Star-Tribune Editorial Board

State and federal officials appear to be making progress on resolving Wyoming's controversial wolf management plan, but not all of the players have been allowed to be at the table.

That's one way to silence public criticism of the latest proposal. And there's more: One state lawmaker actually asked the feds to please have their own wolf expert keep his mouth shut.

Both actions are disturbing, and could ultimately derail any compromise the parties reach. It doesn't have to be that way, if officials would allow the public an opportunity to join the consensus-building effort.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seems to be in a conciliatory mood these days after it rejected Wyoming's plan to allow wolves to be shot on sight as predators outside of Yellowstone National Park and surrounding protection areas. The state countered by suing the federal agency, which had approved the wolf management plans developed by Montana and Idaho so the animals could be delisted from Endangered Species Act protection.

While former Interior Secretary Gale Norton was in charge, the federal government wouldn't budge in its objection to the predator provision. But last Monday, federal officials met with a delegation of state leaders and Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., in Cheyenne to work on a compromise.

Legislation reflecting the new proposal is already being drafted by state Rep. Pat Childers, R-Cody, chairman of the House Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee.

In exchange for expanding the protection area outside Yellowstone, where the animals would be managed as trophy game animals, wolves could be shot on sight elsewhere in the state.

That's a pretty amazing about-face for the feds. However, it may go for naught if the state is unwilling to let the public in on the deal and have some input.

Monday's meeting was planned well in advance but was not announced to the public. Legally, it didn't have to be, but it would have been a smart political move to do so. Wolf advocates could tie up the plan in court for years if they are not satisfied it offers the animals adequate protection. Why not bring them on board from the beginning and avoid a potentially long and costly battle? Why spring a plan on the public that doesn't give people adequate time to study its ramifications?

One reason could be anticipation of the public outcry if the Legislature caps the number of wolf packs outside the park at seven, the minimum number allowed by law. Because there are now 23 packs in the area, 16 packs could immediately be targeted for elimination through hunting, trapping, harvest by Game and Fish and lethal take permits for landowners.

Game and Fish Director Terry Cleveland said his agency may initially need to use aircraft snipers to reduce wolf numbers. That action is bound to result in protests and bad publicity. However, that situation could be avoided if a reasonable compromise can be reached.

Another mistake by the state occurred when Childers asked top Fish and Wildlife officials to keep their wolf recovery coordinator, Ed Bangs, from speaking publicly about wolves.

Bangs is the expert who has been spearheading wolf reintroduction in the West since it occurred a decade ago. He has a reputation for openness that often irritates his detractors. Still, he shares Wyoming's desire to see wolves removed from the endangered species list.

Childers indicated more public statements by Bangs could hinder efforts to resolve the conflict, or could inflame controversy and result in disruptive litigation.

"Some duct tape on Mr. Bangs' mouth would probably help," Childers said.

Mitch King, Fish and Wildlife's regional director, indicated he would do his best to silence Bangs. If so, he'll be muzzling one of the few players in the wolf saga who has shown the willingness and spine over the years to conduct an open discussion on this highly controversial issue with the public.

He should be praised, not punished.