Wolf lawsuit hurts
conservation cause, says attorney
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian
The return of healthy wolf populations to
Montana, Idaho and Wyoming is a success story unequaled in the history
of endangered species management, and yet conservationists seem intent
on snatching "defeat from the jaws of victory," a
conservationist-attorney said Thursday.
Tom France, general counsel for the National Wildlife Federation, told
the 27th Public Land and Resources Law Conference he was dismayed when
a coalition of 17 environmental groups filed suit Wednesday, hoping to
stop the removal of wolves from Endangered Species Act protection.
The National Wildlife Federation is not a party to the lawsuit and has
no plans to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over wolf recovery,
France said.
"I am disappointed that these groups
cannot find another, better way to move wolf recovery forward,"
France said during a panel discussion on the legal, political and
biological implications of wolf delisting.
The two-day conference at the University of Montana is focused on the
Endangered Species Act and the litigation, regulations and
collaboration it has produced in the West.
When work began on a wolf recovery plan two decades ago, everyone
involved would have branded as fantasy any suggestion that there would
be 800 wolves successfully inhabiting Montana, Idaho and Wyoming by
the year 2003, France said.
That something so far-fetched became reality and then somehow wasn't
christened a success is unbelievable, he added. "Yet that is
precisely what has happened. We cannot find a way to make this success
real, and that failure threatens to undermine the Endangered Species
Act."
Led by Defenders of Wildlife, the groups that filed suit this week in
U.S. District Court in Oregon object to the federal government's
insistence that wolves are recovered because their populations are
healthy and self-sustaining in three states.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has not even attempted to recover the
species in California, Colorado, New York, Maine, Oregon or
Washington, places historically inhabited by wolves, the lawsuit
complained.
And those states where wolves exist - both in the northern Rocky
Mountains and Great Lakes regions - have drafted wolf management plans
that call for the liberal use of lethal control of problem wolves, and
for sport hunting, the suit said.
Wyoming, for example, has proposed to manage the species by declaring
that wolves should be shot on sight as predators anywhere in the state
other than national parks or wilderness areas.
And although France is disappointed by the lawsuit, he also chided the
Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to bring all the different
interest groups together before announcing how and where wolves would
be restored.
"But who would we have invited to the table?" asked Ed
Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service in
Helena, who presided over the species' return to the northern Rockies.
"The Endangered Species Act says we are to establish a viable
wolf population in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho," Bangs said.
"And we are saying that we are done."
The Fish and Wildlife Service never intended to bring back wolves to
Colorado or Oregon or Utah, Bangs said. "It is not the job of the
Endangered Species Act to put wolves everywhere they might be, or
everywhere they once were."
Indeed, both France and Chris Smith, chief of staff for Montana's
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said states like Colorado and
Oregon could restore their historic wolf populations more quickly if
wolves were taken off the endangered species list.
Once delisting occurs, wolf management will fall to each individual
state.
So if Colorado wanted to reintroduce wolves to its backcountry, the
state could simply write a wolf management plan, find a source of
"surplus wolves" and ferry them across the border, Smith
said.
"If we were delisted, Colorado could have some of our
wolves," he said. "We'd gladly bundle them up and fly them
to Denver."
Smith said he worries that the environmentalists' lawsuit will derail
Montanans' support for recovering wolves and taking over their
management.
If too many years pass while the controversy over other states is
decided in court, Montana could lose the public support for state
management it worked so hard to achieve in recent years, Smith said.
"Will we be able to sustain the political energy and synergy that
has developed around the wolf management plan?" Smith asked.
"That consensus could erode if we get two, three, four years down
the road."
Already, he said, he is receiving e-mails from anti-wolf activists who
think the lawsuit is a trick intended to allow the continued
proliferation of wolves and the eventual ruination of the livestock
industry.
Ultimately, environmentalists risk losing "an opportunity to gain
the confidence of the American public" by delaying the removal of
wolves from the endangered species list, France said.
"This is our chance to show that conservation can be woven into
the fabric of society in creative ways," he said. "And why?
Why can't we celebrate that success?"
The University of Montana's Public Land and Resources Law Conference
continues at 9 a.m. Friday with a talk on "Endangered Species Act
Litigation as Behavior Regulator" by William J. Snape III, chief
counsel for Defenders of Wildlife.
Presentations continue throughout the day in the Castles Center at
UM's School of Law. The 27th annual event is sponsored by UM's Public
Land and Resources Law Review, Center for the Rocky Mountain West and
College of Forestry and Conservation. All sessions are free and open
to the public.
Reporter Sherry Devlin can be reached at 523-5268 or at sdevlin@missoulian.com.
[Non-text portions of
this message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to
those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go
to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
