The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and a coalition of conservation organizations have joined a federal lawsuit in opposition to environmentalists attempting to strip state management of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and return the predators to the Endangered Species list.
In May, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy allowed RMEF, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and Safari Club International to intervene in support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s science-backed decision to keep wolves in the Northern Rockies under state management. The move comes in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Western Watershed Projects, challenging the Service’s denial of their petitions to invoke federal protections for wolves. The groups claim that wolf management policies in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho jeopardize wolves and that counting and population-estimation methods used by the states are flawed.
Following delisting in 2011, these states have adopted wolf management policies that include both hunting and trapping seasons, as well as livestock protection regulations. As wolf populations have expanded, in recent years Montana and Idaho have increased opportunities for wolf hunters and trappers in response to concerns about impacts on ungulates and livestock in some areas. Current estimates put Montana’s wolf population at a little under 1,100 wolves; Idaho at more than 1,500 wolves; and Wyoming at more than 350. Oregon and Washington state have at least 178 and 260 wolves respectively, according to the most recent counts.
Environmental groups filed petitions with USFWS, contending that these policies would drive wolf populations too low when they feel larger numbers are needed. They further claimed that Montana, which uses population modeling based in part on hunter observations, and Idaho, which uses remote cameras to estimate wolf populations, were over estimating numbers.
In February, the USFWS considered these arguments but denied petitions to re-list wolves under the ESA. “Despite current levels of regulated harvest, lethal control and episodic disease outbreaks, wolf abundance in the western United States has generally continued to increase and occupied range has continued to expand,” the service wrote in its denial of the petitions.
The environmentalists’ lawsuit seeks to overturn that decision and set aside more than a decade of state management in favor of federal oversight. By allowing RMEF and other conservation organizations to join the case, Judge Molloy found that, “The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has indicated that it has invested in ‘land acquisitions, exchanges, conservation easements and improving habitat quality in an effort to enhance wildlife populations,’ efforts that would be jeopardized by increased, unregulated predation.”
RMEF President and CEO Kyle Weaver points out that wolf populations in Idaho and Montana are 800 percent and 600 percent above minimum federal recovery goals respectively. Wyoming’s wolf population has met recovery goals for more than two decades, and wolf numbers are at modern-day highs in Oregon and Washington state.
“It is incumbent that these groups stick to proven science and not emotion for the sake of healthy predator and prey populations alike,” said Weaver, noting that the evidence environmental groups are using has either not been peer reviewed or has received funding from wolf advocacy groups.
Interestingly, the environmental groups filed their lawsuit one day earlier than allowed by law. While they asked that the case be dismissed, they plan to immediately re-file and the dismissal is not expected to impact the particulars of the case. But as RMEF and others go to court to maintain state management of wolves in the Northern Rockies, another pair of lawsuits are directly impacting wolf trapping in Montana and Idaho.
In response to suits filed by environmentalists, federal courts overseeing both states ordered major reductions to wolf trapping seasons, ruling that trapping could pose a risk to grizzly bears protected under the ESA. The ruling prompted a swift rebuke from political leaders as well as trappers who pointed out that since Montana and Idaho began allowing wolf trapping more than a decade ago, there have been few recorded conflicts with bears. In that time, Montana has confirmed only one grizzly caught in a recreational wolf trap, in 2013, that was later released, and Idaho has recorded no grizzlies caught in legally set traps.
“In recent years, the ESA has been weaponized to accomplish the goals of certain groups and individuals without regard to the total balance of ecosystems and their other inhabitants,” the National Trappers Association said in a statement. “This is being accomplished by influencing people of authority with total disregard of science, confirmed data and professional opinion.”
After the court rulings, state officials responded with reduced wolf trapping seasons in Montana’s and Idaho’s occupied grizzly habitat, with judges saying the shortened seasons would be better focused on times when grizzlies are hibernating. Montana’s wolf trapping season, which previously began with a floating start date in December and ran until March 15, was essentially cut in half across western and much of central Montana, down to January 1 to February 15. In Idaho, wolf trapping is now prohibited between March 1 and the end of November in all areas with grizzlies — cutting about nine months off the previous season for private lands and six months for public lands.
