When One Judge Dictates Wolf Management

I find it very unbelievable that one judge in the United States of America wields enough power to be able to dictate his own “science” in ruling on wolf management. This is the case as I see it. Judge Donald Molloy allowed a temporary injunction that returned the gray wolf to Endangered Species Act protection last July, 2008. He gave two reasons for doing so.

One, he disliked Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan that had been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Each of the three states, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana had to have USFWS approved plans before delisting could be considered.)

Second, Judge Molloy decided, in what can only be seen as a rogue maneuver on his part or an orchestrated effort by many, that for a wolf population to survive it had to have “genetic connectivity”. (I’ve covered that extensively here.) In short, what the judge is saying is that wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have to show that they are mixing and mingling.

What’s most bizarre about this ruling is that “genetic connectivity” or “genetic exchange” was pretty much a non existent term as far as what could be found in documents leading up to the reintroduction of wolves in these three states and through the storied history of lawsuits, etc.

When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote its Final Rule Environmental Impact Statement prior to the reintroduction of wolves, the only remote mention of anything to do with genetic exchange came in an addendum to the rule, more of a brief afterthought.

After Judge Molloy ruled to put the wolf back under federal protection, the USFWS asked the judge to withdraw their proposal for delisting and remand the case back the USFWS so they could come back with another case, or so says information found on the Idaho Department of Fish and Game website.

Now the USFWS is steamrolling an effort to get the wolf back under management of the states, at least Idaho and Montana, by the beginning of 2009. Remember, according to Judge Molloy’s ruling, he had to grant the injunction because of Wyoming’s flawed, in his opinion, wolf management plan and the issue with genetic connectivity.

Solving the Wyoming dilemma seemed easy. After approving their Wolf Management Plan, the USFWS threw Wyoming under the bus and said they would just exclude them from this new delisting proposal.

But look what’s happened with “genetic connectivity”.

What was once only a term used among biologists has now come to rule the day, having people everywhere believing that this was all a part of the original plan. Media picked up on this term after Molloy’s ruling and have run with, stating it as fact now that “genetic exchange” is necessary if we are going to save the wolves.

Part of the new proposal for delisting has involved a required process of collecting public comments on the proposal. Once again, on the IDFG website, I found comments made to the USFWS from Gov. Butch Otter, the Director of Fish and Game, Cal Groen and Nathan Fisher of the Idaho Office of Species Conservation.

In the 35 pages of comments made by Groen and Fisher, they use the terms “genetic connectivity” or “genetic exchange” so often, it almost seems ridiculous. A quick reading down through and one finds that the terms, “genetic exchange”, “genetic connectivity”, “connectivity” and “genetic diversity” are used no fewer that 32 times.

In the March, 2008 adopted Idaho Wolf Management Plan, of which there is some discrepancy as to whether this is a legal document or not, any reference to these same terms listed above occurred less than a dozen times and not all times referencing a biological “connectivity”.

Montana’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan discusses these same terms 8 times and Wyoming’s Plan uses the terms 8 times as well.

Before I go getting people angry, I’m not saying that genetic exchange or connectivity isn’t or hasn’t been discussed and made a part of the USFWS, Idaho, Montana or Wyoming’s wolf management goals. From what I have gathered, the point is that the need for this exchange doesn’t seem to be a requirement for a sustainable wolf population. There is scientific argument and evidence that it isn’t necessary at all.

Since before wolf reintroduction, there was virtually no talk of this exchange and through the approval process of each of the three state’s wolf management plans, there was some discussion, even pointing out that it was the goal of the states to monitor movement or migration at least over their boarders into neighboring states. I have yet to find much if any reference to the need for genetic exchange to sustain wolves.

But now that one judge has wielded his power and declared that genetic exchange has to occur and proof provided that it has, it seems the USFWS and at least Idaho have fallen all over themselves to talk about genetic exchange in ways they never did before. Again the question is raised. Is this newly discovered “best available science” from a judge or is this pandering to the judge in order to achieve a result – wolf delisting?

If this is merely a pandering, think of the future consequences of such action. If we are ditching science in favor of what we think might be a political upper hand, it is likely to come back and haunt those in the attempt. By following this notion, we have to ask if it can be proven to satisfy the courts and if it’s not happening, will it ever happen? If not, there will never be any hope of getting the wolf removed from the Endangered Species List and more importantly, we have aided and abetted in creating a wonderful instrument environmental preservationists will use against us in winning more lawsuits.

The USFWS, IDFG, WFWS and MFWP have to stick to the science they believe works and defend that science or get out of the business. Pandering to activist judges will get you nowhere.

Tom Remington