They were only off the endangered species list for a matter of months, but apparently, that was too long for those worried about the number of wolves killed recently in the Northern Rockies - and especially the wolf hunting seasons planned in each of the three states for this fall.
Only a little earlier this year, in the spring, federal authorities made the long-awaited announcement that, following an extensive - and expensive - recovery effort, gray wolves are now present in sufficient numbers to warrant removal from the list. In fact, the region's wolf population appears to be thriving, with wolf sightings now being reported in places they hadn't been seen for decades.
Even before the announcement, however, there were rumblings of a lawsuit to prevent delisting. So it came as no surprise when a dozen environmental and conservation groups filed suit against the U.S. Department of the Interior, arguing that key benchmarks for delisting have not yet been met and asking for an injunction to maintain Endangered Species Act protections until the suit is resolved.
A temporary injunction was granted July 18, when U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy issued a 40-page ruling basically agreeing that the proposed hunting season has the potential to do “irreparable injury” to the cause of wolf recovery, and expressing particular concern over Wyoming's wolf management plan, which has changed little since being rejected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for good reason, back in 2003.
Ironically, just a week before Molloy approved the temporary injunction, an 11-judge panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that it's best if federal judges don't pretend to be scientists when ruling on controversial timber projects. That's a good base from which to argue that maybe they shouldn't try to act as scientists when deciding other kinds of cases as well.
For example, one of Molloy's concerns seems to stem from studies showing that a decrease in the number of wolves could put certain packs at risk for genetic isolation. These studies are, of course, at odds with other studies showing that current wolf populations are genetically healthy.
Similarly, the environmental groups suing to maintain federal protections for wolves have offered research showing that, in order for the species to be considered fully recovered, we need up to twice as many wolves as the estimated 1,500 we have now - and far more than the 300 required by recovery goals under the Endangered Species Act. Montana alone counts more than 400 individual wolves.
Is that too few? Too many? Why should the number required for delisting change now?
The fact is, Montana has a comprehensive wolf-management plan - a plan that includes a hunting season - in place, and effective management is necessary for wolves to continue to thrive.
We've argued before, in a previous editorial, that there is no reason why Idaho and Montana should be included in this lawsuit. Montana has solid track record of managing its wildlife. Our success with grizzly bear recovery is widely considered a model for other species recovery programs.
If there's a problem with the management plan in Wyoming, then Wyoming agencies alone should be taken to task for their errors. But just because Wyoming has chosen to exclude itself from meaningful participation in the recovery process doesn't mean Montana should be held back.
Binding us all together like this is doing nothing to advance the cause of wolf recovery. And neither are judges who set themselves up as scientists, ignoring the science that has successfully guided recovery efforts for the last decade-plus.
|
 |
 |
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)