Wolf Warp
By MIKE SATREN, Coeur d’Alene Press Newspaper 7/31/08
Missoula judge picked by Defenders of Wildlife, co-plaintiffs to decide defining issue in the West
POST FALLS - The mood was somber - and resentful - at the Fish and Game Commission’s public hearing in the conference room at Cabela’s last week, not unlike families of victims who just heard that their loved ones’ serial killer got off on a technicality.
In this case it was the unhindered growth of the “reintroduced” Canadian gray wolf that got off and the technicality - the judge determined - was that there was not enough natural long-term genetic exchange between the three state’s wolf populations to ensure a healthy gene pool far into the future.
“We’re five times over recovery,” said Fish and Game Director Cal Groen. “However, those numbers weren’t discussed, we got into a different discussion in genetics.
“We were deeply, deeply disappointed.”
Even though U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy, of Missoula, Mont., acknowledged that Idaho had a good wolf management plan, he decided to grant a preliminary injunction that reinstated Endangered Species Act protections for the gray wolf across all three states on July 18. That effectively stopped Wyoming, Montana and Idaho from holding special hunting seasons for wolves this year.
“It is not a final determination in court,” said Clive Strong, chief of the natural resource division of the Idaho Attorney General’s Office. “The defendant - the U.S. in this case - cannot go forward with delisting until there is a full hearing on the merits.”
By granting the injunction Judge Molloy is indicating that he believes the (final) case will prevail on its merits although he hasn’t seen much of the evidence.
Although wolf populations are five times higher than original agreements for ESA delisting, 12 groups including Defenders of Wildlife, the National Resources Defense Council and the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for delisting wolves in March primarily using the genetic exchange issue as the reason.
“They picked and chose where they wanted to go to court … I think you might wonder, why Missoula, Montana,” said Commissioner Randall Budge of the Southeast Region. “Most likely because they wanted to be before a particular judge in Missoula.”
The genetic exchange issue picked by Judge Molloy as the primary reason to reinstate ESL status, would not have worked for nine out of 10 judges, Randall surmised.
“The judge basically picked that one thing and hung his hat on it,” said Commissioner Tony McDermott of the Panhandle Region. “He also ignored the federal government’s expert who said that exchange was occurring.”
Judge Molloy relied on only one study, the VonHoldt Study, as proof that genetic exchange does not exist, McDermott said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service criticized that study because the sampling was too small to make the determination that no genetic exchange exists.
“We disagree with it,” Groen said. “We think there’s ample exchange, 8 to 22 percent of the wolves are outliers, they’re moving around.”
Even if that weren’t so, the issue could have been surmounted and solved by the three state’s fish and game departments with a trap, transport and release program to ensure that genetic diversity continued.
“I attended the hearing in Missoula when the government’s position was presented and that option was presented in oral argument,” Groen said. “But the judge elected not to consider it.”
…
One after one, outdoorsmen at the public hearing stood in front of the commission to voice frustration about the judge’s decision and the presence of wolves that are killing so much of Idaho’s ungulate (hooved mammal) population, some even going so far as to hint at Fish and Game Department complicity regarding the original decision to import the wolves.
Bob Balser of Hayden read a couple of documents, one signed by former Fish and Game Director Jerry Conley to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wolf Recovery Coordinator Ed Bangs that signified IDFG’s intent to work with USFWS to reintroduce wolves. The other was a special permit issued to Bangs and signed by former IDFG Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker to actually reintroduce the wolves from Canada.
“That means that the department (IDFG) was hand-in-glove with Fish and Wildlife Service to bring the wolves into the state,” Balser said. “Yet you people … know the ramifications of wild wolves on our big game herds.”
Groen admitted that the documents existed but stated that he thought that by granting the permits, the state would just “keep in the process,” that the wolves were coming in anyway.
John Walters of Calder, who spoke next, gave graphic first-hand testimony to the slaughter caused by wolves on the elk population near his home on the St. Joe River.
“Using the $8,000 per head (elk) figure that we came up with when we did the collaborative with Sen. Crapo … there’s $80,000 worth of dead elk within two miles of my home,” he said. “The last I heard the federal government couldn’t take anything without just compensation.”
He asked the commission if they had tried to get compensation.
After getting an earful, Budge spoke up.
“Most of us on this commission are just like you folks, we’re elk hunters,” he said. “We’re not real keen about wolves, either.”
He made the point that we’re all trumped by federal law in the guise of the Endangered Species Act.
“They trump anything we can do in Idaho under state law,” he said.
Budge believes there was no question then - or now - that the vast majority of the public in Idaho did not want any wolves.
“It didn’t matter,” he said. “We worked diligently to try to get a plan that we could get U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to approve … so we could take over.”
Even Bangs who led the effort to introduce the wolves submitted affidavits to Judge Molloy acknowledging that the job was done and that it was time to move on.
“We’re more distressed, I think, than you are,” Budge said at the hearing. “Not only are we also being deprived of hunting opportunities, just as you are … we get to hear people who accuse us of introducing the wolves … and not trying to control it.”
He acknowledged he couldn’t predict how Judge Molloy would eventually rule, but added that an adverse decision would be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court.
…
The worry now for the commission, Fish and Game biologists and Idaho hunters is how long our game can last.
“It’s a real worry … Eventually you reach a status quo between the wolves that start dying off because there’s too many of them,” said commission Chairman Wayne Wright from the Magic Valley Region. “I hope we don’t take it to that limit, because there won’t be a whole lot of elk left by the time that happens.”
Groen and the commissioners all pledged to do everything they can - within the law - to try to gain the right to manage all the game in Idaho, including wolves.
Some may have already given up on that approach.
“I am right now running into people in the woods who are actively hunting wolves,” Walters said. “They have given up on you.”
Many don’t trust a system that so completely ignores local inputs, lifestyles and economies.
“Judge Molloy did us a big favor and the reason I think he did us a big favor is because there is now a line drawn in the sand,” he said. “I don’t see it ever getting delisted to the point that we’ll have a hunting season, we’ve already got groups within the state of Idaho who are wanting wolf viewing areas.”
Of course in order to have wolf viewing there must be wolves that haven’t been shot at and become gun shy - or at least people shy. Some suspect that was the reason for the lawsuit and the judge’s emergency injunction - to halt upcoming hunts.
Dr. Franz Carmenzind, the executive director of the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, submitted an affidavit to Judge Molloy’s court stating that searching for, seeing tracks and scat, and viewing Jackson Hole wolves is an important part of his life and that it would be a big loss for him if any Jackson Hole wolves and specifically members of the Teton Pack were harmed.
A male, Wolf253M, was killed in the Wyoming Predator Zone in Sublette County.
“I was injured by the killing of Wolf253M, because I will never be able to see this well-known wolf again,” he lamented in his affidavit.
Others suspect that some wolf advocates do not think humans should hunt at all and may be trying to stall state wolf control measures until the wolf population grows large enough to take most - if not all - surplus elk, deer and moose populations leaving nothing for human hunters.
Indeed one of the plaintiffs, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) with an annual budget of $112 million, has admitted it is against all recreational uses for animals, including hunting, horseback riding, even pet ownership. President Wayne Pacelle is former director of the anti-hunting Fund for Animals.
If there is mistrust by hunters about the course of action taken by the state agencies, it seems to be less about loyalties and more that they may be overly naive about the end game planned by the pro-wolf groups represented by the plaintiffs but McDermott is under no illusions.
“In the 1994 agreement, Suzanne Stone of Defenders of Wildlife agreed to the 100-wolf numbers (per state) and now they want many times more,” McDermott said. “How can we trust them?”
…
In the meantime, state Fish and Game representatives will be working under the new ESA 10(j) rule of 2008, which allows some wolves to be taken under specific circumstances: a wolf caught in the act of killing livestock, dogs or because of a serious decline in wild elk or deer herds.
Under the old 10(j) rule, Fish and Game had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that wolves were the cause of an ungulate decline, McDermott said.
The new 10(j) rule allows a somewhat relaxed burden of proof but McDermott heard that the same plaintiffs intend to file a lawsuit with Judge Molloy about this, too.
“We’re in for the long haul,” Budge said.
One course of action is to appeal the preliminary injunction to the 9th Circuit Court, which could take from 15 months to 32 months for a decision, while the other choice is to proceed to a final hearing of the case in front of Judge Molloy in Missoula, which may be 6 to 8 months, McDermott said.
An adverse decision would bring an appeal from either side and that would go to the 9th Circuit, as well.
Strong indicated there were a number of options available to Idaho, even some that might allow the state to be treated independently from the other two.
“This is not the end of the road, it’s the beginning of the road,” Strong said. “My counsel is we need to follow that review through to its end.”
The question is whether there will be any huntable game left by then.