Wildlife and People

Wyoming Coalition Blasts USFWS for Politicized Wolf Reintroductions

Last April a coalition of Wyoming groups opposed to the introduction of non-native wolves filed notice of intent to sue the US Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to delist wolves in that state [here].

We have discussed this issue before [here, here, among many other posts]. In short, the USFWS issued yet another “Final Rule” last April removing the “Distinct Population Segment” (DPS) of Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) wolves from the Endangered Species list (again), with the exception of Wyoming wolves.

The Wolf Coalition, which includes the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Wyoming Association of County Predatory Animal Boards, Niobrara County Predatory Animal Board, Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association, Cody Country Outfitters and Guides Association, and Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife Wyoming, took the matter to court. The USFWS responded, and now the Wolf Coalition has filed a stunning Reply brief.

The WOLF COALITION’S REPLY BRIEF FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – RELATED TO RESPONDENTS’ REFUSAL TO DELIST THE GRAY WOLF IN WYOMING [here], authored by Harriet M. Hageman and Kara Brighton, pulls no punches. Some excerpts:

Quote:

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the “Federal Respondents’ Response Brief” is their blatant effort to redefine politics as “science,” and public perception as “biology.” The Federal Respondents have spent forty-three (43) pages attempting to justify the unjustifiable. Their Response Brief is nothing short of a gargantuan effort to rewrite history and, where that is not possible, an even more concerted effort to simply ignore it. …

Their objective in that regard is exposed by their most recent demand (included in their Response Brief; unsupported in the Administrative Record) that Wyoming be required to provide a cushion upon a cushion, thereby admitting that their ultimate goal is to increase, and then increase again, the number of wolves that must be protected regardless of whether they are “recovered” from a biological standpoint. In doing so they have confirmed that wolf numbers mean nothing, recovery goals are irrelevant and subject to change, and public perception and politics are the new “scientific” gold standard by which listing and delisting decisions under the Endangered Species Act will be made.

The Federal Respondents are arguing that Wyoming – and this Court – should ignore their Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan), their previous Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), their previous Final Rules, their previous findings, the testimony of their own wolf “experts,” and the overwhelming body of biological and scientific evidence that confirms the fact that the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan (Wyoming Plan) and statutory scheme are designed, and will be implemented, to protect and preserve a recovered wolf population.

The Federal Respondents make it clear that they would have liked Wyoming to take a different approach to protecting its share of the recovered Canadian gray wolf population. Wolf recovery, however, is not a popularity contest, and “likability” is not the criterion by which Wyoming’s Plan should – or can– be judged.

The Federal Respondents have nattered on about various tangential matters, none of which have any bearing on the only significant issue before this Court – whether Wyoming’s Plan passes biological/scientific muster…

Stated another way, the biology and “science” that supported their introduction remains current to this day, with the Federal Respondents providing nothing (no data, no studies, no biology, no science) to support their more recent demands that Wyoming designate wolves as “trophy game animals” throughout the State, and provide the related protections (and prey) in a geographic area that is approximately ten (10) times greater in size than what has long been recognized as being the “suitable” habitat.

The reason why Wyoming was targeted for wolf introduction is also critical. To put it bluntly, the wolves were brought here because Yellowstone National Park (“YNP” or “Park”) is encompassed within our borders. Without that great expanse known as YNP, we would not be in the current predicament… [In the original Recovery Plan] the remainder of the State [was] recognized for what it was – unsuitable for wolf habitation. … The Federal Respondents have provided nothing (no data, no studies, no biology, no science) to establish otherwise…

The Federal Defendants are seeking to convince this Court that their review and rejection of the Wyoming Plan may be done in a veritable historical and factual vacuum. They do so by now theorizing that “Wyoming” outside of YNP and the surrounding federal lands was the real target of the introduction and recovery efforts from the beginning. … They do so while hoping that this Court will not recognize their classic game of “bait and switch,” in which the goal of “returning” wolves to YNP was used as the “bait” to convince Wyoming and the Wolf Coalition members that wolf impacts would be minimal. They do so by hoping that this Court will not notice that the “switch” involves sacrificing the Wolf Coalition members (i.e., livestock and Wyoming’s wildlife) to the now-stated goal of forcing wolf propagation throughout the State. …

They have no legal authority to ignore these constraints, and their rationale for rejecting the Wyoming Plan must be seen for what it is – a last ditch effort to establish Wyoming as a wolf nursery where no reasonable and effective control mechanisms will be allowed regardless of the number of wolves in the State…

The Federal Respondents have violated the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (the ESA); the National Environmental Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. (NEPA); and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, by rejecting the Wyoming Plan. Their justifications for such violations are shallow, unsupported by the Record and history, and are contrary to law. …

The Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) was defined as the Yellowstone National Park (YNP), designated wilderness areas (Absaroka-Beartooth, north Absaroka, Washakie, Teton), and adjacent public lands. Id. at 22; 2004AR at 900, 924. The GYA is a geographically-limited and defined area. It does not [equal] all of the land in Wyoming, it was never intended to, and the Federal Respondents have pointed to no biological or other scientific evidence or other documentation that supports their effort to claim otherwise. …

The USFWS introduced wolves into Yellowstone National Park because it is under Federal jurisdiction, has high-quality wolf habitat and good potential release sites, and is far from the natural expansion of wolf packs from Montana. See 1994 Final Rule at 60254. The FWS relied upon the fact that “[m]ost of the reintroduction area is remote and sparsely inhabited wild lands.” Id. at 60256. …

The current NRM wolf population, including that portion in Wyoming, far exceeds the recovery goals. The USFWS admitted in its 2009 Final Rule that its current wolf population estimates for 2008:

indicate[] the NRM DPS contains approximately 1,639 wolves (491 in Montana; 846 in Idaho; 302 in Wyoming) in 95 breeding pairs (34 in Montana, 39 in Idaho; 22 in Wyoming). These numbers are about 5 times higher than the minimum population recovery goal and 3 times higher than the minimum breeding pair recovery goal. The end of 2008 will mark the ninth consecutive year the population has exceeded our numeric and distributional recovery goals.

2009 Final Rule at 15123. …

Wolf recovery was never intended to result in the creation of “travel corridors” for genetic connectivity between the wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming:

Wolf recovery will not result in wolf travel corridors or linkage zones being established. … [O]nce established in each of the recovery areas, enough wolves from each area would disperse that some would successfully travel through or live in areas other than those in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. The size and proximity of three areas where wolves will be managed for recover are large enough, close enough, and have enough public land between them that additional areas (travel corridors) are not required in the foreseeable future to maintain a viable wolf population…

FEIS at 9 (included in Appendix). …

The USFWS approved the 2007 Wyoming Plan after it (along with the delisting Rule) was submitted for a second round of peer reviews. 2009 Final Rule at 15138. Yet a third round of peer reviews were requested after the Montana District Court issued is preliminary injunction. The peer reviewers submitted no additional comments on the rule making. Id. The determination that Wyoming’s Plan (whether it be the 2003, 2007, or 2008 Plan), will support a recovered wolf population stands unchallenged to this day, and remains the best scientific data available for evaluation and approval. …

The USFWS has refused to delist the wolf population Wyoming, stating that such wolves will “continue to be regulated as a non-essential, experimental population per 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n).” 2009 Rule at 15123. By definition, Wyoming’s wolf population is not “essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or threatened species.” 16 U.S.C § 1539(j) (the “10(j) Rule”). This designation further undermines the Federal Respondents’ rejection of the Wyoming Plan – if such wolves are not “essential” to the “continued existence” of the species, it is difficult to explain how approval of the Wyoming Plan could create the catastrophe that has been described. It also complicates the Federal Respondents arguments related to genetic connectivity when, by definition, such a population must be “wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.” Id. …

The Federal Respondents have changed course so many times that medical collars for the treatment of whiplash may be the new fashion statement. They have approved the basis for the Wyoming Plan (2003); rejected the Plan for political, public relations, and litigation risk management purposes (2004); approved it (2007); approved it again (2008); defended it (2008); abandoned it (2008); and rejected it (2009).

The Wyoming Plan and wolf management statutes meet each of the delisting criteria found in 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1) of the ESA. The “best scientific and commercial data available” support the implementation of the Wyoming Plan and delisting the gray wolf population here.

The peer reviewers have confirmed the biological foundation for the Wyoming Plan, and have reiterated their position that the Wyoming Plan will protect and preserve a recovered wolf population. Period.

The USFWS’s own “wolf expert” Mr. Bangs, has confirmed the biological foundation for the Wyoming Plan, and has repeatedly stated that it will protect and preserve a recovered wolf population. Period.

The Federal Respondents’ latest attack on Wyoming’s management protocol must be seen for what it is – a post-hoc rationalization that bears no relationship to wolf recovery, protection or preservation. …

The Federal Respondents’ rejection of the Wyoming Plan and statutory scheme is arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law. It should not be allowed to stand.

End Quote.