Wolf ruling receives criticism from ag community
Last week’s announcement of the Oregon ruling on wolf reclassification
sent shock waves through the agriculture community and has producer
organizations in the affected states planning their appeal.
A federal judge in Oregon ruled last Tuesday that the Bush
administration violated the Endangered Species Act when it relaxed
protections on some of the gray wolf populations in April 2003. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) divided the wolves range into three
areas and reclassified the Eastern and Western populations of wolves as
threatened, instead of endangered. Experimental non-essential
populations, like those found in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming,
Idaho and the rest of Montana, were not included in the reclassification
or jurisdiction of the ruling. These wolves are considered to be
separate and distinct populations with different rules for management.
However, producers who operated in areas where the wolf status changed
were allowed to kill wolves that were attacking their livestock. The
Oregon decision rescinded that rule change and has again made it illegal
for producers in areas outside of experimental populations to do
anything about the wolves except call FWS.
Tom McDonnell, director of Natural Resources for the American Sheep
Industry Association, said, “As a result of the Oregon wolf lawsuit,
USDA’s Fish Wildlife Service has pulled all of its traps and halted wolf
management activity in Wisconsin, Michigan, Northwestern Montana and
Northern Idaho. It is still uncertain if relocation can even be used as
a management tool at this time. FWS is in the process of applying for
special take permits, a process that could take weeks or months. At this
time it is illegal for anyone within these regions to kill a wolf for
any reason.”
McDonnell added that because of wolf management in Minnesota the species
was already down listed to threatened. Therefore, the lawsuit does not
impact wolf management efforts in this area. He noted that the Minnesota
wolf management plan and efforts to delist the eastern timber wolf are,
however, on indefinite hold.
“If the lawsuit is allowed to stand nationally, it will mean the wolf
will have to be recovered throughout its historic habitat, at historic
numbers,” said McDonnell. “Unfortunately, historic population estimates
are just that, estimates, and much of the wolf’s habitat has been
converted to agriculture, urban areas and other uses. If applied at the
national level, this lawsuit makes wolf recovery for all intents and
purposes very difficult.”
Steve Pilcher, executive director of the Montana Stockgrowers
Association, said, “The wolves are doing very well and people need to
understand there are some impacts with livestock being present.
Unfortunately, it is the livestock industry that bears the cost of
having the wolves present. I am thankful the Oregon ruling does not have
any impact on the 10j rule that is now in effect. For those of us
dealing with the experimental non-essential populations, we’re very
fortunate to have this increased flexibility in protecting our
livestock. It’s just sad when we have those type of people making
decisions when wolves can have such a significant impact on the lives of
the ranching community.”
The 10j regulations allow livestock and landowners in areas where
nonessential experimental populations of wolves roam to shoot a wolf
depradating their livestock without obtaining a permit first.
Glen Stonebrink, executive director of the Oregon Cattlemen’s
Association, said the association is waiting to see what FWS’ plan of
action is before moving forward to combat this ruling. Stonebrink is
anticipates that FWS will rewrite some of the rules of the Endangered
Species Act, in particular the 4D rule, which was used to reclassify
those wolves from endangered to threatened. “Instead of the judge having
to define everything as he did, FWS could go back and redo their
rule-making and make it more clear so it would have a better chance of
standing up in court,” said Stonebrink. “In the meantime, I think it is
important for producers and legislators to decide that the Endangered
Species Act should be reformed and defined by lawmakers. We’re tired of
the court defining what something means when it is pretty clear.”
Incidentally, the gray wolf is extinct from Oregon and the Oregon
Cattlemen’s Association is strongly fighting any plans to reintroduce
the wolves to that area.
Responding to the Oregon ruling, Jack Field, executive director for the
Washington Cattlemen’s Association, said, “We oppose removing that
management tool from our cattlemen and our producers realizing that if
there is an issue we would like livestock producers to have the ability
to protect their personal property and livelihood.”
Lloyd Knight, executive vice president of the Idaho Cattlemen’s
Association, said, “That decision causes some concern and puts up some
roadblocks in delisting, but thankfully it does not derail us from state
management. In our minds, state management is the next best thing until
we get delisting.”
According to FWS, it will take two to four weeks to review the Oregon
decision and its implications. The agency did indicate that the lawsuit
does not impact the experimental population in Montana, Idaho and
Wyoming directly.
Since the Colorado and Oregon wolf management plans allow private
landowners to take depredating wolves, these plans may be illegal at
this time and producers are encouraged to contact their local FWS for
more information.
Wyoming is moving forward with its lawsuit on wolf management.
Read more








