Wolf accord is close
By ROBERT W. BLACK
Associated Press
CHEYENNE – An early morning meeting held recently in a dimly lit hearing room may be a pivotal point in the struggle to remove wolves from the Endangered Species List.
Few had heard about the hearing, and fewer still harbored much hope it would yield a breakthrough in a monthlong federal-state stalemate over how wolves – reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and expanding rapidly – would be managed once control is relinquished to the states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.
While members of the House Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee took turns expressing frustration over the federal government’s heavy-handed ways, the target of their irritation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams, became less a symbol of Washington arrogance and more the picture of a guy just trying to do his job in a cumbersome bureaucracy.
As the 75-minute meeting wore on, it became apparent a negotiating session had ensued and that compromise might be in the air.
Rep. Mike Baker, the Thermopolis farmer and committee chairman who had crafted much of the state’s wolf-management plan in last year’s session, asked Williams to repeat the federal government’s latest offer to make certain there was no misunderstanding.
A compromise was forged: Wyoming’s plan would no longer allow wolves to be shot on sight in areas away from Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and adjacent wilderness areas – the chief sticking point. Regulated hunting would have to be in force statewide (except in the parks, where the wolves will remain protected).
The federal government would back away from its stance that 15 wolf packs be maintained in the state, that 10 breeding pairs would be sufficient. Williams also said the state could make its own determination of the definition of a pack.
The next day, Baker and Sen. Bruce Burns of Sheridan produced mirror bills in the House and Senate altering the state’s plan but without Williams’ concessions. There had not been enough time to draft the compromise language, so the measures were presented with the caveat that amendments would follow.
Burns’ measure failed, but Baker’s sailed through House introduction by a 51-8 margin.
While the legislation has a long way to go – at least two committee hearings and three readings in each chamber, plus governor approval – the logjam over wolf management in the Yellowstone region may be loosening, and ranchers and hunters might be a step closer to stemming wolf predations on their livestock and big game.
Threats of a lawsuit by Gov. Dave Freudenthal didn’t hold the same edge Friday, the day after the House vote.
“If there is a way to arrive at delisting on terms that work for the state, you know, I’m not dying to sue ’em,” he said. “I’m delighted that there’s a vehicle that’s alive in the Legislature to allow this discussion to continue. We’ve got a couple weeks. Let’s try to use them.”
Baker took flack from constituents back in wolf country because early reports didn’t make clear that his bill “yielding” to the federal government’s stance was just a starting point.
“The feds significantly changed their offer to us,” he said. “Now, there are people who have taken the stance that they (feds) have not significantly moved. I think they have moved.”
The lower requirement for maintenance of breeding pairs in exchange for licensing wolf hunters is worth the trade-off, he said.
Burns agreed.
“I think there’s not enough difference between last year’s plan and the current agreement we have with Fish and Wildlife to be worth a lawsuit,” he said.
Even if the Legislature approves a new plan, removal of wolves from the Endangered Species List likely wouldn’t occur until next year at the earliest. But a lawsuit, or waiting until the 2005 session, would certainly delay delisting even more.
Burns said the Fish and Wildlife Service gained a sense of urgency in visiting with lawmakers and the governor the past week.
“They were knocked back on their heels to find out that our entire session was only 20 days long, that we had to get something through in the four-week period if we’re going to get anything done at all,” he said.
Added Baker, “From my side, I don’t see any more urgency than before. I’ve seen that impact and the increase of the impact occurring over time.
“That’s occurring in my back yard. The pressure is on.”
Baker and Burns are awaiting a letter from Williams confirming the agreement. Meanwhile, Baker’s committee will hold a hearing at 7 a.m. Monday in Room H11 of the Capitol to discuss his bill, House Bill 155.