Note: Camenzind is the executive director of the Jackson Hole Alliance. RM
Hello everyone:
WYOMING WOLVES: Since their first reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and '96, wolves have prospered. Their reintroduction is a wildlife management success story. Currently, there are approximately 275 wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). About 148 of these are inside YNP, while the remaining 127 are in Wyoming.
Today, Wyoming wolves are in trouble. They need your help. The Wyoming Legislature is in session and one of the bills under consideration is the regulatory status of the gray wolf in Wyoming. Currently, wolves are classified within Wyoming as a predator which means they can be killed by anyone, by any means and at any time-fortunately, the Federal Endangered Species Act supersedes the state law and for now wolves enjoy reasonable protection. However, as the process to remove or de-list wolves from federal protection, each of the three states surrounding the GYE (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) must present a wolf management plan which will insure that wolves are sufficiently protected so as not to require re-listing at some later date. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service along with a panel of wolf biologists will make the final decision as to whether or not the state management plans will insure wolf survival into the future and warrant de-listing.
The Wyoming legislature is currently considering HB229, which would provide a dual classification for wolves in the state. That is, within Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and 3 National Forest wilderness areas contiguous to the parks, wolves would have Trophy Game status and would for the most part be protected. (Wolves will always be protected within the National Parks, but HB229 will provide protection to wolves within the contiguous wilderness areas.) The bill also says that a minimum of 8 packs will be required within the parks and a minimum of 7 packs outside the parks (wilderness areas). Fifteen packs means about 120 to 150 wolves. Beyond those boundaries wolves would be classified as predators and subject to indiscriminate, year-long killing.
Should this bill be passed by the Wyoming Senate as currently written, we must encourage (D) Governor Dave Freudenthal to veto the bill.
Obvious flaws in the bill are:
The idea of limiting wolves to certain numbers and places presents an impossible management directive. Wolves move over great distances, in and out of the protected areas and would be subject to killing when out of the protected areas. To make this plan work, the state would have to monitor wolves on at least a weekly basis. This means yearly radio collaring, weekly if not daily monitoring with aircraft and extremely questionable record keeping and decision making. This would be an extremely costly program, one the cash-strapped Game and Fish Department can not afford.
As written, packs are defined as five wolves traveling together. It is not at all dependent upon whether or not they are reproducing! And if more than 10 wolves are in one group and two females have pups, this would count as two packs!
In summary, HB229 is too costly to operate, will put too many wolves in jeopardy even if they are not causing problems, and will be very subject to litigation by both pro- and anti-wolf groups who may dispute the Game and Fish analysis.If HB229 were in place this winter, the Nez Perce pack, who's territory is almost entirely within Yellowstone National Park, could have been eliminated when they went on their two month 'walk about' and ended up in Jackson Hole. They did the same thing last winter, but ended up on the west side of the Teton Range, on national forest and private lands. Again, they could have been eliminated under HB229. The Teton Pack which has its den within Grand Teton National Park, could be eliminated when they cross the boundary, about a half mile to the east of the den site. Even if they ventured to the nearby Gros Ventre Wilderness area in the Bridger-Teton National Forest (but not contiguous to GTNP) they could be eliminated. Simply stated, HB229 will not protect even park wolves.
The bill also requires the Game and Fish Department to provide quarterly reports on the status of the wolf population to the G&F Commission who will then recommend management changes! This will become a bureaucratic nightmare and one too costly to implement and one highly vulnerable to litigation.
A BETTER MANAGEMENT PLAN would be to have a single listing for wolves in Wyoming: Trophy Game Animals. All wolves would be completely under the control of the Game and Fish Department who would determine where and how many wolves can be taken by "sportsmen (and women)". Wolves would not be subject to indiscriminate killing by anyone so inclined. Wolves should be allowed to occupy the landscape as they please and if, and only if they cause 'problems' should they be controlled. The control could be carried out by the federal Wildlife Services branch of the Department of Agriculture, saving the state precious currency. Under this plan, the state would not have to keep a (costly) running count on numbers and not have to keep track of where wolves are. Wolves would only be managed when they need to be managed. We should understand that the farther wolves get from the GYE (and the closer they get to civilization), the state will likely have more liberal, controlled "hunts". That is an unfortunate circumstance I can not see avoiding.
If you feel strongly that wolves should be free to live in Northwestern Wyoming and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, please send your thoughts to:
The Honorable David Freudenthal, Governor,
State Capitol Building, Cheyenne, WY. 82002:
(w) 307 777 7434, (f) 307 632 3909 and e-message: governor@missc.state.wy.us
There are so many reasons each of you may have to want more protection for wolves, but here are a few which relate directly to the current legislation: -- Insist on having a single classification for wolves, and only as Trophy Game Animals -- Wolves should not be limited to arbitrary and minimum numbers and nor should they be confined to unrealistic and politically defined landscapes -- The legislation now considered (HB229) will be too costly to implement, to subject to dispute and litigation -- The definition of packs as simply five wolves traveling together does not even recognize the importance of having reproduction occurring within the group. Also, it is completely illogical to consider a pack with 10 or more wolves, but with two breeding females to be two packs You may want to suggest: -- Let wolves occupy the landscape and initiate wolf control only when wolves are proven to be causing problems -- Acknowledge that wolves will be more subject to controlled by sport hunting the farther away they are from the core of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the closer they get to populated area -- You may consider not visiting Wyoming if wolves are not given the best protection possible Thank you for taking the time to read this and to send your thought to Governor Freudentah. Wolves need your involvement.
Franz J. Camenzind
Sample message (this not from Camenzind)
Honorable Dave Freudenthal,
I am responding to HB229 and am appealing to you to stop this legislation to make much needed changes. I'm sure that if you were to visit the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and see these areas considered in HB229, that you would see the future of the wolves as being somewhat hopeless. We moved here to see wild creatures in wild habitat, and we must defend this wildlife, not just in our Parks, but in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as a whole. Their protection is our responsibility, should be our priority, and we must step up to the plate to do it right the first time.
Please consider the following recommendations:
-- Give only a single classification for wolves, and only as Trophy Game Animals
-- Wolves should not be limited to arbitrary and minimum numbers and nor should they be confined to unrealistic and politically defined landscapes
-- The legislation now considered (HB229) will be too costly to implement, to subject to dispute and litigation
-- The definition of packs as simply five wolves traveling together does not even recognize the importance of having reproduction occurring within the group. It is completely illogical to consider a pack with 10 or more wolves, but with two breeding females to be two packs
-- Let wolves occupy the landscape and initiate wolf control only when wolves are proven to be causing problems
-- Acknowledge that wolves will be more subject to controlled by sport hunting the farther away they are from the core of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the closer they get to populated area
Please help our wildlife. Our country and Wyoming depends on them for the welfare of all.
Return To Maughan Wolf Report Page
Copyright ©2003 Ralph Maughan
Not to be reprinted, archived, redistributed, etc., without permission. Ralph Maughan PO Box 8264, Pocatello, ID 83209