The bell has rung on round three of the effort to delist gray wolves.
According to an announcement made March 6 by acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, the department intends to move forward with a plan to remove the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and transfer management of the species to state and tribal governments.
The proposal marks the third time since 2008 that federal officials have recommended delisting wolves, which they consider recovered under all metrics used in the ESA. Predictably, while ranchers, agricultural organizations, and hunting groups applaud the decision, environmental and wildlife organizations decry it.
“This disgusting proposal would be a death sentence for gray wolves across the country,” said Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) senior attorney Collette Adkins in a recent press release.
“The Trump administration is dead set on appeasing special interests that want to kill wolves.”
“Wolves are still absent from much of their historic range where there is suitable habitat,” said the Defenders of Wildlife in a similar release. “The work of recovering this iconic species is not done and we will vigorously oppose this action.”
As with CBD, many environmental and wildlife groups have been quick to level accusations that the Trump administration is the driving force behind the recent announcement. As Public Lands Council (PLC) director Ethan Lane points out, however, the current attempt to declare wolves a recovered species actually originated in the previous administration.
“This is the culmination of almost a decade of work by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),” says Lane.
“This is only the agency’s most recent attempt to accomplish what they know scientifically is true. The wolf is ready for delisting and a return to state management.”
At a congressional hearing on the subject of wolf delisting on March 12, Lane points out that one of the panel members was Dan Ashe, former director of USFWS under the Obama administration.
“In that hearing, director Ashe responded very plainly that he believed then, and continues to believe, that the wolf is ready for delisting,” says Lane.
With wolf numbers on the rise in every state that they inhabit, Lane says that the question of whether or not delisting will succeed is less about the actual status of the species than about the status of the current political climate.
“There’s no debate among the scientific and research community about the status of this species,” he says. “The larger question here is really about whether or not the ESA can work at all.”
“This is really a test of whether or not you can, in 2019, under the current ESA, delist a recovered species,” he adds. “Or whether the law is so broken that the court system is going to derail that effort no matter how strong the evidence is.”
While defenders of ESA regulations often point to several species that have been delisted over the years, Lane indicates that none of them have been species that were contentious politically. “We’re talking about iconic species, conflict species,” he says. “Those are the ones that are really the focus of this.”
While USFWS’ case for delisting may be strong, its success is by no means assured. Two previous attempts to remove the species, one by the Bush administration in 2008, and another by the Obama administration in 2013, met with failure as a result of lawsuits filed by environmental groups. Both CBD and Defenders of Wildlife have already indicated they are preparing a legal attack on the proposal, and it is unknown how many others may join in a potential lawsuit.
“The courts have repeatedly slammed USFWS for prematurely removing wolf protections,” says Adkins in CBD’s March 6 press release. “Once again we’ll take it to the courts and do everything we can to stop this illegal effort to kill wolf protections.”
According to Lane, USFWS personnel are prepared for a legal battle, drawing on previous experience from past failures to address the deficiencies preciously exploited by environmentalist lawsuits.
“In my conversations with agency leadership, I think that they’ve learned from where they have fallen short in court previously,” says Lane. “In order to craft a rule, this time, that accomplishes the goal.”
That the decision will be taken to court, says Lane, is all but a foregone conclusion. It is also a possibility that the Legislature will have to get involved at some point, though Lane indicates that the proposal to delist is in accordance with the ESA as written.
“This shouldn’t require congressional action,” he says. “This should be a regulatory action using the existing ESA.”
“But the reality is that it will be litigated, it will go to court, and the court system will evaluate how the agency promulgated this rule,” continued Lane.
“Does that mean that, four years from now, we’ll be back up on Capitol Hill talking to legislators about congressional action to back up the agency’s intent?” he asks.
“Who knows? I hope not. But certainly that’s a tool that’s going to have to remain in the box. We’ve all been to this movie before.” — Jason Campbell, WLJ correspondent
