While ranchers regard delisting as a positive step throughout the West, any actual changes in how wolves are managed on the ground depend on the laws of each state they inhabit.
In Idaho and Montana, for example, where federal restrictions were lifted in 2011, little or nothing will change. The same is true for Wyoming, where wolves were delisted in 2017. As the Mexican wolf is not included in the delisting proposal, states such as Arizona and New Mexico, where that species is found, will remain under federal restrictions.
Perhaps the largest impact will be felt in the coastal states, where federal restrictions have long frustrated efforts by ranchers to deal effectively with an expanding wolf population. What will change and how, however, varies widely even among these states.
Business as usual in CA
For any area under federal restriction, a key advantage to the removal of those restrictions is the possibility for lethal removal of problem wolves. While non-lethal methods of deterrence, such as the use of fladry or range riders, are at the core of many state-level wolf management plans, most also recognize the need for lethal removal in cases where depredation by wolves becomes a chronic problem. Federal ESA restrictions have never allowed for this type of management. Unfortunately, for Californian ranchers, this isn’t about to change.
According to Kirk Wilbur, of the California Cattlemen’s Association, despite federal delisting, wolves in that state will remain under the protection of the California ESA, a law which differs very little from its federal counterpart.
“Effectively, [federal delisting] would not change any of the facts on the ground in California,” says Wilbur.
With its first wolf not appearing until 2011, California was one of the last western states to experience reintroduction. Since that time, however, the population has expanded rapidly, as have issues with livestock owners.
In 2018, a single pack was responsible for six confirmed livestock kills, 27 reported incidents with wolves, and an unknown number of unconfirmed cases. Despite this, the state has lagged behind its neighbors with regard to a management plan.
“California is somewhat unique among western states,” says Wilbur. “There is no provision under our ESA or our wolf management plan that allows for management of problem wolves.”
“There is essentially nothing that California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) does, or indeed can do under state law, in response to depredation instances,” he adds. “CDFW cannot lethally take problem wolves, cannot harass wolves, and cannot relocate wolves.”
Despite these difficulties, Wilbur does acknowledge that lifting federal restrictions is a step in the right direction. “In order to have management of the gray wolf in California, we certainly need federal delisting,” he says. “Unfortunately, we also need state delisting, and that doesn’t appear to be something that’s happening in the near future.”
Distribution woes in WA
Currently, wolves in two-thirds of Washington remain under federal ESA control. Restrictions on wolves in the eastern third of the state were lifted along with Idaho and Montana in 2011. Since that time, wolves in that region have been managed under the state wolf plan, giving ranchers in the remainder of the state a taste of what is to come should federal delisting occur.
According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), there are currently at least 122 wolves currently living in Washington, in 22 packs, with wolf activity heavily concentrated in the state’s northeast corner. Like California, wolves not currently protected under federal law are covered by the state’s own ESA. Unlike California, however, WDFW officials have some latitude to handle problem wolves.
Under WDFW’s wolf plan, problem wolves can be lethally removed if they prey on livestock three times in a 30-day period, or four times in a 10-month period. While WDFW officials have shown willingness to uphold this rule, even attempting to remove entire packs on occasion, they are often blocked from doing so by judicial orders stemming from lawsuits filed by wildlife groups. The policy also requires the use of non-lethal deterrence measures before lethal action can be taken.
A heavily disputed policy in the Washington wolf plan is the one which requires wolf recovery throughout the state before state ESA restrictions can be lifted, allowing ranchers an easier path to protect their livestock. For ranchers in the northeast corner, where wolves are already a significant problem, this means that nothing more can be done until wolves establish elsewhere.
Specifically, wolves will remain a protected species until at least four packs have produced pups in the south Cascades/coast region, where no wolves have yet been sighted. Despite tongue-in-cheek offers from state legislators to relocate wolves to some of the more urban areas in Washington, it may be awhile before the state sees significant changes in how wolves are managed.
Oregon plan in disarray
Much like Washington, wolves in Oregon remain under federal protection in the western two-thirds of the state. Also like Washington, Oregon manages its wolves under a plan that allows for lethal take when predation becomes chronic, which the state defines as two kills by the same wolf pack over an indeterminate period of time. Unlike Washington, however, lack of distribution across the state has not been a problem.
In recent years, wolves have been steadily expanding their territory throughout the state. A pack in the western Cascades has become a chronic problem for area ranchers, and last week saw the first livestock kills in Coos County, just a few miles from the coastline.
For producers facing wolves in the federally protected portion of the state, who have found themselves unable to do anything in response to the increased predation, delisting is likely to provide at least some relief. The future of Oregon’s state wolf plan, however, is clouded by uncertainty.
Originally created in 2005, the Oregon wolf plan was originally supposed to be rewritten in 2015, in order to address the increasing population. In an effort to reach consensus between livestock and environmental concerns, the state established a collaborative committee to direct the development of this new plan. When the two sides were unable to reach a compromise on key issues, Oregon was left without an updated plan, a situation that still persists today.
The collaborative effort essentially ended late in 2018 when environmental representatives, incensed over the rancher’s refusal to increase the number of livestock kills required for a lethal take, refused to attend any further meetings.
Though Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) officials attempted to go forward with the new plan, they found themselves blocked by the same environmental groups, who sought help from Gov. Kate Brown to postpone the necessary vote to implement the plan.
In the meantime, Oregon continues to operate under its 2005 plan. According to Roger Huffman, wolf committee chairman for the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, this isn’t likely to change soon. “The reality is, we’re not likely to get an adoption of the plan this year, which is fine with us,” says Huffman. “We’d rather keep the plan we have now than go to something worse.”
Despite the delays, Huffman, who was a member of the collaborative group, says he does feel that a new plan will be put in place eventually.
“I think we’ll ultimately get what we need,” he says. “A reasonable standard that recognizes that wolves are recovered.” — Jason Campbell, WLJ correspondent
