Wolf delisting gets federal approval

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. – Once hunted to near extinction, gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region and the northern Rocky Mountains have rebounded so successfully they no longer need federal protection, officials said Monday.

The Interior Department said it would remove about 4,000 wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin from the endangered and threatened species list in about a month. State and tribal governments will have responsibility for keeping their numbers at healthy levels.

The department hopes to take the same action for about 1,200 wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming within a year.

“Today, through this action, we recognize a comeback of the wolves,” Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett said in a conference call with reporters.

Government-approved bounty hunting nearly wiped out the wolf in the lower 48 states by the 1950s. Changing attitudes led to their protection in 1974 under the newly enacted Endangered Species Act.

The federal government will continue monitoring wolf populations for five years after they are dropped from the list and can return them on an emergency basis if necessary.

States and tribes are developing management plans dealing with touchy issues such as whether to allow sport hunting of wolves and how to deal with livestock depredation.

All three Great Lakes states would prohibit trophy wolf hunts for at least five years, while Idaho’s governor has said he would push for immediate hunting to slash wolf numbers. Wyoming is pushing for greater authority to authorize killing wolves to protect livestock and wildlife.

“Restoring the wolf to its place in the natural world while addressing conflicts with people is a difficult balancing act,” Scarlett said. But managers, scientists and educators in state wildlife agencies “have strong working relationships with local landowners and the ability to quickly deal with potential conflicts,” she said.

The path to removing the wolf has been strewn with bitter arguments and legal challenges, and more are likely now that the government has released its plan.

A federal judge threw out an earlier version in 2004 because it combined areas where wolves were doing well with places where they were still in trouble. The latest proposal establishes the western Great Lakes as a separate wolf population region.

Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency had learned from the court case and believed its new plans would survive lawsuits.

At their lowest numbers, a few hundred wolves in Minnesota were all that remained in the Great Lakes region. After being listed, their numbers quickly increased and the animals migrated east. Latest estimates show more than 3,000 in Minnesota, more than 460 in Wisconsin and more than 430 in Michigan, plus 30 on Isle Royale in Lake Superior.

“A classic Endangered Species Act success story,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of the environmentalist group Defenders of Wildlife. “The remarkable recovery efforts to restore the wolf have paid off, and the states are ready to assume the responsibilities of managing their own wolf populations.”

But environmentalists said that the proposal to delist Northern Rockies wolves was premature and that management plans drawn up in those states seemed designed for eradication rather than protection. Other critics say the government is moving too slowly to shield elk and other prey animals from wolves.

The Fish and Wildlife Service wants Montana, Idaho and Wyoming to each set a minimum recovery goal of 100 wolves, including 10 breeding pairs. Hunting would be restricted if the number of breeding pairs dropped to 15.

The agency has approved management plans crafted by Montana and Idaho but says Wyoming’s plan – and its state law – aren’t protective enough.

Hall said he hoped Wyoming would make satisfactory changes this year. If it doesn’t, the service will continue with plans to delist the wolf in the other two Rocky Mountain states while keeping Wyoming’s wolves under federal protection.

“The bottom line here is that we’re dealing with a legal and regulatory process based on biology,” he said.