Introduction
After being hunted nearly to extinction, the Northern Rocky
Mountain gray wolf was listed as endangered under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, and the Mexican gray
wolf was added in 1976. From that time until the present,
millions of dollars and much time have been spent on recovery
efforts for the wolf. Yellowstone wolf reintroduction began
in 1995 and has been largely successful, as have recovery
efforts in Idaho, Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
There have also been successful recovery efforts undertaken
for the Mexican gray wolf in New Mexico and Arizona.
This may sound like an ESA success story, but today the
wolf is again under heavy attack. Anti-wolf organizations,
such as the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition, and anti-wolf advocates
within state and federal agencies advocate for and have
worked to pass strong anti-wolf legislation.
In addition, in mid-July 2004, Interior Secretary Gale
Norton announced that the gray wolf had made such a good
recovery in the eastern U.S. that the animal would soon
lack federal protections across that half of the country.
Wolf advocates were astounded by her statement, considering
that wolves have only rebounded in three of the 21 eastern
states. Once federal delisting occurs, the only protection
and conservation efforts for wolves will be through state
action. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also actively
pursuing down-listing in the western U.S., and will push
to delist the wolf in this part of the country once down-listing
is complete.
Unfortunately, many states lack effective protections that
would ensure the long-term survival of the wolf. For example,
Wyoming’s wolf management plan was rejected in 2004 because
it classified wolves as predators, which allows hunters
to kill them in part of their range. In Idaho, anti-wolf
factions are strong among those with hunting interests.
The Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition has raised hundreds of thousands
of dollars over the past few years and now plans to sue
the federal government, calling for the removal of all wolves
from the state of Idaho.
In 2003, anti-wolf legislation passed in Wyoming that allows
more hunting of wolves and limits their presence in the
state to 15 packs. Also, in the same year, Washington considered
a bill that would ban the reintroduction of wolves in that
state.
Arkansas still has a bounty for wolves, as does Colorado
(despite the fact that the gray wolf is also listed as an
endangered species under state law). Nebraska has a law
authorizing the use of explosive traps and poison gas for
wolf control. Several states, such as Oklahoma, categorize
the wolf as a predator, making it ineligible for protection.
South Dakota recently repealed a prohibition on the hunting
of wolves.
Despite this apparent widespread anti-wolf sentiment, the
majority of Americans support wolf conservation efforts
and efforts to save endangered species in general.(1)
And, most biologists and other officials agree that a self-sustaining
wolf population contributes to the biodiversity and ecosystem
health of their native states and regions. “The north
woods of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are healthier
ecosystems because of the presence of wolves,” said
Steve Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
in 2004.(2)
To ensure that all our efforts over the past 50 years to
restore a self-sustaining wolf population in the U.S. are
not in vain, we must work to strengthen state protections.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in addition to non-governmental
organizations, such as Defenders of Wildlife, have been
working hard to achieve balance between the needs and desires
of humans, their agricultural and hunting interests, and
wolf populations. Let’s work to maintain this valuable interrelationship
by ensuring that our state laws leave protections for wolves
in tact, and by repealing those laws that seek to harm wolves
and the ecosystems of which they are a part.
Past Harmful Legislation
Montana
Signed into law 4/29/03, HB
283 directs the Attorney General to analyze the state’s
options related to delisting and, in cooperation with the
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, prepare a proactive
legal opinion for possible litigation scenarios regarding
recovery of damages and costs incurred by the state that are
associated with wolf reintroduction. This bill replaces Montana’s
wolf management plan, which was drafted by a committee of
wide-ranging interests and reviewed by the public. Previous
versions of the bill would have classified the gray wolf as
a predator across part of its historic range, allowing them
to be hunted.
See MCA 2-15-501(9).
HB
262, enacted 4/3/03, states that, in managing large
predators, the primary goals of the Department of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks must be to: (a) preserve citizens’
opportunities to hunt large game species; (b) protect humans,
livestock, and pets; and (c) preserve and enhance the safety
of the public during outdoor recreational and livelihood
activities. This bill does not promote the conservation
of predators or support a balance between conservation and
control and, in fact, is expected to promote predator removal
in Montana whenever predators are perceived as a threat
to hunting success.
See MCA 87-1-217.
HJR
32, filed 4/15/03, requests that the governor, the Montana
Congressional Delegation, and the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior seek the immediate removal of the gray wolf from
federal Endangered Species Act protection. The bill also
demands funding for wolf management from federal sources;
changes the definition of a “breeding pair”
to include only one breeding male and one breeding female
of any wolf pack and their single litter of pups under 6
months of age; demands complete abandonment of federal enforcement
authority over wolves; and, urges the state Attorney General
to join the state in any legal action brought to block the
wolf delisting process.
Utah
HJR
12, approved by the House and Senate in February 2003,
urges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expedite the
process for transferring authority to manage wolves to the
states. The resolution also urges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to reject requests to establish additional recovery
areas that would include the state of Utah; urges the Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources to draft a wolf management
plan that, to the extent possible, is consistent with the
wildlife management objectives of the Ute Indian Tribe,
prevents livestock depredation, and protects the investments
made in wildlife management efforts; and, urges the Division
of Wildlife Resources to prepare a grant proposal recommending
that the Department of Natural Resources Endangered Species
Mitigation Fund fully compensate private landowners for
losses, not covered by other mitigation sources, resulting
from depredation to livestock by wolves.
HB
157, enacted 3/15/03, modifies the Wildlife Resources
Code to allow wolves to be transplanted if certain conditions
are met. The act applies standard game relocation procedures,
within Utah, to wolves.
See UCA 23-14-21.
Wyoming
HB
229, enacted 3/4/03, classifies wolves as trophy status
animals in the northwestern part of the state, specifically
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the John D.
Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, and contiguous Wilderness
Areas in the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton National Forests.
In the remaining part of the state, wolves are classified
as predators, allowing them to be shot at any time, without
any recourse. The statute sets a limit of 15 packs to be
allowed in the entire state.
See W.S. 23-1-108 and 23-1-304.
HB
300, enacted 3/6/03, allows the state to investigate
whether it is entitled to damages as a result of wolf reintroduction.
The bill does not consider that wildlife in national forests
and national parks belongs to all Americans or take into
account all the ecological benefits of wolves, like culling
diseased and weak ungulates from herds or protecting riparian
areas from over-grazing by unnaturally dense use of this
sensitive ecosystem.
See W.S. 9-4-218(a)(intro), (iii) and (iv).
SF
97, enacted 3/4/03, claims the state’s exclusive
jurisdiction over wildlife even in national forests and
national parks; prohibits reintroduction, restoration, or
management of any species considered to be in conflict with
the state’s activities, demands compensation from
the federal government for endangered species restoration
that causes perceived “damages,” demands the
removal of endangered species; and, prohibits federal biologists
from managing endangered species.
See W.C. 23-1-302.
Introduced Legislation
Washington
SB 5740, introduced 2/10/03, would prohibit the introduction
of the gray wolf anywhere within the state of Washington.
Status: Died in Committee, last action 3/26/03.
Press Clips
|
