How wolf management affects you
 |
NWTF position on the The National Wild Turkey Federation supports the sound, science-based management of wolves by the appropriate state agencies. The NWTF recommends that management authority for wolves remain with state agencies when wolves are no longer on the endangered species list. The NWTF further supports our state wildlife partners in their efforts to provide for a sustainable, huntable population of wolves while maintaining healthy, huntable populations of ungulates. This must work in conjunction with balancing the habitat needs and conservation of all wildlife. |
For more than a century the North American conservation model has defined wildlife management in the United States, but legal maneuvering by environmentalists over wolves has given us a reminder of what can happen when this model's foundation is tested.
Why would the National Wild Turkey Federation become embroiled in a debate about wolves in the West? Preserving our hunting heritage is part of the NWTF mission, and the arguments used in the wolf debate could be used to dismantle — or sustain — the North American conservation model.
The litigious nature of wolf management is an example of how anti-hunting groups are attempting to use the judicial system to remove wildlife management from the states and destroy modern wildlife management.
The North American conservation model began with the Public Trust Doctrine resulting from an 1842 U.S. Supreme Court case, Martin v. Waddell, and strengthened with Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois in 1892. From this came the common law that the public as a whole, and not individuals, own wildlife collectively. Further efforts led to a conservation model unlike any other in the world.
Complications to the Model
The North American conservation model states that fish and wildlife are in public ownership; citizens are free to pursue wildlife within established guidelines; and the government, using science, is responsible for the management of sustainable wildlife populations. That seems simple enough, but the model's reach is also far and intricate.
It becomes more complex with migratory species, shorebirds and species whose very existence is threatened or endangered. Migratory waterfowl and shorebird management falls under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which calls for cooperation between state and federal agencies; primary responsibility rests with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Species in need of special protection are managed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. State wildlife agencies are responsible for non-migratory wildlife (including fish, reptiles, etc.), and they participate in the management of migratory wildlife, threatened and endangered species.
The ESA and Wolves
The wolf issue requires a close look at the ESA. The ESA was established to prevent the extinction of wildlife and plant species, and sets the framework for cooperative management of the ecosystems critical for the survival of endangered fish, wildlife and plants. Provision 10(j) of the ESA authorizes the U.S. Department of the Interior to establish and maintain experimental populations to conserve endangered species.
In 1995, the USFWS designated and then introduced an "experimental, nonessential" population of 300 gray wolves from Canada into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Initial releases led to rapid population growth (the current estimate is more than 1,700 wolves in 242 packs), which is being met with cries of outrage by local ranchers and conservationists. Restoration goals set by the USFWS have been exceeded every year for the past nine years.
Environmentalists and anti-hunters alike champion burgeoning wolf populations. They argue that the Yellowstone elk herd had grown beyond its carrying capacity due to the lack of a keystone predator, and critical riparian areas are now rebounding after years of overuse by elk.
Others see things quite differently. Concerned sportsmen believe that the current high number of wolves is out of balance with prey species, that wolves have decimated deer and elk populations outside Yellowstone in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, and they are damaging big-game hunting opportunities for future generations.
Recent Wolf Battles
The expanding wolf population prompted the USFWS to remove Northern Rocky Mountain wolves from the endangered list in March 2008 and return wolf management to the states. Conservationists, including the NWTF, applauded the decision. Regulated wolf harvest can provide hunting opportunities and revenue for management through wolf permit sales, as with any other huntable game species, and regulated wolf harvest can help maintain a balance in elk, moose and deer populations. Anti-hunting groups, which have used wolves as a major fundraising tool for more than 20 years, challenged the wolf de-listing and management plans set forth by the states.
The USFWS again delisted wolves in May 2009, except in Wyoming, where federal biologists say that state's management plan did not adequately protect wolves. As expected, court challenges resulted and U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy ordered the USFWS to return wolves to the endangered list, claiming that the populations in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming must be considered as a single population; if one part of the population is not de-listed, none of the population can be de-listed. The state of Montana has filed an appeal of Molloy's decision with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Ironically, that court is also scheduled to hear a USFWS challenge to another Molloy decision that prevents state management authority to resume for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
With hundreds of lawsuits and dozens of ballot initiatives, anti-hunters and environmentalists have used every argument except science to attack the North American conservation model. They are arguing that the federal government, not individual states, should maintain management authority over wolves in perpetuity. Now that science has proven the successful return of the gray wolf to its historic range, the courts have a legal obligation to restore management authority to the individual state agencies, an outcome the NWTF endorses. — James Earl Kennamer, Ph.D.