Wolf haters must fight trigger itch

Here's something you probably never heard a western rancher say: "Government is a wonderful thing."

But that might be precisely what they're saying down in the coffee shops and saloons in Idaho, Wyoming, and other western states because the federal government just allowed the uncontrolled killing of wolves for 30 days or more.

Here's how it happened: On March 28, the federal government officially "delisted" the wolf and removed it from the endangered species list in the northern Rockies.

Eleven conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, immediately moved to sue to stop delisting, which is their right under the Endangered Species Act. But under the rules of the Act, they couldn't legally file their notice to litigate until February 28, which they did, and can't file the lawsuit and ask for an injunction to stop delisting until April 28. That leaves a 30-day loophole or window, what the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) calls "open season on wolves."

Actually, I should say, 30 days or more, because the courts might not immediately-or ever-hand down an injunction. But Earthjustice has a good track record in such litigation, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a judge quickly suspend delisting. And in fact, that injunction could be triggered by a hot-headed response by those who despise wolves.

Imagine a covey of wolf haters convincing themselves that this 30-day loophole is their "only shot" for vigilante justice against wolves and for revenge against the environmentalists who brought the species back. These wolf haters could reason that if the courts suspend delisting, it could delay sport hunting of wolves for years. So the month of April might provide their only chance for uncontrolled killing of wolves.

And that's already happening. In the first weekend of "open season," at least six wolves were shot in Wyoming. More may have been killed, but lax reporting makes it hard to know.

Right now, in 88 percent of Wyoming (the home range of five wolf packs and near that of ten more), "anybody can shoot a wolf for any reason," claims Mike Leahy, DOW's Rocky Mountain director. "A lot could happen in 30 days."

On March 26, the Idaho legislature passed Senate Bill 1374, which allows Idaho residents to shoot a wolf anywhere in the state if it's "molesting or attacking" domestic livestock or pets. "Molesting" is loosely defined as worrying, annoying, disturbing, persecuting, lying in wait, flushing, stalking, following after, on the trail of, chasing, or driving any domestic animal.

In other words, Leahy says, "If wolves are howling and worrying your cattle, you could go out and shoot them."

Amelia Orton-Palmer of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) admits that the agency could have extended the period between notice and delisting to 60 days or more to prevent the "open season" loophole, but says that the FWS wasn't worried about any significant impact on the wolf population.

Ed Bangs, the FWS person in charge of wolf recovery, agrees and isn't worried about the loophole being a biological problem: "Theoretically, yes, but practically, no. A few wolves might be killed, but biologically it won't affect the population."

But it could be a big public relations problem. Bangs reminds us that the courts might not grant an injunction on April 28, or ever. "It's hard to get those injunctions, and I'm not sure they'll ever get it. The wolf population is going to be fine under any circumstances, but a goofy reaction during these 30 days almost guarantees that there will be an injunction. Any bad reaction from the redneck element only helps those who want to keep wolves on the endangered species list.

"But that's what's so interesting about wolves," he adds. "People do nutty things. The extreme symbolism of wolves has been going on for a few thousand years and always will be there."

The wolf is the best fundraiser ever for green groups. They want to keep wolves in the news, so expect more fear mongering about the wolf's upcoming demise-no different than the rhetoric you hear from hunters predicting the decimation of big game herds, or from ranchers about the wolf eating away their livelihood.

Western ranchers and rural communities see the wolf as an agent of change-and a change they don't want. Wolf reintroduction gave the federal government and eastern greenies more control over the West, and many westerners refuse to believe ranchers and wolves can peacefully and economically co-exist.

With that kind of disconnect, we'll always have conflict whenever we say the four-letter-word. So be it, but hopefully, those who hate wolves will show restraint during the loophole period. Too much trigger itch will only give a victory to those who want to prolong federal control of western ranchers and will intensify the century-old controversy.

Bill Schneider writes a weekly column called Wild Bill for NewWest.Net, an online magazine where this commentary was originally published.

Environment

Search Results

Discussion

Site Map

Contact Us