Defenders opposes Wyoming Game and Fish Commission vote

Defenders of Wildlife along with several conservation organizations are expressing their opposition to the Wyoming Game and Fish commissioners' recent vote splitting the classification of the gray wolf. On Tuesday, September 9, the Commission voted for the dual classification of the gray wolf after it is delisted from protections under the Endangered Species Act. The vote would classify the gray wolf as a trophy game animal within the boundaries of the Bridger-Teton and Shoshone National Forest and as a predator throughout the rest of the state. A trophy game animal designation would subject wolves to protections under state hunting regulations while a predator designation allows the wolf to be killed under any circumstance if federal protection is removed.

Bangs Opposes Wolf Predator Status
U.S. official opposes wolf predator status
By MIKE STARK, Gazette Wyoming Bureau

Allowing the gray wolf to remain classified as a predator in Wyoming probably would limit the state's flexibility in managing wolves and could be a stumbling block for removing them from federal protection, a federal wolf coordinator said Friday.

Earlier this week, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission said it would seek "dual classification" for wolves in the state. Wolves in certain forest wilderness areas would be designated as trophy game, subject to hunting rules, while wolves in the rest of the state would be classed as predators and could be killed any time.

"Right now, wolves are considered a predator in Wyoming, which means the Game and Fish has no authority to regulate persecution. That's exactly why wolves disappeared in the first place," said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Allowing wolves to be considered predators also could make it more difficult for state managers to increase or decrease the number of wolves that can be hunted, which is a key element in managing the species, Bangs said.

"I think they'd be taking away their own flexibility to either increase wolf harvest or decrease harvest," he said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to recommend early next year that gray wolves in the region be removed from the Endangered Species List.If that happens the wolves, which were reintroduced to the northern Rocky Mountains in 1995 and 1996, would be managed by state agencies in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.

Before wolves are removed from the list, each state needs to have a management plan in place that shows wolf populations won't decline to endangered levels. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is in the midst of drawing up its draft plan, which is expected to be voted on by the commission in February.

On Tuesday, against the advice from department directors, the commission proposed that wolves be classified in two ways: Those living within the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton national forest wilderness areas would be considered trophy game, while wolves elsewhere considered predators. Under state law, predator animals such as coyote, jackrabbit or skunk can be killed anytime and anywhere. Trophy animals are subject to state hunting regulations.

Bangs said there may be other ways to achieve population control without giving wolves predator status.Hunting seasons can be tailored to specific areas that wolves occupy and can be flexible enough to manage day to day if necessary, he said. By keeping that control within the Game and Fish Commission, wildlife managers can make sure that wolves survive where they're wanted and kept out of places they're not.

The federal government's delisting proposal, including plans from the three states, will be reviewed by scientists and wildlife managers to make sure wolf populations will be sustained under state management.

"Our only concern and legal mandate with wolf populations is that we be reasonably assured they will be preserved above a level that will cause them to be relisted," Bangs said.

Editorial:States should adopt logical wolf plans
Journal Net
Idaho State Journal's Online Publication 09/15/02

Need more proof that many western politicians are prone to shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to environmental management?

Look no further than our neighbors to the east. Wyoming's Game and Fish Commission, no doubt with support from the state's legislature and its governor, voted recently to seek legal designation that would allow unrestricted killing of gray wolves throughout the state, save for designated wilderness areas and national parks.

On the surface, given the controversy caused by the 1995 reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park, this might seem like a plausible idea - protect the wolves in wilderness areas and blow them to kingdom come elsewhere. What most strikes us, though, is the Wyoming's commission's short-sightedness.

First, the commission's wish won't come true until the wolf is reclassified under the Endangered Species Act - much to the chagrin of Wyoming's game management gurus, the gray wolf is protected under federal law. And, so long as these purported fish and game advocates continue to target wolves as the new Western scourge by approving symbolic decrees of destruction, that's not likely to change.

In other words, by continuing to hound the wolves with spineless legislation and powerless "here's how to handle those dirty critters" designations, the very people who are trying to rid places like Wyoming, Montana and Idaho of wolves are doing quite a job of protecting them. What sensible wildlife biologist would recommend to a federal agency that wolves be delisted so the Old Guard commission in Wyoming can open a year-round season on them?

Seems pretty obvious to us: A sure way to ensure a species' complete and total recovery is to continue posing the threat that eliminated it from the landscape decades ago. The longer groups like the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission continue dry shooting their rifles at wolves and other predators (grizzly bears come immediately to mind), the longer they'll ensure the species' federal protection.

Instead of counting their chest hairs and gauging their machismo, lawmakers and commissions throughout the West ought to put some real effort into management plans for wolves and bears that don't guarantee the destruction of a species once they come off the Endangered Species List (the existing grizzly bear management plans recently put in place by Idaho, Montana and Wyoming fall well short of that goal).

Sensible plans that allow for a species' continued recovery - even if they involve limited hunting (imagine the money that could be raised by allowing limited trophy hunts for the West's mighty predators) - make more sense than the shoot-on-sight philosophy adopted by the WGFC. Plans that allow a once-endangered animal to recover and perhaps prosper in areas where it's appropriate make a lot more sense and will likely garner more support from the federal agencies charged with protecting America's dwindling resources.