Farther north, folks sometimes spot wolves along the Coeur d’Alene and Moyie rivers, said Jim Hayden, regional wildlife biologist for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. “We suspect that we could have a wolf sighting anywhere in the Panhandle,” he said.
And it’s not just Idaho. After being extirpated everywhere in the West in the 1920s, wolves are expanding their range rapidly in the northern Rocky Mountain states. The Wildlife Service hopes to change their status from “endangered” to “threatened” within the next few weeks. The agency hopes to remove wolves from the Endangered Species List — a process called “de-listing” — in 2004.
The latest estimate for Idaho, Montana and Wyoming is 668 wolves, said Tom Meier, federal wolf biologist in Kalispell, Mont. Some of those wolves have strayed at times into Washington, Oregon and Utah, and biologists expect it’s only a matter of time before those states have resident packs.
“Wolves are clearly no longer in danger,” said Ed Bangs, federal wolf recovery leader.
The species’ success has opponents growing ever more vocal. Lawmakers in Washington, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho are considering various bills seeking to limit the spread of wolves in various ways.
Washington’s bill would forbid anyone from releasing wolves from other states or Canada.
“If we’ve got wolves in the state of Washington, then we’ll provide habitat and take care of them,” said Sen. Bob Morton, R-Orient, who introduced the bill last week. “But we don’t want any new introductions.”
Federal biologists once contemplated releasing wolves into the North Cascades or Olympic Peninsula. That’s no longer under consideration, Meier said.
A bill that recently had a hearing in Montana would allow state residents to shoot wolves on sight if the federal government doesn’t de-list them by Jan. 1, 2004.
Members of the Wyoming House of Representatives last week passed two wolf bills. One declares wolves fair game outside Yellowstone National Park and surrounding wilderness areas. The other orders the state attorney general to “prepare a plan of litigation” against the federal government for bringing back wolves.
Idaho lawmakers in 2001 passed a memorial calling for “the immediate removal of all wolves from the state.” Several sources said two lawmakers are preparing a new proposal similar to Montana’s shoot-on-sight bill.
An Idaho citizens’ committee is writing an anti-wolf ordinance it hopes every county will adopt.
“We could live with 50 wolves in Idaho if the fifty-first one were shot or removed,” said Ron Gillett, a Stanley outfitter and anti-wolf crusader.
“They’re just decimating our elk by the thousands,” added John Nelson of St. Maries.
The various proposals likely could not stand up to court challenges, since the Endangered Species Act “trumps state law,” said Chris Smith, chief of staff at the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
What’s more, proposals to harm wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho could sidetrack the federal effort to de-list the critters. The federal government won’t relinquish control until the three states have management plans assuring the species’ survival.
So far, only Idaho has such a plan, adopted last March by a reluctant Legislature. Its executive summary makes clear that opposition to wolves “continues to be the official position of the state of Idaho.”
But, the summary says, “in order to use every available option to mitigate the severe impacts … the state will seek de-listing and manage wolves at recovery levels that will ensure viable, self-sustaining populations.”
The plan calls for treating wolves like cougars and bears, calling for eventual hunting seasons. Wolves would get greater protection “in the unlikely event the number of packs in Idaho falls below 10,” the document states.
The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks expects to release its management plan in June. Smith said the preferred alternative — written by an advisory group that included ranchers, environmentalists, biologists and others — is similar to Idaho’s.
The holdup is Wyoming.
Federal officials have warned Wyoming that they won’t approve a plan that limits wolves to the northwestern corner of the state.
Although no wolves have been documented in Washington in recent years, it’s possible a handful are breeding in remote areas, said Harriet Allen, state manager for endangered species. Regardless of federal status, any wild wolves in Washington are protected under the state’s own threatened and endangered species laws, she said.
With the population expected to grow, the state probably will write a management plan, outlining how conflicts between wolves and people will be resolved, she said. Because Washington is not considered a wolf recovery area, that plan is not required by the federal government.
Wolf opponents don’t believe the federal government will ever let states manage the predators. They point to Minnesota, where the federal recovery goal was 1,251 timber wolves.
Biologists confirmed that Minnesota had reached its goal in 1989. Current estimates put the population at 3,000, yet the wolves remain listed as “threatened.”
“It’s been tied up for years and years,” Nelson said.
However, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources reports on its web page that the state didn’t have a management plan until February 2001. Federal officials have not yet completed a review of that document.
Meanwhile, Western biologists point to Minnesota to assure worried hunters like Nelson that wolves won’t decimate game herds.
“They’ve had to liberalize deer hunting to the point where a resident can shoot up to five deer,” Meier said. “The wolves aren’t killing enough, the people aren’t killing enough, and they’ve got too many deer.”
Source
