Wolf Weekly Wrap-up

Better late than never — The New York Times jumped into the fray yesterday with a rather lackluster editorial condemning the Wyoming wolf plan. They got the main points right: Salazar caved, Wyoming got what it wanted, and wolves are ultimately the ones losing out. However, the Wyoming plan does promise to maintain 100 wolves outside of Yellowstone, not just 100 wolves total statewide. (There are currently about 100 wolves inside the park boundaries.) Either way, more than 100 of the 340 wolves in Wyoming are likely to be in the offing as soon as the state’s wolf-killing plan is finalized, approved and implemented, unless the Obama administration decides to finally take a stand for wolves and the ESA.

Wolf special on PBS — Miles O’Brien with PBS Newshour put together one of the best, most comprehensive, yet most concise segments about the ongoing controversy over wolf management in the Northern Rockies. The piece opens with a Montana rancher looking for his cattle, which he suspects have been run off and torn to bits by wolves. At the end of the show, we learn that the cows are fine and have merely wandered off. Typical of the wolf hysteria that is still pervasive throughout the region, wolves are the first to be blamed for any problem, making it only more difficult to work toward practical solutions to the real issues that do exist. Fortunately, another rancher is interviewed who is using electric fencing and intensive grazing practices to protect his cattle. As a result, he’s only lost one calf in three seasons despite being in a high-risk zone for depredation. Yellowstone biologist Doug Smith also explains how wolves have restored vitality and biodiversity to parts of the park that had been destroyed by deer and elk. See the rest below.

Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.

SIMPSON!!! – It’s clear from reading Congressman Simpson’s letter on the Idaho State Journal’s “Politics” blog that he has been misinformed regarding the point of maintaining Endangered Species Act protections for wolves. We absolutely agree that wolves and all other endangered species should be listed and delisted based on the best available science, not politics. But ESA protections were never intended to automatically terminate once the wolf population reached recovery levels. An essential part of the law’s effectiveness is making sure that plans are in place to secure the survival of the species after federal protections are lifted. Otherwise, all the time, energy and money spent restoring a species would be wasted if populations quickly drop back to unsustainable levels.

Photo courtesy of U.S. National Park Service.

In the case of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, scientific data and plans to ensure a healthy wolf population over the long term were noticeably lacking. While wolf populations today may be relatively healthy, there is absolutely no guarantee they will remain viable under existing state management plans. Instead of protecting the 1500 to 2000 wolves across the six-state region, as Congressman Simpson implies, the delisting regulations allow the states to reduce wolf numbers to only 150 wolves per state – a number that was indefensible when it was first chosen, seemingly at random, and is even more indefensible today.

Wolves deserved assurances that they would not be driven down to unsustainable levels. Unfortunately, politicians kept meddling in what should have been a science-based process. The Endangered Species Act cannot be blamed for the resulting conflict, and the way forward is not to further undermine protections for endangered species by unraveling our nation’s most successful wildlife conservation law. Instead, we should be looking for ways we can work together to improve conservation efforts for the benefit of all Idahoans. We would welcome Mr. Simpson’s help in supporting and funding our practical, efficient programs at a broader scale like the coexistence projects Defenders has been implementing for the last 15 years.

Who gets to decide? — The battle continues between Oregon ranchers, USDA’s Wildlife Services and state wildlife officials over who should be confirming depredations, and how many (see full story on OPB’s Ecotrope blog). Wildlife Services has always been focused on doing what’s best for livestock interests. They have a long history of shooting, trapping and poisoning unwanted wildlife, no matter how it impacts the overall landscape. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, on the other, has professional biologists implementing the state’s wolf conservation plan and making sure that wolves are not killed unnecessarily. Even still, ODFW continues to confirm suspected wolf depredations whenever there is sufficient evidence (see their investigation reports), and they have also removed several “problem wolves” that were involved in repeated depredations. ODFW has conducted investigations in an open and transparent manner, which is much more than we can say about Wildlife Services.

Coexistence catching on – Defenders’ pioneering work in implementing on-the-ground wolf coexistence projects has blossomed to a multi-state effort and even encompasses a whole county now in Idaho. So we applauded a story in the Billings Gazette this week detailingthe work of our colleagues at the Wildlife Conservation Society, who are also helping ranchers in the Big Hole Valley of southwestern Montana. Like ours, their project is utilizing range riders, fladry and electric fencing to minimize livestock losses to wolves. It’s great to have more boots on the ground to promote coexistence and share effective nonlethal deterrents—the kind of tools that ensure a better future for both wolves and livestock. Good luck WCS and keep up the good work!