of wolves.
One of the nation's leading conservation groups, the National Wildlife Federation, struggled awkwardly this past week to clarify its position on removing wolves from the endangered species list. Days after a NWF lawyer hailed progress toward wolf recovery in the West and questioned a lawsuit filed by other environmental groups to block downgrading the wolves' protected status in the region, the Washington, D.C.-based organization denounced proposed changes in wolf protections as premature and charged the government with failing to live up to responsibilities imposed by the federal Endangered Species Act.
Which is what we've got on our hands with wolves - a rousing success. Healthy, thriving populations of wolves have been restored to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. It's happened far faster and with fewer problems than many people dared hope in 1995, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began transplanting wolves from Canada to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, leapfrogging migratory wolves that had already begun slowly recolonizing western Montana on their own. With some 800 wolves now scattered over the Northern Rockies, we are witness to perhaps the greatest wildlife conservation success in nearly a century. Anyone who's heard a wolf's predawn howl, understands the important role large predators play in complex ecosystems; or sees the throngs of tourists drawn to wolf-watching opportunities knows that wolves aren't the only beneficiaries of this success.
But the question is, what comes next?
The goals for wolf recovery in this region have been met, so the animal should be removed from the endangered species list. It's time for the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming to assume responsibility for managing wolves. Wildlife management is fundamentally a state responsibility in America. Species in danger of extinction are an exception. Wolves in the Northern Rockies have been restored to healthy, self-sustaining levels, so they no longer qualify as an exception. Montana and Idaho have stepped up to the plate with viable plans for sustaining wolves; Wyoming's plan is a work in progress. The next phase in this great project is to demonstrate that this species, having been restored, can be managed well and routinely, exactly the way these very states manage deer, elk, lions and all sorts of other wildlife. Significantly delaying the transfer of wolf responsibility from the federal government to the states - or to maintain protective measures at levels suited for animals at the very brink of extinction - serves only to hamstring their management, to make it harder to keep them in balance with other wildlife and livestock, and to create potential for problems and conflicts. It would be like taking several steps backward after a large leap forward. One of the keys to the success of wolf recovery to date has been keeping conflicts to a minimum.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rightly has begun the process of reclassifying wolves to reflect the restoration of their population. It's working with the states to shift responsibility for their management. But the agency is working with too broad a brush. It's proposed to reclassify wolves throughout the West, not just Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. We don't know whether wolves could or should be restored to other states, but surely that's a separate matter. Current wolf-recovery efforts were, from the outset, limited to this region. The agency's approach largely precludes something that at least merits consideration.
Several environmental groups contend the federal Endangered Species Act requires wolves and other species to be restored throughout their historic range, where possible. They've gone to court to block reclassification of wolves from "endangered" to "threatened" in the West, arguing the job of restoration isn't nearly finished. The issue they raise is worth settling, but their tactic of litigation threatens to block the logical and necessary change in wolf status in the Northern Rockies, where recovery goals have been met and surpassed. A lawsuit could drag on for years. What's more, the public debate, studies and decision-making that preceded wolf restoration in this region took nearly two decades. That process has scarcely begun in most other places where wolves possibly could live. It's a fine thing for conservationists to pursue their broader, idealistic agenda, but it's a mistake to jeopardize notable progress in the meantime.
Wolf recovery doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing affair. Ultimate success - however you want to define it - is more likely to result from a series of incremental successes. What's worked in the Northern Rockies can pave the way for other states. Then again, different approaches may work as well or better elsewhere. We've seen that reintroduction can work. Perhaps we'll find the natural dispersion of wolves from a burgeoning population also works to restore wolves to neighboring states. Or perhaps we'll see another state decide it's going to sidestep the sometimes rigid confines of the Endangered Species Act and bring back wolves on its own, without relying on the federal government. Any effort to expand the distribution of wolves depends entirely on public support. If people want it to happen, they can make it happen. In rallying support elsewhere, wolf advocates would do well to highlight the success achieved in this region, rather than trying to spin this geographically limited wolf recovery as yet another conservation failure.
We've successfully restored wolves to the Northern Rockies. Let's recognize and celebrate that success. And if people want to extend this success to other areas - go for it. But also recognize that as a separate, if related undertaking.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)