Gray wolf, once protected, is now imperiled

After the gray wolf was taken off the endangered species list in March, hunters have gone on a shooting spree in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Now the federal government is debating whether to put the wolf back on the list.

As The Times' Julie Cart reports out of Daniel, Wyo., wolves evoke passionate -- and sometimes mixed -- feelings in the Western states. Among the people she visits is rancher Merrill Dana:

"Dana's thoughts about wolves are complicated. He enjoys wildlife and readily acknowledges that the clever and strong wolf is especially fascinating. But after the controversial program to reintroduce the wolf in the 1990s, the animal has come to symbolize unwelcome federal meddling in rural Western lives and land.

"For the time being, at least, wolves in the northern Rockies are back on the endangered species list while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reconsiders the issue. Federal officials are monitoring the wolf management programs in Montana and Idaho, which canceled its wolf hunt planned for this month. In Wyoming, federal wildlife officials took over wolf management while a committee of the Wyoming Legislature crafts a new policy.

"It was a stunning reversal in what wildlife biologists had hailed as a success story. The species had flourished, its population growing by about 20% a year since wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park in 1995. This was proof the Endangered Species Act worked, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said when it delisted the wolf in March."

The gray wolf population rose rapidly after the animals were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995. Last year the population hit 1,513. So far this year, 225 have died, many in recent hunts. Read on for Cart's full report on the gray wolf.

-- Steve Padilla

Photo: Associated Press

Comments

[Brien Comerford]

It's morally compulsory to place the gray wolf on the endangered species list. They must be protected from bloodthirsty hunters who have no respect for life. These issues compel me to vote for Obama. When McCain selected Plain he picked a person who massacres majestic wildlife for fun and pleasure. What a horrible VP selection.

[Island Richards]

@Brien -- Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, but the fact is, wolves are reproducing at astounding rates, and even at the numbers quoted in the article above (which are low, by the way) the current population is 5 times more than what was determined to be the target population.

The wolves have spread out across the length of Western Wyoming, at least as far as 300+ miles away from the park that I am personally aware of.

According to this map,
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt06/Fig3_GYA.pdf
they haven’t. In fact, the FWS is reluctant to admit the presence of wolves so far away from the recovery zone. When called once in 2006 to report a wolf sighting on Little Mountain in Southwest Wyoming, the FWS response was “There aren’t any wolves there” and more interesting “We don’t want to know about any wolves in that area”

According to the original recovery plan,
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan.pdf
the goal was ten breeding pairs (which constitutes a pack) in each of three recovery areas, Yellowstone, Montana, and Idaho (again, notice that Wyoming doesn’t count) for a total of 30 packs or 300 wolves with an average of 10 wolves per pack.

According to this 2007 report,
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt07/WY%20and%20YNP%202007%20Annual%20Final%20Report%20received%203-8-08.pdf
there were 25 wolf packs in Wyoming OUTSIDE of Yellowstone Park. That is more than double the 11 packs that occupy the park itself. Wyoming alone (yes, Yellowstone park IS in Wyoming after all) contains more wolf packs than the recovery plan recommended for the ENTIRE recovery area!

Of course, by your reasoning, every wild animal, no matter how numerous, should be on the endangered species list so us "bloodthirsty hunters" won't hurt the poor little things. Since you obviously live in a city with a different kind of wildlife, you probably don't understand how important hunters are in the management of sustainable populations of wild game.

I suggest you do a little research and educate yourself. I would bet both my legs that I, bloodthirsty hunter that I am, have ten times the respect for wildlife than you ever will.

[Nathan Hobbs]

This article is not correct, currently the animals ARE on the Endangered species list, a hunt was thwarted this season at least by Judge Molloys decision to put them back on the list. There are no discussions to remove them from this list for this season.

The Federal goverment has since scrapped the entire plan to delist them because there is not enough genetic interchange happening.

Dont use the word hunting, because there is no hunt occurring here.

Wolves are being killed by humans currently in one of two ways government eradication and control programs or POACHING. There is a huge silent majority here that believe in what is called SSS which stands for Shoot Shovel Shut-Up.

[Marv Hagedorn]

What this "story" doesn't report is the fact that hunters in Idaho and Montanna have not hunted the wolf. The great majority of wolves killed have been killed by the Dept of Interior because they have overpopulated areas where they are eating pets, cows, horses and threatening people. These depredation kills are to keep the population from getting out of control. No one really knows what the actual population now is, minimum is 1500 and that population is increasing a net of 21% per year (that includes the numbers of wolves killed in these depridation hunts by the feds). Next year that population will be even greater and the year after and so on... and we will continue to pay the feds to kill the wolves they put in these places to "restore" them.

Now, who pays for those federal officials to fly their helicopters to go hunt down wolves? You do, the taxpayer.

Wolf management plans in all three states were put together to keep the population in check (with target control numbers) where the people that were to pay for this management would be the hunters and not the general tax payers (in fact hunters would purchase tags, that money going to matching federal funds for wildlife conservation projects, this has gone on since 1927 and has been found to be the most cost effective wildlife management control method). Thank God we have people that elect to spend their own money to hunt, otherwise our taxes would be even that much higher by having to hire people to do it (like we do today because these animals are listed)

I'm sure that the people that live in ID, MT and WY would be happy to have the folks in urban areas foot the bill to trap and move wolves to places like Los Angeles (where wolves also used to roam...) so urban folks could manage their lives around them.

The families in the rual parts of these states, that typically grow the food that we eat, have to protect their children playing outside to keep them from being a target of wolves. At least urban families have police to help protect their families, why shouldn't the rual families at least be able to protect themselves?

Wolves are not an endangerd species in our world, there are hundreds of thousands of them in Canada, Russia, Europe, and the US... but the "old (1972)" ESA doesn't take into account total global populations, only populations in a general or specific area (say, LA?) where the wolves used to roam that now don't. How stupid is it to spend our tax dollars on an animal that is not even threatened instead of on people that are?

Before you start hugging the "poor wolf", hug your neighbor and tell the feds to focus our tax Dollars on people.

I wonder why these facts were not included in this "story"... can you say "reporting with a bias"?

[Jennifer P]

Marv Hagedorn wrote: " (The) population is increasing a net of 21% per year (that includes the numbers of wolves killed in these depridation hunts by the feds). Next year that population will be even greater and the year after and so on... and we will continue to pay the feds to kill the wolves they put in these places to "restore" them."

I understand that people want to paint the picture that wolves are multiplying out of control and will soon overrun the West, but that is just untrue. The numbers have actually leveled off, and this year have declined.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

The mid-year wolf population was estimated at 1,545 in 2007. This year the estimate is 1,455, which means a decrease of 90.

Nature maintains a balance--- the numbers of wolves increased so quickly bc they were filling a niche that they were naturally supposed to be a part of. It was humans who detroyed the balance, and now it is righting itself. If ranchers graze their animals on BLM land, they should understand they run a risk of natural predators since the animals are in a natural setting.

I've lived in Montana for a decade, near Yellowstone National Park, and I'm very pleased at the positive changes (a return to natural form) that the reintroduction has brought to this area. A fully intact eco-system is a rare and wonderful thing in our time, we should work to protect it.