent and word of state law and threatens the
state with wolves not being removed from federally protected status
because of the actions of the Wyoming Legislature.
Bangs’ seven-page letter was addressed to WG&F Director Brent Manning and
was dated July 2.
Bangs wrote: “Wyoming must have a state law that is clearly consistent
with and complements its state wolf plan. This plan, with some
modifications, may be adequate for the service to proceed with the
delisting process. However, we must be sure it is consistent with Wyoming
state law. Currently Wyoming state law may not provide WG&F the authority
to implement this plan.”
Bangs said his agency is concerned about moving forward with the delisting
process “unless state law unambiguously authorizes implementation of a
state wolf -management plan that will conserve wolves above recovery
levels. Any final plan must be at least as conservation-oriented toward
wolves as the management framework that is outlined in the current draft
plan.”
Apparently what Bangs is getting at is that, while the agency likes the
draft plan, it doesn’t like the state law, and until the state law is put
in line with the plan, “We are concerned that your plan can not be
implemented under the current state law.”
Bangs pointed out that there must be a minimum of 15 packs in Wyoming,
with at least seven of those packs located outside Yellowstone and Grand
Teton national parks, “regardless of how many are in those parks.”
Because of the narrow one-mile common boundary with Grand Teton National
Park, the entire Gros Ventre Wilderness must be part of the initial wolf
trophy game area.
Bangs noted that the draft wolf plan acknowledged that measuring wolf
packs for post-delisting monitoring “could be slightly different than
‘five wolves traveling together in winter’ as inferred by state law.” But
Wyoming law didn’t infer the definition, it clearly stated that a “pack
means five or more gray wolves traveling together.”
Bangs’ letter continued that the draft plan recognizes the state law
definition is different from the current recovery definition “and that
inconsistency must be resolved. The service is committed to work with the
states to mutually resolve that scientific issue.”
In addition, Bangs wrote, “The service supports the flexibility in the
definition of a wolf pack as recommended in the plan.” Bangs maintains
that this is a scientific issue, not a legal one, although the issue is
clearly defined in state law.
As for switching to trophy game status throughout western Wyoming if the
wolf population dropped below a certain threshold, with wolves otherwise
classified as predators outside of the national parks and certain
wilderness areas, Bangs wrote, “As your plan states, the switch from
predatory animal to trophy game status should happen once. Flipping back
and forth is confusing to all interested parties.”
State law provides for the WG&F commission to make these decisions, but
Bangs responded that some type of “mandatory and automatic authority” be
instituted to address the situation.
“The proper agency management response can not be dependent on the next
commission meeting or some undefined future optional event,” Bangs wrote.
Bangs wrote that WG&F “should have the flexibility to use its professional
scientific judgment to trigger trophy status prior to an ’emergency’ and
hitting the threshold of at least seven wolf packs outside the parks. The
service’s preference is to not have a seven-pack trigger but instead to
immediately designate all wolves in the proposed (western Wyoming area) as
trophy game and manage them so that at least seven packs are maintained in
that area.”
Bangs emphasized that his agency’s preferred alternative would be for the
WG&F, upon delisting, to immediately designate all wolves throughout
western Wyoming as trophy game animals. Bangs suggested it is not in
accordance with the law enacted by the Wyoming Legislature.
“We urge Wyoming to reconsider having wolves listed as predatory animals
anywhere in Wyoming,” Bangs wrote. “That designation may spoil our mutual
desire to successfully delist the wolf population and maintain a recovered
population.”
As for the dual status of wolves called for in the Wyoming law, Bangs
wrote: “While we understand that some people in Wyoming feel very strongly
that this was necessary, we believe it was a very serious mistake that
will continue to haunt our efforts to successfully delist wolves in the
northwestern U.S., including Wyoming. No other state with wolves in the
Midwest, Southwest, or Northwest has taken this position as it infers
wolves should be eliminated and not maintained as a recovered population.”
Although not mentioned in the FWS letter, all of those areas have yet to
see wolves delisted either.
Bangs continued that negative perceptions caused by the state law “will
cause unimaginable rhetoric, conflict, emotion and mistrust” as well as
provide fodder for raising “millions of dollars and provide a unifying
justification for those groups who have most strongly supported wolf
restoration … the very organizations that are most likely to litigate
over wolf delisting.”
“The Wyoming Legislature could help to avoid a huge and very public brawl
that will be damaging, if not fatal, to the service’s efforts to delist a
recovered wolf population and would greatly improve the national public’s
attitude and trust of Wyoming’s abilities to manage wolves, by authorizing
wolf trophy game status statewide,” Bangs wrote.
Bangs volunteered his agency’s cooperation in Wyoming’s efforts to move
the wolf delisting process forward, but also predicted that “ultimately
the legal system will evaluate whether the service acted within the law”
in whatever delisting decision it makes concerning wolf recovery.