JARED MILLER Star-Tribune capital bureau | Posted: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 am
CHEYENNE - For a brief moment, it appeared that Wyoming and the federal government might finally reach accord on the state's disputed wolf management plan.
The possibility slipped away last week when negotiations broke down over the state's inability to control wolves that prey on elk. Now, state and federal officials say they will resume separate paths toward a resolution.
For Wyoming, that means a continuation of its lawsuit challenging federal rejection last summer of its management plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced its intention to move ahead with delisting of wolves in the Northern Rockies without Wyoming.
Meanwhile, wolf numbers continue to grow. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates a total of 310 wolves in Wyoming in 35 packs, including 22 packs outside Yellowstone National Park.
"They're still increasing, and we anticipate that numbers and distribution will continue to increase," Wyoming Game and Fish Department Deputy Director John Emmerich said.
In what appeared to be a breakthrough meeting in December, the Fish and Wildlife Service offered a compromise deal to Wyoming. The federal agency agreed to let Wyoming classify wolves as predators in much of the state - a major reversal of the federal position - in exchange for an expanded trophy-game management zone in northwest Wyoming. Predators under state law can be eliminated on sight.
Days later, Gov. Dave Freudenthal asked lawmakers in his State of the State speech to be ready to amend state law to accommodate a possible agreement. The Legislature responded with "placeholder" bills in the House and Senate.
But state officials later raised concern about private land inside the expanded trophy-game zone, and raised a fuss over the state's inability to protect elk during the potentially lengthy period of litigation before delisting becomes final.
They asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to amend federal rules to allow killing of wolves that harm the elk population before delisting. When federal officials last week rejected the request, the state ended negotiations.
In a Friday news conference, Freudenthal accused the "U.S. Fish and Wolf Service" of making the decision about the rules based on politics, not science.
"I think we were prepared to make good on an opportunity to resolve this issue," Freudenthal said, "and at the last minute, on a nonscience basis, we were essentially told, 'Oops, never mind, you cannot do anything with regard to the wolf population as it relates to its impact on wildlife.'"
"It would be irresponsible for us to abandon our wildlife in their time of greatest need just to reach a compromise with the Fish and Wildlife Service," added state House Speaker Roy Cohee, R-Casper, in a written statement.
Senate President John Schiffer, R-Kaycee, warned that the placeholder bills would die if no agreement was reached by Monday. However, the bills technically could be resurrected by a two-thirds vote of either house at any time before the Legislature adjourns, according to legislative rules.
Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said he's not "totally comfortable" the bills are dead. His group opposed the latest federal proposal.
"We simply don't need to make legislative changes in this session," Magagna said Monday.
Differing opinions
Wyoming residents had a wide spectrum of opinions about the direction the state is taking on wolves.
Vance Welsh, owner of an auto body shop in Afton, said state leaders were right to reject the federal offer. When it comes to wolves, Wyoming needs to stick to its guns, he said.
"I think that the governor is doing the right thing," said Welsh, who has several outfitter friends and follows the issue closely. "We've been lied to enough from the feds, and there is no need in accepting whatever they decided they want to have shoved down our throats."
Mike Keegan, owner of a company that installs and maintain home alarm systems in Jackson, said he doesn't like a heavy-handed approach to wolf management.
"I believe that wolves were part of our ecosystem for hundreds and hundred of years prior to man's involvement," Keegan said. "And after putting it back to the way it was with reintroduction, I think we should just leave them alone and see how they fare."
The Fish and Wildlife Service will soon begin a series of meetings to gather public comment on its preferred alternative to lift federal protection for wolves in the Northern Rockies, including a Feb. 27 meeting in Cheyenne.
U.S. Rep. Barbara Cubin has asked for an additional meeting in northwest Wyoming.
A new legal opening?
Conservation groups already have expressed reservations about provisions in the plan that would allow states to reduce wolf numbers to the bare minimums under the Endangered Species Act. The federal plan would require Wyoming to maintain 15 packs, including seven packs outside the national park.
"We don't think that minimum number is sufficient to guarantee a healthy wolf population," said Abigail Dillen, a lawyer with Bozeman, Mont.-based Earthjustice. Dillen represents the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, which intervened on the side of the federal government in an earlier lawsuit involving the state.
As an alternative to its preferred delisting plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service also proposed delisting wolves in Idaho and Montana, while leaving Wyoming wolves under federal protection.
Fish and Wildlife Regional Director Mitch King last week said he is "very" confident that such a plan that excluded Wyoming would hold up in court.
However, it would provide another opening for litigation by wildlife conservation groups that want to see the three-state "distinct population segment" intact.
"By leaving Wyoming out, they've made themselves vulnerable to another suite of legal claims that deal with this broader issue of implementation of" the Endangered Species Act, Dillen said.
Freudenthal earlier this month questioned whether Wyoming wolves were even necessary if delisting could occur without them. King called that comment "rhetoric."
Dan Pletscher, director of the wildlife biology program at the University of Montana, said it would be "highly unusual" to split the wolf population along state lines.
Such a move could set a precedent for species protection and potentially harm other recovery efforts, he said.
"You list and you delist populations, not across arbitrary boundaries like state lines," Pletscher said.
Tom France, director of the Northern Rockies office of the National Wildlife Federation, said his group understands the frustrations that led to the two-state proposal, but he urged caution.
"We're certainly offering comment to the (Fish and Wildlife Service) that patience might be the better course here," said France, whose group intervened on the side of the federal agency in the ongoing lawsuit over Wyoming's wolf management plan.
Lawyers predict up to four years of adjudication over that lawsuit. A new lawsuit over the split delisting proposal could extend the timeline even further.
Reach capital bureau reporter Jared Miller at (307) 632-1244 or at jared.miller@casperstartribune.net.