Wyoming Game and Fish Department Proposes Interim Wolf Management Plan

The Wyoming Department of Game and Fish has released a proposal for joint state-federal wolf management in Wyoming. This plan would be in effect from now until the time wolves are delisted in Wyoming (removed from the Threatened or Endangered Species list).

The federal government has encouraged joint federal-state management of the recovery, but until now Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have declined to participate, leaving management entirely with the federal government (primarily the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Now Wyoming may want to join the effort.

Wyoming Game and Fish's recently released proposal gives five alternatives, including one they prefer. They are seeking public input. After reading the draft plan, it is my impression that they prefer that the public input come from citizens of Wyoming, but they did promptly send me their proposal when I requested it. I live in Idaho.

Here are the basics of their five proposals:

• Alternative no. 1 is no state involvement. This is the status quo. Wolves in Wyoming would continue to be entirely managed by the U.S. government.
• Alternative no. 2 also is no state involvement, but wolves would be permitted only inside Yellowstone National Park. The document lists this alternative, but says that this alternative is illegal under the Endangered Species Act and also isn't feasible because it is impossible to limit wolves to the arbitrary boundaries of the Park.
• Alternative number 3 is state-federal wolf management with a maximum of ten wolf packs total inside the Park and the adjacent area in Wyoming. The "adjacent" area is basically that part of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem that lies in NW Wyoming, an area about four times the size of Yellowstone National Park.
• There would be no limits on the distribution of the ten packs. For example, if no packs were inside the Park, that would be OK. It would also be OK if all packs resided in the Park.
• Wolves that leave the area could be captured and put back in the area. Excess wolves might be translocated to central Idaho, assuming the central Idaho population had not been "delisted." I should note that the central Idaho restoration continues to go well.
• The fourth alternative is the same as that above except that packs outside Yellowstone National Park would be limited to six packs. There would be no limit on the number of packs allowed inside Yellowstone National Park.
• The area outside of the Park would be divided into three "wolf management units." Each unit would be allowed up to two packs of wolves.
• The three units would be the Absaroka, the Wind River, and the Jackson Hole.
• Pack occupancy of the Park or any of the management units would be defined as where more than 50% of the Pack's territory lies.
• This is Wyoming Game and Fish's preferred alternative.

• The last alternative would allow an unlimited number of packs inside Yellowstone and twelve packs outside the Park. In addition, the area outside the Park where wolves would be allowed to roam would be the western 2/3 of Wyoming, rather than just the NW corner of the state.

The wolf will be formally delisted when Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming each have ten packs for three consecutive years. At the present, Montana meets this objective due to natural recolonization, but Idaho and Wyoming do not.

When the wolf is formally delisted, regardless of which alternative is adopted here for interim management, management would fall to the states. The state could do what it wants, provided the number of wolves does not fall back below the recovery goal -- ten packs of wolves.

Wyoming, and the other two states, would be required to have an acceptable conservation plan for the wolves so that they would not fall below the recovery target. Wyoming would also have to change the current state law which classifies the wolf as a "predator" to something else. The Department of Game and Fish suggests "trophy animal"-- the current Wyoming classification for mountain lions, black bears and grizzly bears (although there is no hunt for grizzly bears).

Effects of the preferred alternative-
Wyoming Game and Fish estimates that adoption of their preferred alternative or of alternative three, would result in population of about 100 wolves which would annually consume about 1000 elk, 240 deer, 20 bison, 20 moose, and 7 bighorn sheep. They regard this an insubstantial effect on wild ungulates (when considered as big game) because most elk herds in NW Wyoming are presently over Game and Fish population objectives. They do say that wolves could, nevertheless, negatively impact ungulate numbers in small localities, given certain circumstances. This appears to be one reason they prefer alternative four over alternative three.

I should add that it is estimated that from 120- to 150-thousand elk inhabit the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Perhaps 2/3 of these primarily inhabit Wyoming. Those persons and groups participating in the current GYE brucellosis controversy that support killing the bison and maybe the elk, have been arguing the Yellowstone Park, in particular, is grossly overpopulated with bison and elk (although it will difficult to make the bison argument after the massive bison slaughter and winterkill this winter). If a large reduction in the number of elk is desirable, one can see that alternative three or four will not do anything to accomplish this objective.

A word on alternative two -- keeping the wolves strictly to Yellowstone National Park.
In both Game and Fish's view and my view, this alternative is illegal. It is unworkable in any case. It appears, however, that the Wyoming Farm Bureau and other groups strongly opposed to the wolf restoration will support this alternative.

I have always found that notion that Yellowstone Park should confine (or be required to confine) one or more species of animal (bison, wolves, grizzly bears, etc.) to its boundaries, a puzzling position. Nevertheless, this position is frequently stated by some interest groups and western politicians.

Because Yellowstone NP is not fenced and is basically a square, and consequently with boundaries that do not correspond to any geographic barrier, I am perplexed when intelligent people take this position. It like saying ants should be confined to one square on a checkerboard with no modification of the board. It is though some think their anti-wolf militancy will somehow be enhanced and appreciated if they take a position that can only be described as "stupid."

Funding-
To fund Wyoming Game and Fish's participation, the document suggests basically two options.

• Most unique would be a 50 cent increase on admission fees to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. The document estimates this would generate about one million dollars a year, substantially more than current federal funding. I should add, however, that the preferred alternative requires intensive management of wolves. This will probably be costly.
• The other alternative is federal legislation to create a wolf management trust fund to finance state management. Wyoming Game and Fish recognizes in the document, that neither alternative for funding will materialize if the state is unwilling to be an active participant in wolf management or proposes a plan unacceptable to the U.S. government.

Is the preferred alternative a good one? What about the other alternatives?
Evaluation of the proposals should be based on technical and economic feasibility and the values one is seeking to promote. The first can be considered objectively. There is much disagreement over values.

1. Alternative one -- continued management, funding, enforcement, and rule-making by the U.S. government is technically and politically feasible. It is the default position. Funding has been, and will remain minimal because western anti-wolf politicians have strong influence over the budget for this program.

2. Alternative two, as stated above, violates the Endangered Species Act and is not feasible in any case. As I stated, it seems to be some kind of rhetorical position taken to convey hostility to the wolf program.

3. and 4. Alternatives three and four are feasible, but will be fairly costly because they involve a good deal of wolf monitoring and relocation. If one would like to see the wolves have a good shot at naturally-controlling the population of elk in the ecosystem, neither alternative is useful because too few wolves will be allowed. Because the preferred alternative, no. 4, restricts wolves to two packs in each of three wolf management units, it will be the most expensive and involve the most manipulation of wolves.

5. Some of the same can be said of alternative five, the one most generous to wolves, although alternative five does not restrict non-Park wolves to management units. Therefore, they may begin to naturally control elk populations in some parts of Wyoming. Number five will allow wolves to colonize a much larger portion of Wyoming and perhaps naturally begin to recolonize Colorado and Northern Utah.

The emphasis on packs,. common to alternatives 3, 4 and 5, is problematic. For those who have followed the wolf restoration, the temporary and permanent splitting of packs is commonplace. The number of packs will probably prove to be more subject to variation than the number of wolves. Therefore, making the number of packs the key to management decisions, is to select the wrong variable -- a variable that is too variable.

A better alternative?
Because I presume Wyoming folks are more concerned about the effects of wolves rather than the number of wolves, I am surprised that there isn't an alternative that bases wolf management on what wolves do rather than how many wolves there are. I think such a plan should be developed and considered. Such a plan would constrain wolves and specify state management actions based on wolves' effects on ungulates, livestock, tourism, and costs versus benefits of management actions.

Values
As far as my values go, I prefer to see a lightly managed wolf population -- one where wolves play an important role in the ecosystems of the a number of western backcountry areas. While radio collars and tracking are, and will remain important research tools (and sometimes control tools), I look forward to a plan under which most wolves are untouched by humans, do not have numbersp; and, like other wildlife, their exact location is not known. In other words, I prefer a plan that allows them to be truly wild predators. I hope that two years from now I am not writing articles like this: "Wolves 104F and 116M were trapped today by Wyoming Game and Fish and returned to the South Fork of the Shoshone River drainage. The pair had strayed from the 'Absaroka Wolf Management unit' into the 'Wind River unit' where two packs already reside."

Unless a better alternative is presented, I will tell Wyoming Game and Fish that I prefer alternative one -- continued management by the U.S. government. My second perference is alternative five because it allows the most wolves and allows them in 2/3 of the state of Wyoming. I should add that under the current management by the U.S. government, wolves are allowed to occupy any part of Wyoming under the status of an "experimental, non-essential" population.

Public Input-
To make your input on this plan, mail your comments to: Wolf Proposal, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 5400 Bishop Blvd., Cheyenne, WY 82006. The due date is May 16, 1997. Public meetings are also being held in Wyoming. Here are the dates and the locations:

A summary of the wolf management proposal is available by writing to the Wyoming Game and Fish address (see above), or by calling (800) 842-1934.