Conservationists Sue to Protect Gray Wolves

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, October 2, 2003 (ENS) - A coalition of 17 conservation and animal rights groups filed suit Wednesday in Oregon federal district court to block the Bush administration's plans to relax protections for the gray wolf. The plaintiffs say the administration's plan violates the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and puts at risk one of the nation's greatest conservation success stories.

"It saddens us to have to take this step, especially when we have made such a tremendous start toward real, sustainable wolf recovery," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The Bush administration is "backing away from wolf protection before the job is finished and is jeopardizing all the progress [the] agency has made so far," Schlickeisen said.

A spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service told ENS the agency has not seen the lawsuit and has a policy of not commenting on pending litigation.

The gray wolf is second only to humans in their adaption to climate extremes throughout the world. (Photo by Tracy Blood courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Prior to the announcement, all gray wolves in the lower 48, except for those in Minnesota, had been listed as "endangered" under the ESA. The Minnesota population continues to be listed as threatened.

Critics say the decision is premature and would ultimately turn over management of the species to state governments, some of which have declared their intent to initiative aggressive wolf killing programs in order to protect livestock.

"Wolves have not recovered sufficiently to warrant removing them from the endangered species list," said Camilla Fox, national campaign director for the Animal Protection Institute, another plaintiff in the Oregon suit. "Instead of rolling back protections, the Bush administration should be working with states to ensure wolves are restored to their historic range."

The gray wolf once roamed from coast to coast and from Canada to Mexico, but only a few hundred remained when the ESA became law in 1973. The gray wolf was one of the first species listed as endangered under the law. Conservation efforts have helped restore the species to some 4,000, spread across less than five percent of its historic range.

The vast expanse of the species' historic range is at the center of the debate - Bush administration officials say it is not consistent with the ESA nor realistic to expect gray wolves to return to all of their historic range.

Under the ESA, a species can only be downlisted or removed from the list if "it is neither endangered or threatened because the species has either become extinct or recovered."

The Fish and Wildlife's rule was based on the establishment of three Distinct Population Segments (DPS) for gray wolves - a move conservationists have sharply criticized.

The Eastern DPS includes all Midwestern and Northeastern states, the Western DPS includes Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, northern Colorado, and northern Utah, and the Southwestern DPS includes all of Arizona and New Mexico, southern Colorado and southern Utah, portions of western Texas and western Oklahoma, and Mexico.

When he announced the change in March, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams explained that successful recovery efforts in the northern Rocky Mountains allow for the change in status for the Western DPS, and that recovery efforts within the Great Lakes justified the change for the Eastern DPS.

"Wolves are coming back," Williams said. "Our action gives us greater management flexibility for most gray wolf populations as we work toward the next step - removing gray wolf populations from the list of endangered and threatened species."

Conservationists contend that the success of these recovery efforts in no way warrants such a broad change in protection for the species across such wide expanses of the country.

Recovery efforts have helped make the gray wolf a symbol for successful partnerships between the government and conservationists. (Photo by George Gentry courtesy Fish and Wildlife Service)

Of the nine states in the Western DPS with suitable habitat, only Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have seen recovery efforts and of the estimated 4,000 gray wolves in the lower 48, some 3,500 are believed to live in the Great Lakes.

Fascione says conservationists support ultimately delisting the species, but believe there are vast expanses where wolves can and should be reintroduced before victory is declared.

The administration's policies "shut the door on further recovery," she said, by granting states greater control over managing gray wolf populations.

"States have shown no interest in doing [recovery efforts] on their own," Fascione said. "Without federal oversight this is not going to happen."

Several Western state governments are keen to enact strict measures to limit wolf populations - Idaho's legislature, for example, recently passed a resolution calling for elimination of wolves from the state "by any means necessary."

Supporters of legislation to increase the ability of ranchers and others to harass and kill wolves contend that the animals pose significant risk to livestock and are adversely affecting elk populations, which in turn is annoying elk hunters.

The livestock issue is a legitimate one, conservationists say, but harsh measures to simply kill wolves are not the answer. Defenders of Wildlife has tried to address this through the creation of two programs that directly help ranchers deal with the threat from gray wolves. One compensates ranchers for livestock killed by wolves and the other provides funds to help with measures to further protect herds and flocks from the predators.

And the numbers of livestock lost to wolves do not appear to merit the fears raised by some advocates of looser protection for the species.

Fascione's organization reports that Montana ranchers have lost an average of just six cattle and five sheep per year since 1987 and Central Idaho ranchers have lost an average of eight cattle and 23 sheep per year since 1995.

But there is clearly momentum in several states for more liberal wolf killing policies - Idaho and Wyoming are considering legislation similar to that in Montana, Minnesota has a proposal for a bounty and shoot on sight plan and Wisconsin is considering aerial gunning of the species.

Gray wolves were hunted and killed with more passion and zeal than any other animal in U.S history. (Photo by John and Karen Hollingsworth courtesy Fish and Wildlife Service)

"Poll after poll show that the majority of people want wolves back," she told ENS.

There are ecological and economic benefits to having healthy wolf populations, Fascione added.

The reintroduction of wolves has been shown to increase biological diversity and natural wildlife migration, and economic studies estimate that the Yellowstone area takes in some $20 million a year from tourism directly related to the success of wolf reintroduction efforts, Fascione explained.

The gray wolf is considered by many as a symbol of conservation efforts and organizations are mounting a strong effort to derail the Bush plan. Last week the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and other conservation groups announced their intent to sue over the rule's impact on wolf recovery efforts in the Northeast.

NWF notes that in a proposed rule issued in 2000 during the Clinton administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service called for recovering Northeast wolves, explaining that "a population of gray wolves in [the Northeast] is significant and will contribute to the overall restoration of the species."

Scientific peer reviewers uniformly supported this proposal, according to NWF, but in the final rule the Bush administration abandoned Northeast wolf recovery without addressing these earlier statements.

"Wolf recovery in this region does not stand a chance without a reversal of this portion of the administration's rule," said Peggy Struhsacker, program coordinator for wolf recovery in NWF's Montpelier, Vermont office.