Wolf expert addresses county
By RUDY HERNDON, Staff Writer
ELKO — Federal gray wolf recovery efforts have been so successful that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hopes to remove the animal from the endangered species list by 2004.
Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the northern Rocky Mountain states, told Elko County Commissioners Thursday that the Fish and Wildlife Service has fulfilled its obligations under the Endangered Species Act.
Bangs oversees a recovery area that includes 90 percent of Idaho, all of Wyoming, and Montana south of the Missouri River. Since wolves were reintroduced to the region in the mid-1990s, the area’s experimental populations have grown to between 650 and 700 animals.
Bangs said the wolf could be downlisted to threatened as early as March 1, and delisted entirely by mid- to late-2004.
The downlisting would allow livestock owners to shoot wolves caught attacking livestock.
“It essentially lets us apply the management flexibility and the experimental rule over a bigger area, knowing that wolves can go these long distances,” he said.
However, ranchers would be required to report any such incidents to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s animal services division within 24 hours.
Once the states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have completed their own wolf management plans later this year, the Fish and Wildlife Service will announce its proposal to remove the animal from the endangered species list.
While that proposal will be followed by a lengthy one-year public comment period, Bangs anticipates that the wolf will be delisted by mid- to late-2004.
Bangs emphasized that the agency has met its recovery goals in the northern Rocky Mountains and Midwestern states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, adding that the agency has no intention of introducing gray wolves to other areas.
“We have no plans to pursue other wolf recovery programs other than to continue with the Mexican wolf program in Arizona, New Mexico and in (Mexico),” he added.
Until the downlisting is approved, wolves that wander into northern Nevada would be listed as endangered, but could be managed as they are in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. However, under current policy, livestock owners are required to report suspected attacks to the animal services division.
“Our experimental rule allows us –the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — to manage wolves that disperse into adjacent states just like they were experimental animals,” Bangs said. “So if a wolf moved into Elko County and caused a problem with livestock, we would probably just kill that animal.”
Lone wolves from central Idaho and Yellowstone have made several highly publicized forays into eastern Oregon and Utah. Ultimately, those animals were returned to the experimental areas.
But unless wandering wolves attack livestock or cause further problems, the agency is unlikely to ship the animals back to their home turf.
“By and large, we really aren’t going to do that, unless there’s a pressing need to do so,” he said.
Bangs said wolf supporters have recognized that the predator can cause problems for livestock owners.
In light of that, Defenders of Wildlife has established a private compensation fund that has dispersed more than $250,000 to livestock owners in the northern Rocky Mountain states.
“I think the program is certainly an attempt by people who have strongly supported wolves to recognize that wolves can be a pain in the butt sometimes, especially if you raise livestock, and they recognize that confirmed depredations are a fraction of the number of livestock that are killed by wolves.”
Bangs said the proposal to remove the wolf from Endangered Species Act protections is sure to be met with opposition — and litigation — from all sides.
When wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone and central Idaho, for instance, the agency was taken to court by the American Farm Bureau Federation and livestock groups, as well as Earthjustice and the Audubon Society.
“I expect that when we go to remove wolves from the list of endangered species, there will be a lot of people that either want them protected more or want them protected less, but there will be litigation — we’re counting on that,” he said. “(But) as long as we have good science on our side, and we follow the law, I think we’ll prevail in court just like we have to date.”