For Some, It's Never Enough
Renee Van Camp

The life of a wolf in the Northern Rockies is not getting any easier. 2004 is proving to be just as deadly as past years with 29 wolves slaughtered by government agents so far this year, including the Sentinel and Ennis Lake packs being wiped out of the Madison Valley and the Fox Creek pack being removed in SW Montana near the town of Polaris. With this degree of lethal management, you would hope that wolf opponents would feel some sort of sickening satisfaction, they are getting what they have asked for, dead wolves. Apparently this is not the case. They want MORE dead wolves. This year is gearing up to likely be the deadliest since reintroduction for the threatened wolf. In March the Department of Interior caved in to political pressure and ordered the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to draft a proposal that would lift nearly all protections awarded to wolves in Idaho and Southwest Montana. The USFWS quickly obliged and came up with a plan that would allow private citizens to kill a wolf at any time on their land. The only stipulation, and the only sense of responsibility that USFWS is hanging onto is that the kill must be reported within 24 hours and there must be some type of proof that the wolf was a "threat" to livestock or domestic animals. This leaves the door wide open for perceptions, personal judgments, stereotypes, outrageously unfounded hype and unjustified claims that wolves are breeding like rabbits and threatening everything in sight. Remember, what we do not know, we fear, and what we fear, we destroy.

Confirmed wolf packs of Central Idaho and the Montana portion of the Greater Yellowstone Recovery Area. With the passage of the new 10J amendment, experimental/non-essential wolves in Idaho and Montana will be subject to increased lethal measures, this time at the hands of private citizens.

With passage of this proposal, wolves in the recovery areas of Idaho and SW Montana will be subject to every lethal management tool listed in their state plans, except open hunting. In essence, the states of Idaho and Montana are being awarded with opportunities that were not to be handed down until wolves were delisted and their management given to the individual states. The recovery plan has been skewed to benefit those states that came up with acceptable plans in order to take some management responsibilities off of the hands of USFWS agents and award it to private citizens, before delisting is even officially proposed. USFWS is denying Wyoming these same rewards until they come up with an acceptable plan.

Stipulations were that in order for wolves to be delisted, all three states (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) had to present acceptable wolf management plans to USFWS proving their intentions to continue the recovery of wolves in their own state. Wyoming threw a kink in this plan when they opted to list wolves as predators in nearly 90% of the state. USFWS simply could not justify this, so they declined Wyoming's plan and essentially put delisting on hold. Wyoming is currently pursuing legal actions against USFWS for the rejection of their plan. This good news didn't hold too long and the collective sigh of relief was quickly stifled by the news of rewards being given to Idaho and Montana prematurely. There would be more dead wolves, this time at the hands of private citizens, not the federal agents.

This new proposal is being classified as a 10j amendment to the recovery plan, essentially handing over increased management opportunities while still waiting on final delisting. It is simply just another change to the recovery plan that will certainly have a negative impact on the very species the plan is supposed to protect. Originally the recovery plan required there to be 10 breeding pairs in EACH state for three years before recovery would be deemed successful and delisting could begin. NW Montana consistently came in below the 10 breeding pair requirement so the plan was changed to get around this by simply requiring 30 breeding pairs throughout Idaho, Montana and Wyoming for three consecutive years. If these numbers and if the plan had been adhered to, the delisting process would still be years away. In addition, conservation biology has proven that breeding pair populations below 500 within a region is critically low and will certainly negatively impact the future survival of a genetically viable population.

Until now, federal agents traditionally conducted lethal management for wolves listed as experimental/non-essential within the Central Idaho and Greater Yellowstone Recovery areas. This proposal will change that dramatically. Under the USFWS proposal:

• Private citizens can kill wolves that are harassing/threatening livestock, domestic dogs, herding and guard animals on private land WITHOUT A PERMIT. Current law requires that wolves be actually attacking or killing.
• Private citizens can kill wolves found attacking livestock (including herding or guard animals) and domestic dogs on any public land by requesting a permit.
• Ranchers can request a permit that will allow lethal control for ANY wolf on their property for an entire year
• State officials can kill wolves that are causing too great of an impact on big game populations. Current law allows for relocation, not lethal measures.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, giving ranchers, producers and private citizens the ability to kill wolves on their land is just not good enough. The sentiment at several public meetings has been "how the hell are we supposed to control 'em" as quoted by a Livingston, MT rancher. Federal officials have been bashed with claims of pitting the states of Idaho and Montana against Wyoming and failing to do the dirty work of killing wolves. Until this proposal was introduced, ranchers and livestock producers could not wait to be able to blast away at wolves. This proposal comes mighty close to granting all of their wishes. Does it tell you something that they are now howling mad because they have to take on this responsibility? Obviously, many have enjoyed the ride on the USFWS' coattails a bit more than they led on and simply don't want the free ride to come to an end.

To view the proposed rule, go to: http://pacific.fws.gov/news/2004/Final_FR_wolf.pdf