Wolf plan caught in a crossfire
By Jim Mann
The Daily Inter Lake
Like water and vinegar in a cauldron, wolf foes and proponents added their opinions to a state wolf management plan Wednesday in Kalispell.
The gathering of less than 30 people at Flathead High School was substantially smaller than work sessions held last spring in Kalispell. That event attracted more than 170 people and led to a draft management plan that was the focus of Wednesday night’s meeting.
While Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials were looking for specific comments on five alternative approaches in the draft plan, they heard responses that didn’t fit the mold.
“I’m not going to declare an alternative, because I’m not happy with any of them,” said Jeff Malinak, a rancher who traveled all the way from Sanders County for the meeting.
“The whole program has been based on the federal government’s and the general public’s desires,” he said. “So far, it’s been financed by the general public. I don’t see enough of a focus on paying for (wolf management) in any of these alternatives. I see it becoming a horribly expensive experience in short order because of the reproduction of wolves. If the American public isn’t willing to pay for it entirely, then I think it’s the worst joke I’ve ever seen.”
The issue of paying for wolf management has been a common theme in similar meetings across the state.
Carolyn Sime, the state’s wolf recovery plan coordinator, told Malinak it’s an issue that has the attention of the department, a citizens advisory committee that helped develop the draft plan and the governors offices in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. The three states are joined at the hip in pursuing the delisting of wolves in the northern Rockies, a change that requires state management plans that meet the muster of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Endangered Species Act.
Sime said the governors have recently completed cost estimates for managing wolves that are being forwarded to congressional delegations from the three states.
“We’re very serious about that,” Sime said.
Malinak and others expressed skepticism in the state’s ability to monitor wolf populations, and then to control those populations once they reach a certain size.
Jack Paulson of Bigfork said he’d rather see wolves managed by the state than the federal government, but he’s concerned about potential impacts on Montana ranchers.
Wolf recovery, he said, “is about idealism, not realism. A rancher losing his calf to wolves, that’s real. A woman sitting on a park bench in New York who supports wolves, that’s idealistic.”
The state’s “preferred alternative” calls for more protections when wolf populations are under 15 breeding pair, but far less protections when there are more than 15 packs.
Brian Peck, a wolf advocate from Columbia Falls, contends the state’s benchmark has “nothing to do with sound science, and everything to do with political appeasement of anti-wolf groups.”
“All too often, ‘minimum’ populations, such as 10 breeding pair, become the ‘maximum’ number allowed, once politicians and FWP Commissions start meddling for political reasons,” Peck said in his written comments.
The preferred alternative would ban all trapping and hunting of wolves unless there are at least 15 breeding pairs statewide.
Peck objects to the idea of allowing hunting when the overall population may be 200 animals, a small number compared to other animals that are managed for hunting.
The preferred alternative has provisions for livestock producers to “non-lethally harass wolves when they are close to livestock on public or private lands. Private citizens may also non-lethally harass wolves that come close to homes, domestic pets or people.”
The alternative allows for private citizens to kill a wolf “if it is threatening human life or domestic animals. Livestock producers or their agents could also kill a wolf if it is attacking, killing or threatening livestock.
Peck contends the preferred alternative includes a “blank check, license-to-kill” approach that should have no place in a state management plan.
“What wolf hater won’t claim (successfully) that a wolf 500 yards away was ‘close’ and ‘threatening’ him, his dog, or his cattle?” Peck said.
The draft plan offers other alternatives: leaving wolf management to the federal government; having the state maintain a minimum number of wolves, 10 breeding pairs; or managing for more wolves, or 20 breeding pairs. A final alternative is intended as a contingency if the federal government’s efforts to de-list wolves is delayed by litigation or other reasons. It calls for the state to pursue as much management authority as it can before delisting can occur.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is accepting comments on its draft plan until May 12. Written comments can be sent to Wolf EIS, Montana FWP, 490 N. Meridian Rd., Kalispell, MT, 59901.
———
On the Net:
http://www.fwp.state.mt.us