Guest Editorial: Who’s to Blame for Wolf Reinstatement (and What You Can Do About It)

August 11, 2010

By Keith McCafferty

Field Editor Keith McCafferty (left) has lived in Montana for 30 years. He’s written scores of stories about big game hunting in the West, including a blockbuster report about Idaho’s first wolf season that Field & Stream published in March of this year.

Many hunters have expressed shock and dismay at a federal court ruling last Thursday that returns Rocky Mountain wolves to the protection of the Endangered Species List, effectively cancelling scheduled wolf hunts this fall in Idaho and Montana. They believe reinstatement will result in further decimation of elk herds and reduced hunting opportunities, and in some regions there is mounting scientific evidence that this will prove true. But the decision handed down by US District Court Judge Donald Molloy shouldn't come as a surprise, nor should hunters feel that they are powerless in its wake.

Last September, when Molloy turned down the request of a coalition of environmental groups to stop proposed hunting seasons on the basis that hunting would do the species "irreparable harm," he cleared the way for the lower 48's first legal wolf hunts since their reintroduction to the Rockies in the mid-1990s. What hunters tend to forget is that at the time Molloy also stated that the US Fish and Wildlife Service was likely to lose its case for sport hunting on the larger question of whether wolves had been properly removed from the Endangered Species List. In other words, hunters had won the battle, but were likely to lose the war. When wolves were delisted in the spring of 2009, the USFWS had argued that hunting for wolves should be permitted for a portion of a "distinct population segment" in the northern Rocky Mountains, specifically in states that had proposed management programs that met federal recovery goals for the species. Idaho and Montana submitted acceptable management programs and were awarded hunts in the fall of 2009. Wyoming did not -- their management program lists wolves as a predator that can be trapped or killed on sight throughout most of the state -- and as a result wolves were not delisted there. Wyoming was denied a 2009 hunting season.

One problem with the USFWS proposal was that the same agency had previously declared that a distinct population segment of wolves couldn't be split up, an apparent contradiction that Molloy referenced in his ruling last week. Simply decoded, Molloy's decision is that the ESA does not allow the USFWS to list only part of species as endangered. If the species is endangered in one part of its range -- Wyoming -- then it must be listed throughout its range. Management cannot be divided upon political boundaries.

What does this mean with regard to the future of wolves and elk hunting in the West? Most important, relisting removes an important management tool -- hunting -- from the slim arsenal of weapons with which states can combat surging wolf populations, which in the tri-state area is estimated to near 2,000 by the end of 2010. Wolves that kill livestock can still be managed in a joint cooperation between the states and Wildlife Services, which is good news for elk that share ranges that overlap with cattle grazing. But in backcountry areas where wolves seldom come into conflicts with livestock -- in western Idaho, for example -- state game department will again have their hands tied, and as a result, elk herds will continue to decline in some regions.

Relisting wolves has prompted game departments to look at measures other than sport hunting to control the damage. Specifically, Idaho and Montana officials have said they will look closely at the 10J rule of the Endangered Species Act, which grants states some flexibility to control wolves if they are shown to significantly reduce game herds below management objectives. The problem is that the burden of proof falls to the state and prior efforts to control wolves under 10J have failed. Large scale radio-collar studies to document declines and isolate the culprit are expensive and impractical throughout most of the Rockies. Perhaps the only regions where sufficient evidence already exists are the famed Lolo district in Idaho and the Upper Gallatin Canyon in Montana. Documenting declines in other regions will take time, time that elk may not have. State officials are also exploring other options, including appealing Molloy's decision, as well as legal maneuvering that opens the door for a hunting season even with wolves on the ESL. Meanwhile, Wyoming is suing the federal government for not accepting their so-called management program, a case of impotent posturing in the extreme.

None of these measures are likely to bear fruit in the near future.

The reality is that wolf hunting is over for this year and future efforts to delist the species will undoubtedly meet stiff opposition in court. Critics of Molloy -- and they are legion among hunters -- point out that even if Wyoming comes on board with an acceptable wolf management program, wolves are gradually expanding into adjoining states, including Oregon, Washington, Utah and Colorado (where there is still a bounty on wolves on the books). There will always be places where the species hasn't met recovery goals or where management programs are lacking, giving wolf proponents legal grist for lawsuits to ban hunting even where the predators flourish.

In the face of what they perceive as a stacked deck -- an accurate assessment in my opinion -- many hunters are talking about taking measures into their own hands. The policy they propose to resurrect is "Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up," or SSS as they bandy the term about on Internet hunting forums. As one thread responder wrote last week, "At what point do we stop doing the legal thing and start doing the RIGHT thing?" Another put his policy more succinctly: "BANG! BANG! BANG! RELOAD, BANG! BANG! BANG!"

Really? Undoubtedly, some hunters will shoot wolves on sight this fall, as they have since their reintroduction. But the vast majority of us take pride in being law-abiding citizens. It is one thing to vent frustration in Internet chatrooms or over a beer in a bar. It is another to pull the trigger and break a federal law. And what difference would it make, anyway? Remember: Last year, 26,000 licensed Idaho wolf hunters couldn't meet the quota for wolves in the mountainous backcountry area where they were inflicting the most damage on elk herds. And that with an extended season that stretched from September through March.

So, is there anything we can do to work toward delisting wolves, reinstating hunting seasons for them, and helping elk -- and not incidentally our own prospects for filling elk tags -- in the future? There is, but only if we accept the fact that wolves are here to stay, and that they are a natural part of the ecosystem and have as much right to live in the country where they evolved as any other animal. This is something that the state of Wyoming has stubbornly failed to do. Many hunters have criticized Molloy for basing his decision to relist wolves on a technicality -- namely, that the ESA cannot be applied on a state by state basis. But that's what laws are composed of, legal technicalities. Molloy, a Clinton appointee, is not the wolf lover and evil puppet of the liberal left that his critics suggest. He is a westerner and his recent decision admitted that delisting wolves could be a "pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue." His reservation, backed by historical interpretation of the law, was that delisting on a state by state basis was illegal. Had Wyoming proposed a management program similar to those of Montana and Idaho, he might well have ruled differently. Remember, this is the same judge who rejected arguments by pro wolf organizations last year and allowed hunting to go forward.

If you want to hunt wolves again, or hunt elk in country where they are abundant, bring pressure to bear on Wyoming. Write to Wyoming's governor, state game officials and congressmen and let them know that you, as a hunter, want them to write a wolf management program that satisfies federal guidelines. Better yet, get your local hunting club to do so. Money is what talks. Tell them you won't hunt in their state until they comply.

I'll be the first to admit that there's no guarantee that Wyoming's cooperation will lead to a reversal in Molloy's position in future lawsuits. But one thing's for certain. As long as the politicians of Wyoming stick to their guns by insisting that wolves are a non-game species to be shot on sight in most areas, they are not only disarming potential wolf hunters throughout the Rockies, but hurting all of our chances of filling the freezer with elk. - Keith McCafferty

Comments (22)

Top Rated

All Comments

from MJC wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Finally, a well thought out article on this topic. Thanks again F&S.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from idahooutdoors wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Nice writing as usual Keith. I pray that something is worked out soon, people around here are at their wits end as to how they are going to salvage what few elk we have left in the Lolo zone. I wish the issue would be put in the hands of the wildlife managers so they could do their jobs, a decade of wildlife management via federal courts, lawyers, and lawsuits has resulted in a disaster in many areas where I live........and so much for getting #2 this fall, I guess I'll have to settle for grouse and bear hunting the 1st of September this year.....and thanks again for the great article in March, it was a great experience and will be hard to top getting to grace the pages of the magazine and being written about by a great writer such as yourself...resulted in a lot of positive feedback, and even a couple dates..Lol.....

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from buckhunter wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Great article Keith. Especially the part about "money talks". Unfortunately that phrase is a grim reality to many things in life.

Can you recommend any groups we can support that have a strong voice in this issue?

(I'd like to see you on here more. I a big fan. Your Corbett article a few months back was great.)

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from shane wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Excellent work. Your stance is reality based and moderate. Many won't admit that wolves belong where they are. I wish the kill 'em all extremists as well as Wyoming would get on board. They are just hurting our cause.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from babsfish4life wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Good article, I agree except for the praise of Judge Malloy. This is the second time that he has got the impression that he knows more than the biologists and wildlife managers. The one time that he didn't stop the hunts, he couldn't pull enough of a reason out of his butt. But he did say "come back next year with this reason and I will stop the hunt". There are countless species that "violate" the reason that he gave to stop the hunts. Wild Chinook and Sockeye Salmon are endangered here in Idaho, according to Malloy, all salmon fishing must end in Alaska. It violates the rules of the ESA. I think Malloy in himself proves that lifelong appointments (appointed not voted) are stupid. It is too bad that they replaced the existing Rocky Mountain Wolf with the Canadian Timber Wolf, but what is done is done now we have to deal with wolves and
the red-headed stepchild Wyoming. Malloy is no friend to hunters is what I am basically trying to say.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from babsfish4life wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Malloy has canceled 2 wolf seasons and allowed only 1, that is no celebrity in my book.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Walt Smith wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Ya got to admit that Judge Malloy is milking all the money he can out of both sides of this issue for the lawyers and the court system, he's doing exactly what a federal judge is supposed to do.

-1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Walt, ya'think the Judge is on the take on this one!

Living in Alaska for four years, I know first hand the decimation on Moose Wolves can do.

In the few years to come, as the Elk, deer and other wildlife is decimated by wolves, the wolves will turn to other sources for food including pets then eventually to human.

Just like the closer to Cougar/Mountain Lions and bears in California, a sharp increase in attacks was the result of it.

Although the Judge made a very bad ruling, I predict soon the people of the States will take matters in there on hands when someone is attacked especially a child

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

If you can't change the law, legislate from the bench!

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a bit longer.”
-Henry Kissinger

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from ejunk wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

very well written. nice to see some reasonable thoughts applied to this topic.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Greenhead wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

babsfish4life,

The rule is not that a species that is endangered in one place is endangered everywhere, but that one population must be.

Alaskan salmon are a distinct population from that of Idaho as much as the few black bears left in Florida are a distinct population from those in Alaska. The problem with these wolves, however, is that we are talking about one population of wolves - they do not respect state boarders. The wolves hunted in Montana are the same wolves protected in Wyoming. This is why wolves may still be hunted in Alaska, but not in the Rocky Mountian states.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

This wolf debate reminds me of the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide from our drinking water. So many people signed the petition not having a clew what it was, same goes with the soon to be out of control wolf population

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Another Kaibab disaster is on it's way!

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Calsdadhunting wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Very informative and well thought out article. I whole heartedly agree that the main issue here is getting Wyoming to develop a legal management program for wolves. I realize that they feel they are being directed by the federal government in what they can and cannot do, but every state in our nation follows some federal restrictions, so why be so stubborn in this one area. All it's doing is inhibiting Idaho and Montana from managing the problem of increasing wolf populations. Not to mention Wyoming as well. They need to rethink their stance as they are restricting their own ability to manage wolf numbers. Although I don't know if they have seen the impact on elk herds that Idaho and Montana has, it seems as though the problem will only get worse if some common sense isn't applied soon. As a side note, I also believe that some revisions do need to occur within the ESA that will allow different states to manage differing populations of the same species. As has been pointed out already, once wolf populations spread to other states such as Oregon, Washington and Utah, those populations may be considered to be so small as to be considered endangered. If these states don't then come up with reasonable management plans, we may find ourselves in this same boat again...

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from rock rat wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

I think the Endangered species act itself is the thing that needs reforming. If there are viable populations of an animal across one state but not another that means it's still endangered? And should be reintroduced? Take this to the extreme and imagine bison thoughout the midwest and grizz in California. The exact same reasoning that makes those suggestions unreasonable should apply elsewhere.

Does Kansas need a wolf population? Things are not as they were 200 years ago.

Aren't a few tens of thousands of wolves in Canada and Alaska enough?

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from motojosh wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

I think there needs to be a "Good comment?" button for McCafferty. Thanks for the succinct summary, and well-thought-out article.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from summitz wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Molly has spoken agian. Is it not time for him to leave his post? No wolf hunt this year, all that means is no legal wolf hunt. These wolfs have ruined our hunting here in the Flathead, and now we cannot manage the scurge . OH WELL the greenies are happy. Now most hunters will shoot on site and walk on, just like a coyote. I talk to people all the time that shoot these animals and just walk away. Last year most hunters were not doing this, beacuse we had a legal hunting season. Now they are going to be shot on site, which is what we should do anyway.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from ohiodeerhunter wrote 1 year 24 weeks ago

Other wolf articles from a source that in the part has been 100% pro-wolf, now it seems they are posting articles that are more logical? This site also has an anti-gun article so make your own mind up,but in the past, this has been mainly an anti-gun/hunting and pro enviro-nazi site.

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/molloys_wolf_ruling_will_it_be_just...

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/what_wolf_plan_would_work/C41/L41/

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/gun_rights_from_a_different_angle/C...

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from LadyElk wrote 1 year 24 weeks ago

Like always F&S has done a great job with the commentary on the wolf issue by Keith, I am a long time MT resident (43 yrs) also, and have been an avid hunter sense I was legally able, in the past 20 years I switched over to bow hunting elk, like you this encompasses time prior to the wolves being put into the Yellowstone ecosystem and Idaho - so I have had a taste of what it 'was', in comparison to what it is 'now', molloy's ruling may have been proper in the sense of the 'letter' of the law, but we all know what it will do to the game herds waiting for the legal aspect to work it's self out. I have always said when Man vs Animal - animal always looses, the wolves themselves did not ask for this, but neither did our game population by the Federal Governments big idea to recover the specie in the first place, and it's only a mater of time until elk, moose, and deer are put onto the endangered specie's list also, I have been a proponent of wolf removal ever sense they were put here, watching history repeat it's self, the slow at first and now the accelerated decline and displacement of other native species that have been drastically impacted by their presence. Maybe the one good thing that has come out of this, is how the law concerning the wolves was wrote in the first place and who is directly responsible for the blunder, as people expand into the vastness of our country conflicts will undoubtedly continue and some little child is ripped to pieces in the family's front yard. As this has unfolded over the years and especially now I have noticed how the states are scrambling to find a viable solution to the problem they created - no one though is accepting responsibility for this whole giant mistake, but many eye's and interpretations have made for some very creative plans of removal, and personally I think the one I read today has made the most sense, after molloy's ruling to re-list the wolves, and that is to do research hunts to study the impact on the wolf population on it's-self, the government has a much better chance with their own technology at removal, than as you stated in your article of all the hunters trying to fill the quota last year in Idaho. I have been one of those 'venters' on the list's to news rooms and web publications for years, you're article also brought to light just how this has been wrong on so many levels, that I am almost ashamed of my writing born out of the frustration the situation has caused us personally and to the big and small game populace, where I live, I have wolves right out my back door and hear them most nights, these are wolves that have spilled over the western canyons from Idaho, perdating game as they go stretching home territories into our rural area, I have pictures from last winter of a giant wolf track in my driveway, and while hunting HD270 several years back we had wolves attack our horses at hunting camp while they were tied to the horse trailer, in which F&G made us move our camp then used our stock as bait in trapping the packs nursing alpha female, much to my dismay they took they're samples, collared her and turned her loose, we didn't have any other problems that year, but have had numerous encounters with those wolves and others from other HD's, so my personal frustration is not totally with out merit. Again I would like to thank you for such a great expos'e and putting a new spin on a very personal, emotional and volatile issue.
Paula Raines (aka LadyElk) Victor MT

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from defender wrote 1 year 24 weeks ago

"We still do not realize that today we can enjoy the wilderness without fear, still do not appreciate the part that predators play in the balanced ecology of any natural community. We seem to prefer herds of semi-domesticated deer and elk and moose, swarms of small game with their natural alertness gone. It is as though we were interested in conserving only a meat supply and nothing of the semblance of the wild." Sigurd F. Olson.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from ohiodeerhunter wrote 1 year 24 weeks ago

From a related article about fed. control...

The bureaucrats behind Obama's "Great Outdoors Initiative" plan on wrapping up their public comment solicitation by November 15. The initiative's taxpayer-funded website (http://ideas.usda.gov/ago/ideas.nsf/) has been dominated by left-wing environmental activists proposing human population reduction, private property confiscation, and gun bans, hunting bans and vehicle bans in national parks. It's time for private property owners to send their own loud, clear message to the land-hungry feds: Take a hike.

Link to article....
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/michelle-malkin/2010/08/14/how-obama-is-lo...

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from czubas wrote 1 year 15 weeks ago

I'm not sure I follow the Judges logic on this case. If all of the wolves in the Northern Rockies must be treated as one distinct population, how can the species be defined as "endangered"? If there is no discernable difference in the wolves that live in Wyoming, Idaho or Montana then how are they considered "endangered"? Since the same wolves live throughout the Northern Rockies and into Alaska? If there is no discernable difference in the species in regards to geography, why are they endangered? If you follow the same logic path cited, why aren't the wolves in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin considered when determining the overall viability of the species to survive?

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Enthusiast	Kiteboarding \| QUAD \| SKI \| Skiing \| Scuba Diving \| Sport Diver \| TransWorld Ride BMX \| TransWorld Business \| TransWorld Motocross \| TransWorld SKATEboarding, \| TransWorld SNOWboarding \| TransWorld SURF \| WakeBoarding \| WaterSki \| Warren Miller Entertainment \| WindSurfing
Travel	Caribbean Travel & Life \| Destination Weddings & Honeymoon \| Islands \| Meeting Traveler \| Resorts & Great Hotels
Lifestyle & Shelter	Florida Travel & Life \| Garden Design \| Home Ft. Lauderdale \| Home Miami
Luxury	SNOW \| Spa
Marine	Boating Life \| Cruising World \| Fly Fishing in Salt Waters \| Power Cruising \| Marlin \| Motor Boating \| Sailing World \| Salt Water Sportsman \| Sport Fishing \| Yachting \| NewBoats.com \| UsedBoats.com \| YachtBroker.com
Outdoor	Field & Stream \| Outdoor Life \| SHOT Business
Parenting	Babytalk \| Parenting
Science	Popular Science \| Science Illustrated
Saveur	Saveur
Working Mother Media	Working Mother
Entertainment / Events	World Entertainment Services \| World Sports & Marketing

Search