Wolf Removal Efforts Replete
With Twists, Turns, Changes

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Okay, so the wolves are there illegally. But hey, let’s overlook that.

That is the message coming from directors of zoos, captive-breeding facilities and wildlife resource centers, who say there is not enough room to take in wolves if they are removed from Yellowstone National Park.

They have asked American Farm Bureau Federation President Dean Kleckner to drop the bureau's suit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program to return wolves to Yellowstone.

"First and foremost, zoos and other captive wolf facilities do not have room for additional wolves, especially for as many wolves as would need homes," they wrote to Kleckner.

A U.S. District Court ruling Dec. 12 declared the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's wolf recovery program illegal. Judge William Downes said the program reduced the endangered species protection afforded to native Montana and Canadian wolves.

So far, however, nothing has been done, and wolf fanciers have their way, it never will be.

Proposals to put the Yellowstone wolves in captivity, kill them or send them to Canada are on hold until March, when the 10th Circuit Court is expected to hear the appeal.

The cost of building additional enclosures, hiring new staff and buying additional feed for the 200 or so wolves would be enormous, the letter said.

"We believe that returning the wolves to Canada is no longer an acceptable option, either," the letter continued. "Returning these wolves to Canada would likewise result in high wolf mortality."

Before the wolf reintroduction began, the Wyoming Farm Bureau held that the program would be illegal, vice president Larry Bourret said.

"If we're going to ignore that law, then what other laws are we going to ignore?" Bourret said Monday. "Is that what people are proposing be done?"

Meanwhile, in a separate suit seeking immediate removal of the government’s wolves from one embattled ranch, Downes has criticized both sides.

"We're supposed to come to some good science here, and you folks come here and ask me to do something about this mess," Downes said.

The judge heard two days of testimony in a lawsuit filed by Diamond G ranch owner Stephen Gordon on July 20-21 and reconvened the hearing last week.

Gordon is seeking a injunction to either kill or immediately remove wolves he claims killed livestock and pets and pose a threat to his family.

The wolves, known as the Washakie Pack, migrated in November 1996 from Yellowstone National Park to the ranch west of Dubois.

Wolf project coordinator Ed Bangs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service testified that at least two of the four remaining members of the pack apparently left the ranch in late July.

The other two, he said, are probably with them in the southeast corner of Yellowstone National Park.

The rest of the pack was killed by federal agents after they were confirmed to have killed Gordon's cattle in last June and October.

Ranch manager Jon Robinett testified that since late July, three additional calf carcasses were found on the ranch, leading him to conclude that another wolf pack has established territory on the ranch.

Downs criticized both the delay in reporting the discovery to federal officials and the failure of federal agents to deal promptly with the reports.

"You dropped the ball on the first one," he told Robinett. The government "dropped the ball on the second two."

Downes recessed the hearing without hearing closing arguments, which he told the attorneys to submit in writing.

Gordon is asking that wolves never return to the Diamond G Ranch. His workers "found the remains of over 24 cattle that had been killed by wolves," according to his lawsuit.

Biologists for the Fish and Wildlife Service have confirmed four of his calves were killed by wolves. The Wildlife Service is a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Defenders of Wildlife, a private environmental activist group, paid Gordon $5000 for the losses.

"Wildlife Services has done a very good job of walking the line in the middle, being professional, and calling a loss a loss and a kill a kill," said Hank Fischer of the Defenders of Wildlife.

But Gordon says the government's figures do not always add up.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Agriculture officials have "privately admitted that the number of cattle killed is likely to be much higher than the number officially acknowledged by the government," his lawsuit said.

One Wildlife Service official said he was only 90 percent certain that wolves had killed livestock, his lawsuit said.

Rick Phillips, a Wildlife Services biologist, said his agency makes no percentage ratings.

Biologists look for tracks, hairs of predators, droppings and blood to determine if cattle have been killed by wolves, or simply eaten.

"Whatever we do, somebody is not going to like it," Phillips said. "We're second-guessed on everything we do. We feel like we have to be as sure as we possibly can that it was a wolf kill."

Livestock killed by wolves usually have extreme tissue damage under the hide behind the front leg or rear flank and are surrounded by a lot of blood, officials said. Also, wolves crush the bones of their prey.

"Take a pack of wolves, and they can eat a critter in two to three days," Phillips said. "The hide is consumed, the tissue has been eaten, and all you've got is a pile of bones. You might say, ‘OK the wolves ate it, but did they kill it?’"

Because breeding season is close at hand, the wolves Gordon wants removed have temporarily relocated themselves already, shifting to the southern boundary of Yellowstone National Park and the Teton Wilderness area, said Joe Fontaine, head of the U.S. Department of the Interior's wolf recovery program in Montana.

But they could return to the ranch because they can travel up to 20 miles daily, he said.

"Given what they are doing now and where they're at, and coming on to breeding season, it doesn't look very likely," he said. "But every time you think you've got wolves figured out, they make a liar out of you."

The National Audubon Society was a major player in the original lawsuit, arguing against reintroduction alongside the Farm Bureau. Now the group has switched sides, however, and is supporting the federal project.

The organization has asked the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow it to align itself with the Department of the Interior, the National Wildlife Federation, and Defenders of Wildlife in defending the program.

It is finding the switch difficult to explain.

The decision to switch sides in the case should not be interpreted as a change of heart, insisted to Perry Plumart, the organization's national press secretary.

"National Audubon has consistently worked in trying to protect and trying to bring back wolves," Plumart said. "This case, and cases, as you know, have taken many curious legal turns."

"As National Audubon continues to strive towards the goal of doing what it sees in the best interest of the wolves, (it) responds with appropriate legal measures. And that's what we've done in this particular case."

The group’s official position is that "Interior's careful design and administration of the program holds real promise for successful recovery of the species." So said attorney Donald Carr in a motion filed with the court.

Idaho officials have also changed their mind about wolves — at least how they want to approach managing them.

Three years ago, angry state legislators balked at any involvement in what they considered intrusive federal efforts to reintroduce Rocky Mountain gray wolves to the central Idaho wilderness.

Just a few days later, the first of the those Canadian predators loped away from their cages along the snow-covered Salmon River.

Now Gov. Phil Batt and the state's Wolf Oversight Committee, worried about the burgeoning packs and their potential for devouring elk and deer, are abandoning the state's hands-off policy. They want the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to independently assess the threat, at federal expense.

"We already have anecdotal reports from hunters and outfitters that suggest wolves are having a severe impact on ungulate populations," Batt wrote members of Idaho's congressional delegation last week to enlist their help. "As wolf numbers climb to higher levels, it will be nearly impossible to manage the wolves, or the prey species, without this information."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service caught and relocated 66 Canadian wolves to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and 1996. But the agency is not possessive when it comes to states getting involved with endangered species programs.

"The door's always open. They're more than welcome," said Ed Bangs of Helena, Mont., the Fish and Wildlife Service's wolf recovery coordinator.

His agency often helps finance state or university studies and even on-the-ground monitoring of imperiled animals such as Wyoming's black-footed ferrets.

The Idaho Cattle Association and Idaho Wildlife Council often disagree, but both groups want some kind of control on how badly the wolves are hurting big game and livestock herds.

The confirmed wolf kills of seven cows in the Salmon area this summer persuaded them to join forces.

Don Clower of Meridian, chairman of the Idaho Wildlife Council and a member of the wolf oversight committee, contends hunting opportunities will evaporate and packs may turn more heavily to livestock for prey as wolf populations grow.

"As I remember, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service promised that when Idaho reached 10 breeding pairs, the delisting process would begin," Clower said. "We've reached 10 pairs. When will the feds come through on their promise?"

Sara Braasch, executive vice president of the Idaho Cattle Association, said her organization has been concerned about wolves from the start.

"But as we've seen more and more losses of livestock to wolves, we're alarmed and we think it is now time for the state government to act," she said. "If you find one dead animal, there might be 10 out there."