Controversial legislative actions and management strategies threaten the progress made in wolf recovery efforts. Despite federal wildlife authorities declining pleas to reinstate safeguards for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, conservation groups continue to advocate for their protection.
—
In recent decades, there has been a paradigm shift in attitudes toward wolves, largely due to a better understanding of their ecological importance. Wolves are now recognized as apex predators. As such, they contribute to controlling the populations of prey species and ensuring the overall balance and health of the ecosystem. However, it will be hard to uphold it if the agencies and legislative bodies are reluctant to maintain this balance.
Conservation and animal protection groups are willing to take a stand after federal wildlife authorities declined their pleas to reinstate safeguards for gray wolves in the northern US Rocky Mountains. Wolves in the Northern Rockies are found in parts of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon, eastern Washington, and northern Utah.
The agency said that the species is not in enough danger of extinction despite some states targeting to cull their populations through hunting. On the contrary, in a press release published earlier this month, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) stated that they aim to complete a new initiative – the “first-ever nationwide gray wolf recovery plan” – by December 2025.
This is said to be associated with implementing efforts at certain sites to reduce threats and protect them. Despite this, some animal conservation groups continue to express frustration over federal officials for “harming wolf recovery by denying wolves in the northern Rockies the powerful federal protections they deserve.”
In May 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Humane Society of the United States sought to have the Northern Rockies wolf population added to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), yet their plea was disregarded. The FWS declared the gray wolf endangered at the species level (Canis lupus) in most of the country in 1978, while the wolf population in Minnesota was categorized as threatened.
In 2011, Congress intervened through a congressional rider on a must-pass budget bill. It removed the Northern Rockies population – Idaho, Montana, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and northern Utah – from the endangered list and prevented judicial review of this decision. Wolves belong to the same family as foxes, coyotes, domestic dogs, jackals, and several extinct species, collectively known as canids.
The rejection of the petitions also means that authorized wolf hunting can proceed in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The conservation groups argued in the petition that allowing renewed hunting of wolves in certain Western states could erase decades of progress toward their recovery if federal protections were not reinstated.
What Drives Such Draconian Measures?
Wolves and humans have a long-standing history of conflict. Some might argue it is rooted in fear, misunderstanding, misconceptions, and old animosities towards these apex predators that persist. Incidents of wolf attacks on humans are rare, and wolves are not just pests to be exterminated at will. Wolves were once on the brink of extinction in the lower 48 states, and significant strides have been made to reintroduce and protect them.
The legislation includes measures such as offering bounties of up to US$2,000 for killing wolves. Idaho has allocated over $1 million for the systematic killing of wolves, which seems a misplaced set of priorities. Instead of investing in sustainable coexistence strategies, Idaho has chosen to squander resources on a misguided campaign of killing.
After they were taken off the ESA list, wolves in the Northern Rockies were widely hunted and harmed. Historically, they were hunted to near-extinction in numerous regions due to ranchers’ fear for their livestock, hunters perceiving wolves as competition, and politicians pandering to these sentiments for short-term gains.
Idaho legislation (Senate Bill 1211) authorizes the state to enlist private contractors, grants hunters, and trappers unrestricted authority to kill wolves, and allows hunters free rein to kill wolves on private land during the year-round trapping season. The same methods permitted for trapping wild canids in Idaho are also accepted for trapping wolves.
It also allows hunters and trappers to use dogs and vehicles to hunt down and kill wolves. Over the past two years, they have already killed over 560 wolves and are aiming to reach 800.
In 2017, wolves were removed from the ESA list, but Wyoming is not any better off than Idaho. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) allows individuals to hunt wolves year-round in most parts of the state without requiring a license. This includes utilizing methods such as using snowmobiles to chase them down and destroying dens where wolf pups and mothers reside.
Hunters in Wyoming have lawfully killed many wolves that come within about 10 miles of the Colorado border. Wolves may be moving back into Colorado naturally or through planned efforts to reintroduce them.
Montana has also passed laws aimed at aggressively culling wolf populations. The statehas expanded the wolf-trapping timeframe by four weeks and instituted a bounty program to reimburse hunters and trappers for wolf-killing expenses. They aim to eliminate 90% of their wolf population and have already killed more than 235 wolves this season.
Nick Gevock, a Sierra Club field organizer for the Northern Rockies, expressed frustration with the FWS for failing to acknowledge the detrimental impact of the methods employed by Idaho and Montana on wolf populations.
Gevock likened these methods to those used in the 1800s to eradicate wolves and argued that they are unsuitable for modern wildlife management. “No other species is treated this way, and it’s reversing what was a great conservation success story,” said Gevock.
The successful reintroduction of gray wolves to their former habitat in the Northern Rockies region and the achievement of the goal of 15 breeding pairs of wolves in each state across the region earlier than expected were among the remarkable stories in the history of wildlife conservation. Not until these draconian measures start to gain support from legislative bodies.
Four conservation groups informed the FWS of their intention to take legal action regarding the agency’s “illegally” denying the request for wolf protection. The petition might be denied, but conservation and animal protection groups committed to a shared goal will still stand out for fighting for the rights of these species.
