By Janshepel
WASHINGTON, DC
Wisconsin Congressman Reid Ribble is leading the effort on a bill that would undo a recent court decision that placed gray wolves in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan back under the protections of the Endangered Species Act — despite burgeoning populations in all three states.
Wildlife experts in the western Great Lakes region estimate there are at least 3,700 wolves in the three states. Many of the Wisconsin wolves migrated from Minnesota and set up their own packs in the state.
That lawsuit was brought by the Human Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups. The court’s decision effectively ended the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wolf management plan — including hunting and trapping seasons.
Ribble (R-WI) last week began circulating a bill that is being co-sponsored by representatives from other states affected by the recent court decision that found wolves in the Great Lakes region should not have been singled out as a successful population that no longer needed protection.
Reps. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Dan Benishek (R-MI) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) have signed on as co-sponsors to the measure.
In 2011 Congress was able to remove wolves in Idaho and Montana from protections under the Endangered Species Act following court decisions that blocked wolf management efforts in those two states.
Once Congress acted, it allowed hunting and trapping in those two states to resume.
“I am pursuing a bipartisan legislative fix that will allow the Great Lakes states to continue the effective work they are doing in managing wolf populations without tying the hands of the Fish and Wildlife Service or undermining the Endangered Species Act,” Ribble said in a statement.
In December, a federal judge in Washington, DC threw out the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency’s decision to “de-list” wolves in the western Great Lakes region.
In September it was a different federal judge with a similar result — Wyoming wildlife officials lost their ability to take charge of wolf management when the court returned that state’s wolves to federal Endangered Species protections.
Ribble noted he was deliberately crafting his bill to be narrow in scope, addressing the recent court decisions but not seeking any change in the Endangered Species Act.
It would be designed to meet the need in our region for responsible stewardship of the wolf population, Benishek added in his own statement.
Needed protections
In her 111-page ruling in December, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said that wolves still needed federal protection because they haven’t repopulated in all areas of their former range.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had won the right, back in 2012, to de-list the wolf population in the Great Lakes states — including Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota – from the protections offered by the Endangered Species Act.
The federal agency had then argued that wolf populations in states including Wisconsin are high enough that the wolf cannot be considered “endangered” in the region and had prevailed in court.
Wildlife managers have said that wolf populations are high enough that they can withstand limited hunting and trapping seasons.
Wisconsin held its first wolf trapping and hunting season in the wake of that 2012 decision that de-listed the wolf. The latest state hunting season closed in December after hunting and trapping quotas were reached in various state zones.
Federal wildlife officials had tried for over a decade to take wolves in certain regions of the country off the Endangered Species list but had been stymied several times by lawsuits brought by environmental and animal rights groups.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not chosen to appeal the Wyoming decision within the 60 days after that ruling and officials at the agency said no decision has yet been made about whether or not they would try to appeal the Great Lakes wolf decision.
Lethal controls
Bill Cosh, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, said that in the wake of the Dec. 19 court decision, permits which allow the “lethal removal” of wolves that have been issued to landowners who are experiencing wolf conflicts are no longer valid.
The department began contacting permit holders to alert them about that after the court decision came down.
Cosh said that as a result of the ruling, the department is no longer authorized to use lethal control as part of its conflict management program.
Perhaps of most interest to farmers is the fact that Wisconsin’s law allowing landowners or occupants of the land to shoot wolves that are in the act of killing domestic animals on private property is no longer in force.
“Landowners may not kill wolves in the act of attacking domestic animals.”
Apparently the judge’s ruling does allow lethal force against wolves if needed to protect human life.
Under Howell’s ruling, wolves are now once again considered “endangered” in Wisconsin and “threatened” in Minnesota.
Ribble’s bill, with support from lawmakers from other states affected by the court rulings on wolf management programs, was expected to be introduced as early as February.
Political observers said the bill likely has a good chance of passage in the Republican-dominated Congress.