Action Alert » Government aims to strip wolves in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana of their legal protections

Deadline for action is May 9, 2007

On February 8, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a proposal to remove the northern Rockies wolf population from the Endangered Species list. Upon removal of Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections, the state agencies will be tasked with ensuring the long-term viability of this species.

Sinapu does not support the proposal to remove federal protections for the northern Rockies wolf population. While we support the goal of returning management to state agencies (once wolves again are roaming a significant swath of their former range), the current proposal will turn wolf management responsibilities over to some states that are committed to wolf eradication.

Although Montana produced a sound wolf management plan, the states of Wyoming and Idaho continue to support plans that threaten the long-term survival of the species in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Moreover, the plan ignores that fact that the Endangered Species Act requires the species to be recovered across “all or a significant portion” of its former range in order to be classified as “recovered.” Thus, Sinapu is fighting the adoption of this proposed rule change.

»»»»»»»»»»»»

What can you do? Submit written comments by May 9, 2007

The Fish and Wildlife Service is currently accepting comments on their plan until May 9, 2007. Please use the points listed below (pick four or five) to craft your letter regarding the proposal to remove federal protections for wolves in the northern Rockies. Feel free to choose a few points to cut-and-paste from this list, but please try to modify the text to fit your style.

Comments can be sent:

1. Electronically to WesternGrayWolf@fws.gov. Include ”RIN number 1018–AU53” in the subject line of the message.
2. By mail to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601. Include ”RIN number 1018–AU53” in the subject line of the letter.

»»»»»»»»»»»»

Points to make

• Wolves were listed as endangered throughout the lower 48 states, and so recovery and delisting should be accomplished at that scale, not in a piecemeal fashion.
• The plan is illegal because wolves presently occupy less than five percent of their once vast range in the lower 48 states (and less than 15 percent of their historic range in the region covered by the plan).
• The law states that the species must be recovered to “all or a significant portion of its range.” Until wolves are thriving in at least a significant portion of the areas with enough wild prey to support them, they should remain protected.
• The policy being used to justify delisting wolves (called the “Vertebrate Population Policy”) is meant to facilitate recovery of the species, not to facilitate the government’s desire to “get out of the wolf business.”
• Robust wolf populations in Idaho and Wyoming are essential to return wolves to Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Utah, which are all part of the gray wolf’s historic range.
• The plan’s definition of “range” is absurd. The government argues that the area presently occupied by wolves is the “range” of the species, rather than defining “range” plainly as the area where the species once roamed. If this twisted logic is upheld, all of the other parts of the species’ historic range are “magically” eliminated from consideration.
• The plan arbitrarily shrinks the range of wolves by arguing that areas where livestock densities or road densities are higher are no longer “suitable”. That means that the greatest threats to wolves are now an excuse to say much of the landscape cannot support wolves—clearly not the intent of the Endangered Species Act.
• The plan’s definition of “significant” as it relates to the phrase “significant portion of range” is contorted to the point of confusion, and violates several established interpretations by federal courts. At the very least, “significant” in this context should mean that the species should be restored to something greater than 50% of the habitat within historic range that presently hosts sufficient wild prey populations.
• Wyoming’s state plan and state laws about wolves are aimed at wolf eradication, not stewardship. The state intends to kill more than half of its wolves (16 of 23 packs) immediately upon delisting and to maintain extremely low wolf numbers thereafter through any means including poisoning, pulling pups from their dens and aerial hunting.
• The USFWS should not allow Wyoming to kill wolves to artificially inflate the numbers of elk, deer and other wild ungulates. Animals like elk have evolved with wolves for thousands of years and are not going to disappear. In fact, the Wyoming elk population now far exceeds the population goals set by the state.
• As it stands now, Wyoming’s wolf management plan would allow wolves to be shot on sight in nearly 90 percent of the state, using extreme measures such as gunning down entire packs of wolves from airplanes. Wyoming is even demanding 16 of its 23 packs be killed prior to the delisting.
• The Idaho state plan would allow for the eradication of all but 11 packs in the state; a 75 percent drop from the current population. At a recent rally, Idaho Governor Otter declared that once wolves are delisted, the state would kill all but 100 wolves. He has proposed leaving just 10 packs, which is even less than the state plan mandates and the bare minimum required to keep wolves from being federally re-listed on the endangered species list.
• If all the states had a wolf management plan like Montana’s, citizens could be better assured that healthy wolf population numbers and distribution would be maintained in the region for future generations. Instead, Idaho and Wyoming have chosen to focus on wolf eradication.

Remember, the deadline for comments to be submitted is May 9th. For more info, call Rob Edward at 303.447.8655.