More problems from Wyoming...

The plan is written, although in draft form and is actually more wolf-friendly that expected, BUT the problem remains that the state law that was recently passed negates much of the pieces of the plan an is much more anti-wolf than the plan. So, Wyoming has another problem on its hands, coming to an agreement from the two sides making plans and laws. The plan could certainly be held up because it does not agree with state law (can you say lawsuits? if it is introduced as is) and the state legislators are not scheduled to meet in order to change state laws until next year. The Wyoming Game and Fish want to finalize the state plan by the end of July, this could very well be halted because their plan conflicts with the state law. -Renee

Feds find conflict between wolf plan, Wyoming law
In letter to Game and Fish director, biologist questions legality of proposed plan.
By Rebecca Huntington Jackson Hole News & Guide

A federal biologist has questioned whether Wyoming's latest draft plan to manage wolves would be legal under state law.

The plan would meet federal Endangered Species Act requirements for wolf numbers, although just barely, said Ed Bangs, federal gray wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. His agency must approve the plan before removing wolves from federal protection.

But the plan may not be supported by Wyoming law, and therein lies the rub, Bangs said.

"Currently, Wyoming state law may not provide Wyoming Game and Fish the authority to implement this plan," Bangs wrote in a July 2 letter to Game and Fish Director Brent Manning.

Moreover, groups looking to derail state management of wolves could file suit, challenging Wyoming's authority to implement the plan if it does not strictly follow the law, he said.

"That gap has to be closed somehow," Bangs said in a telephone interview Monday. "Clearly the best way is probably change state law, but maybe there are other ways."

State officials had hoped to adopt a final wolf management plan July 28 when Game and Fish commissioners meet in Sheridan. But Bangs' letter points to fundamental legal flaws that may require action from state lawmakers, who are not scheduled to reconvene until next year.

Fish and Wildlife has declared wolf recovery a success in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming where about 660 wolves now roam. But before the service can remove wolves from federal protection and turn over management to states, the service must be "assured" states will not allow the species to become endangered in the future, Bangs said.

That assurance comes in the form of state wolf management plans, which must be completed before the service will even propose delisting, Bangs said. Idaho's plan is finished. Montana officials expect to complete a plan by September.

Wyoming officials are still working on their plan, which was given to Bangs, agricultural officials and conservationists to review. The plan was not released to the public for comment.

Both Bangs and agricultural officials point out deviations between the law and the plan.

Those gaps include: how many wolf packs are guaranteed outside national parks; when Game and Fish can expand protection for wolves; whether expanded protection for wolves can later be withdrawn, and whether wolves should be classified as predators in the Gros Ventre Wilderness.

In order to meet Endangered Species Act requirements and maintain a viable wolf population, Wyoming must commit "to maintaining a minimum of at least seven packs" outside parks, Bangs wrote.

The plan clearly guarantees a minimum of seven packs outside parks, he said. But the law is ambiguous and makes no such guarantee.

One section of the law calls for a minimum of 15 packs statewide "or" seven packs outside parks, for example. That could be interpreted to mean that 15 packs inside Yellowstone and Grand Teton ­ and none outside ­ would meet the law.

Moreover, the law triggers increased protection for wolves only after pack numbers drop below seven, which does not meet Bangs' criteria of a seven-pack minimum.

The plan, meanwhile, is more wolf-friendly, giving Game and Fish authority to trigger increased protection sooner if the number of packs "may fall" below seven. But Bangs questions whether the plan can delegate such authority if the law does not.

As of December, Wyoming had 22 documented wolf packs. Of those packs, 14 resided primarily inside Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks and eight ranged primarily outside the parks.

Under the law, approved this year by the Legislature, wolves would receive full protection from humans in the national parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway.

In wilderness areas adjacent to Grand Teton and Yellowstone ­ North Absaroka, Washakie, Teton, Gros Ventre, Jedediah Smith and Winegar Hole wilderness areas ­ wolves could be killed according to state trophy hunting regulations. Those have yet to be set.

Outside parks and contiguous wilderness areas, the law classifies wolves as predators. Predator status allows unregulated killing so wolves may be killed by any means at any time.

Game and Fish maps show six of the eight packs outside parks live primarily in areas where wolves would be classified as predators and subject to unregulated killing.

The law gives the Game and Fish Commission authority to reclassify wolves in predator areas as trophy game animals, which allows the state to regulate killing if pack numbers fall below seven.

The plan takes that authority a step further, drawing lines around three proposed areas where wolves would be reclassified as trophy game to protect the population. Those areas encompass much of the Bridger-Teton and Shoshone national forests, stretching east to Cody and Meeteetse and south to the Wind River Range.

Contrary to the law, the plan states that once trophy status was expanded it would remain permanent.

The plan states that once expanded protection is triggered that proves expanded protection is necessary to maintain a viable wolf population, as required by federal law.

But that interpretation conflicts with state law, which requires Game and Fish commissioners to regularly monitor wolf numbers and withdraw trophy game protection once the population rebounds to seven packs. Moreover, agricultural officials maintain that the law does not give Game and Fish authority to even draw expanded trophy game zones until after pack numbers fall below seven.

But Bangs responded that the service needs to know, before wolves are delisted, how the state intends to deal with a population decline. Federal officials cannot rely on a vague promise of future action by Game and Fish commissioners, he said.

Agricultural officials, meanwhile, also dispute the inclusion of the Gros Ventre Wilderness as a trophy game area in the state plan. The law states that wolves will be classified as trophy game only in wilderness areas contiguous to national parks.

The Gros Ventre, however, is separated from Grand Teton by a sliver of National Elk Refuge land and therefore, is not contiguous, according to agricultural officials, who submitted comments to Game and Fish. Ranchers, who graze cattle and sheep in the wilderness area, want wolves classified as predators there.

But Bangs' letter cautioned against watering down protection for wolves. Any changes to the state draft plan must offer wolves more security ­ not less, he wrote. Otherwise, Wyoming could fall short of Endangered Species Act requirements and delay delisting, he warned.

Wolves may need more protection than Wyoming anticipates, Bangs said, noting that the number-two cause of death among wolves is "illegal killing."

"Wolves are extremely susceptible to being killed by people in the open and often fragmented habitats in the western United States," he wrote. "It will be much more difficult to keep wolves around than remove them."

Bangs also warned Wyoming against sticking with "predator" status at all.

"While we understand that some people in Wyoming feel very strongly that this was necessary, we believe it was a very serious mistake that will continue to haunt our efforts to successfully delist wolves," he wrote.

Classifying wolves as predators, which subjects them to unlimited killing, "will make the whole delisting process much more contentious, emotional, expensive, and filled with hurtful rhetoric than necessary," he wrote. "The 'predator' issue alone could derail and will certainly prolong efforts to successfully delist wolves in the northwestern U.S., including Wyoming."

Predator status prompted conservation groups to ask Game and Fish to scrap the wolf management plan until state law can be rewritten to give wolves across Wyoming trophy game status.

For Bangs, the debate boils down to accepting that wolves are here to stay. "You don't have to like wolves," he said. "You've just got to keep a few around."

http://www.jacksonholenews.com/