Farm Bureau files another suit to return Yellowstone wolves to Canada (9-16-96)

---

This week the Wyoming Farm Bureau filed yet another lawsuit in federal
court demanding that reintroduced population of wolves in Yellowstone be
returned to Canada.

The event that sparked the lawsuit is the recent transferal of pups
from the Sawtooth Pack in NW Montana into a holding pen in Yellowstone
National Park. The NW Montana wolf population did not result from a
reintroduction. The wolves naturally recolonized the area beginning in
the early 1980s through dispersals from Canada. These indigenous Montana
wolves have the full protection of the Endangered Species Act.

The Yellowstone and central Idaho wolf reintroductions were made under
a provision of the ESA that allows for the reintroduction of "experi-
mental, non-essential" populations. This provision and the "final rule"
under which the reintroductions were gives the government more flexibility
in managing and moving wolves than under the ESA.

The argument in the lawsuit is that commingling of indigenous Montana
wolves with Yellowstone reintroduced wolves "invalidated the 'experi-
mental' designation." The Farm Bureau argued that now all the wolves
in the Park are designated "endangered." The Farm Bureau pointed to the
final rule that said that all the reintroduced wolves will be removed
from the wild and the experimental status and regulation revoked when
"legal actions or lawsuits change the wolves status to 'endangered'."
Many people believed that this provision was put in the final rule to
prevent wolf supporters from suing to have the status of the new popu-
lations of wolves changed to "endangered" -- something many, but certainly
not all such groups desired.

An Associated Press story quoted Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation Vice
President Larry Bourret "we cannot allow this irresponsible and
llegal activity to go unchallenged." "We have always felt the govern-
ment wanted to bring in wolves, then begin the process of changing
the rules, and now this is exactly what they are now doing."

Ed Bangs, wolf recovery leader for the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
howver, said that the Farm Bureau's interpretation was wrong. Bangs
maintained that once an "endangered" wolf crosses into the "experi-
mental population" area, it becomes an "experimental wolf." Bangs
said that the ten new pups are "experimental."

The status of wolves from endangered populations in experimental areas,
was a great controversy before the reintroductions occurred. It led to
lawsuits by both the Farm Bureau and the Sierra Club Legal Defense
Fund. Ironically, SCLDF sought a court ruling that pups from the union
of these two different legal types of wolves would be "endangered" rather
than "experimental;" and so the status of such pups would change.

The lawsuits from both the Farm Bureau and SCLDF were "consolidated"
by the court of Wyoming U.S. District Judge William Downes. No ruling
has been issued so far. This case my perhaps be pressure on Judge Downes
to rule on the Farm Bureau's earlier request for a summary judgment.

The Farm Bureau has filed numerous lawsuits on the issue in the past --
first to prevent the wolves from coming to Idaho and Yellowstone, then to
prevent them from being released from their transport cages, and finally
several suits asking the new wolves be removed.

I debated Wyoming Farm Bureau VP Larry Bourret in a D.C. Christian talk
radio program last year. I think it's fair to say the Wyoming Farm
Bureau is probably the most anti-wolf organization of any size in the
United States. I do regard this lawsuit as a serious challenge to Yellow-
stone's wolves.