By Glen Wunderlich
Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)
Political ping pong is alive and well, as evidenced by the seemingly perpetual issue of gray wolf management. On one side of the table are the well-funded animal rights extremists purporting to defend all wildlife from the modern model of regulated hunting in the name of animal welfare. On the other side are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and sportsmen and women of the country. At issue is whether wolves have met their carrying capacity of the land and should, in fact, be declared recovered, and therefore managed at the state level.
The last ball over the net came from a federal judge in Washington, D.C. in 2017, when it issued its ruling in the Western Great Lakes wolf lawsuit appeal, which claimed that wolves could not be recovered unless they inhabited all of their historic range. However, if it is determined that a species is no longer threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service must publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule to remove the species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
With the agreed-upon goal of 100 wolves for Wisconsin and Michigan combined, there is no question that the population of between 600 to 700 in Michigan plus another 1,000 in Wisconsin results from absolutely zero management. So, what’s the rub against allowing the respective states to control their wildlife populations? Two new petitions will force the issue.
The Sportsmen’s Alliance, together with Michigan Bear Hunters Association, Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association and Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, filed a pair of petitions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) on gray wolves.
One petition is to recognize and delist a Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (WGL DPS) of wolves within Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (and areas of adjoining states) while the other petition requests FWS to exercise specific management options on remnant wolf populations existing in Western states.
FWS has delisted the WGL DPS at several points in the past, but each of these delisting actions has been challenged by animal-extremist organizations in federal court. The courts have repeatedly ruled against delisting – not because of a concern over the wolf population within the WGL, where gray wolf recovery is well established; rather, it is FWS’ failure to address “remnant” wolves.
With this in mind, the hunting coalition filed a second petition on remnant wolves to develop a pathway from the litigation morass that has strangled effective wolf management for nearly 20 years. With remnant wolves addressed in the second petition, the coalition recommends that this newly established WCW DPS be listed at the threatened level, thereby downlisting this population from endangered status and providing maximum flexibility to state wildlife managers.
Second, the petition asks that FWS create a “non-DPS” consisting of all wolves in the lower 48 states that are not otherwise included in an established DPS. This will mean that all wolves outside of a DPS will continue to be protected under the ESA as endangered under the original 1978 listing.
When taken together, the two petitions create a means for FWS to recognize wolf recovery where it has taken place, while continuing to ensure management flexibility under the ESA for remnant wolves in the West and throughout the country.
“While not immediately obvious, these two petitions are following a blueprint established by the federal courts on gray wolves and the ESA,” said Todd Adkins, vice president of government affairs at the Sportsmen’s Alliance. “Instead of a quick fix, this is a long-term strategy to get wolf management back in the state agencies where it belongs instead of locked up in litigation brought by the extremists to keep their fund-raising juggernaut running full steam…”
Ideology is pitted against science, which has been ignored through all of this. And, if anyone thinks that by hunting wolves to control their numbers, is going to wipe them out, just name one single species that falls under the parameters of regulated hunting in which this has happened. Hunters have always ensured sustainability of any game they’ve hunted. Simple as that.
