Wolves are a prominent issue in the western U.S. As regularly described in WLJ, there’s continual Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing and delisting of wolves in different areas, along with lawsuits, court decisions and research showing good or bad impacts of wolves on the environment and livestock. Wolf advocates are zealous in their attempts to spread wolves everywhere without regard to the impacts and suffering that wolves cause to other wildlife, livestock and pets. Stockmen do not want wolves killing their livestock and dogs, and outfitters and hunters don’t want wolves reducing game populations.
But does the ESA for wolves make sense? Consider the status of wolves and the ESA. The wolf in the northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) states—Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and northcentral Utah—is designated as a distinct population segment (DPS) and is not listed under the ESA. But there is currently an effort to relist them as an endangered species, although they are currently managed by these states with viable and sustaining populations.
The Mexican wolf in Arizona and New Mexico is designated as a subspecies, listed as an endangered species under the ESA and managed by the federal government.
Wolves in Alaska are not listed under the ESA, but a petition is being considered to list the wolves in the forests of southeast Alaska as a DPS or subspecies, claiming impacts from logging, trapping and hunting.
Wolves in the Lower 48 states, excluding the NRM states and the Mexican wolf, are listed under the ESA as a DPS. The wolves in the western Great Lakes states (Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin) were a separate DPS, but it appears they are now part of the Lower 48 states DPS.
The state of Colorado is continuing its plan to introduce wolves. Wolves in Colorado are part of the Lower 48 DPS and are on the ESA list, so the federal government has jurisdiction. The governor of Colorado recently vetoed a bill that would require the introduction be delayed until the federal government institutes a 10(j) rule designating the wolves as a nonessential experimental population. The 10(j) rule would allow more flexible management than standard ESA regulations and could allow ranchers to prevent wolves preying on livestock.
But without a 10(j) rule, it is illegal to protect livestock: “… Any take (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of wolves without a permit or other authorization is prohibited by federal law.”
This means that there can be no control of wolves, an endangered species, even if they are preying on livestock or dogs. Yet, the state of Colorado apparently could get wolves in other states such as Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, eastern Washington and eastern Oregon, where they are not an endangered species, and bring them to Colorado, where they become an endangered species simply by crossing a state line. Maybe Colorado capturing, trapping, handling and confining wolves during the introduction should be considered harassment or harm and deemed illegal.
I described five wolves: the Mexican subspecies, the NRM DPS, the Lower 48 states DPS, the southeast Alaska DPS and the Colorado wolf introduction. You might be thinking, “This is too complicated and makes no sense.”’That is true and it is because the definition of “species” in the ESA includes species, subspecies and DPS. The ESA was apparently written by environmentalists who maximized the scope to include subspecies and populations, not only entire species. This, of course, is inconsistent with the ESA’s name, Endangered Species Act, and probably inconsistent with Congress’ intent. It’s an example of the conflict between federal government and state jurisdiction.
Subspecies and DPS are not distinct categories, and they are designated with scientifically vague criteria. See my book and articles in the References at wlj.net for a detailed description of the science on this. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designates subspecies and DPS. Public comments on these designations are considered, but USFWS makes the final decision. It’s not rigorous science, but USFWS is required to make these designations to comply with the ESA. Congress is responsible for the ESA and should review and revise the ESA to be consistent with their intent and within their jurisdiction.
Wildlife management, including managing populations, is a state function, and is outside the federal government’s jurisdiction, so I contend the ESA should apply only to entire species, not subspecies and populations. Maintaining wildlife subspecies and populations is a legitimate objective, but it is a state function, and the federal government should remain within the confines of their constitutional authority.
The power of ESA regulations on state and private property is another policy which needs to be changed. It’s incredible and dishonorable that the federal government would allow wolves to kill families’ livestock and pets and not allow them to protect their animals. Rather than unreasonable regulation and penalties, what is needed is cooperation to protect both wildlife and American principles of freedom and state and private property rights. — Dr. Matthew Cronin
(Matthew A. Cronin is a scientist with Northwest Biology Company LLC in Bozeman, MT. He can be contacted at croninm@aol.com.)
{{tncms-inline id=”55cdb3dc-5483-4f23-b50e-11a8ff0c650f” type=”relcontent”}}
