In anticipation of the Rocky Mountain gray wolf’s full recovery and removal from the federal endangered species list, state wildlife officials today released five alternatives for managing Montana wolves.
The 288-page draft environmental impact statement presents a spectrum of five wolf management alternatives for public comment. The EIS was prepared by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks to meet federal requirements, comply with the Montana Environmental Policy Act and to present an approach to wolf management acceptable to Montanans.
"In just the past year, the number of wolves in Montana has increased from about 120 to about 180," FWP Director Jeff Hagener said. "The recovery of this species is as remarkable as it was swift. Today, most agree it’s time for the wolf to be removed from the endangered species list and for FWP to include the wolf in its wildlife conservation and management programs. But, at $800,000 annually, the cost is substantial. We will need Congress to address this national priority and offer the states some help."
The draft EIS is a compilation of three years of public discussions that began with the appointment of the Montana Wolf Management Advisory Council in 2000. After months of public deliberations over a wide range of issues, the council submitted its recommendations to Gov. Judy Martz in 2001. The draft EIS includes one middle-ground alternative based on the council’s suggested approach to wolf management, which was subsequently revised and updated by the council in response to public comment gathered last spring. Other alternatives are also based on the 6,800 comments received last year.
Hagener emphasized that the five alternative approaches to wolf management in the draft EIS reflect the views and opinions expressed by Montanans and others from across the country. "Most people we heard from will find something in this draft EIS that resonates with their point-of-view," he said.
FWP will select one of the alternatives, or a craft new alternative that combines elements of the others based on public comment, to manage the state’s recovered wolf population. The five alternatives for Montana’s wolf conservation and management plan include:
1.
No Action: FWP would not adopt a wolf conservation and management program. Wolves would remain on the federal endangered species list and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to manage wolves in Montana.
2.
Updated Council: FWP would adopt an updated version of Montana’s Wolf Management Advisory Council’s Wolf Conservation and Management Planning Document. Wolf management would be based on numbers, distribution and public acceptance, similar to that for black bears and mountain lions. Wolf management techniques, and the methods used to resolve conflicts, would be based on a benchmark of 15 breeding pairs in Montana. This is FWP’s preferred alternative.
3.
Additional Wolf: FWP would adopt a wolf conservation and management program similar to the Advisory Council’s recommendations, but one that allows more wolves to inhabit Montana. Wolf management would be based on numbers, distribution and public acceptance, similar to that for black bears and mountain lions. Wolf management techniques, and the methods used to resolve conflicts, would be based on a benchmark of 20 breeding pairs in Montana.
4.
Minimum Wolf: FWP would adopt a wolf conservation and management program to limit wolf numbers to 10 breeding pairs, the lowest level acceptable to USFWS. Wolf management wouldn’t mirror black bear or mountain lion management. Aggressive management would check wolf population growth and restrict wolf distribution to mostly public lands in western Montana.
5.
Contingency: If the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population could not be delisted due to delays in other state-planning efforts or litigation, FWP would seek an agreement with federal authorities to employ the Advisory Council’s recommendations to manage wolves and resolve wolf-related conflicts. The agreement would allow Montana to put portions of a plan into practice while the wolf-delisting process works it way through legal procedures.
Officials explained that the preferred alternative’s benchmark of 15 breeding wolf pairs gives Montana the latitude to respond to local problems without risking that the statewide wolf population would drop below the threshold trigger for federal relisting.
"We think the Updated Council alternative makes the most sense for Montana," Hagener said. "The updated plan follows the spirit of the council’s goal to meet the needs of people, wolves and other wildlife, and it’s been made even stronger based on the public comment FWP received last winter. It will help resolve conflicts while allowing the wolf to find its place among Montana’s other native wildlife."
Wolves from Canada began to naturally recolonize northwestern Montana in the mid 1980s. In the mid 1990s, to hasten the overall pace of wolf recovery in the northern Rockies, 66 wolves were released into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Since then, wolves have expanded in number and distribution throughout the federally designated northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Area in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.
Carolyn Sime, the wildlife agency’s wolf plan coordinator, explained that the updated-council alternative offers Montana enough management flexibility to address conflicts while ensuring that FWP will continue to meet the ecological needs of wolves and their prey, primarily Montana’s deer and elk, which are highly prized by hunters and others.
Sime also stressed that putting the management plan in operation will cost about $800,000 annually and that existing financial resources are not adequate to manage wolves in Montana. "Overall, it’s a very solid plan that works for wolves and for the people of Montana, but it’s pretty clear that finding ways to fund it has to be a national priority, consistent with the national interest to recover the gray wolf," she said.
In addition, Sime noted that Montanans expressed concern about the economic costs to some livestock producers due to wolf-caused losses. "The preferred alternative directs the State of Montana to help find long-term sources of revenue to fund compensation for damages caused by wolves and to develop ways to reduce the risks wolves present," she said.
The agency’s preferred alternative seeks to provide active assistance to landowners to minimize the risk of livestock losses, allows livestock owners to defend livestock from wolves when attacked, provides for regulated harvest of wolves and offers FWP flexibility to manage wolf numbers and distribution, Sime said.
FWP will host a series of 13 community work sessions beginning on March 27 in Billings and ending on April 24 in Rexford to take comment on the draft EIS. The draft Montana Wolf Conservation and Management Plan EIS, and related wolf management information and comment areas, are available via FWP’s website at:
www.fwp.state.mt.us . Click on Montana Wolf Management in the Hot Topics box. To request a copy of the draft EIS, call 406-444-2612. Comment will be accepted through May 12.
Following the 60-day public comment period, FWP will invite Montana’s Wolf Management Advisory Council to help develop the final plan. "The council members have brought a wealth of experience, perspective, and knowledge to this process," FWP Director Hagener said. "We hope they will assist us again in the final planning stage."
An estimated 660 wolves, in about 80 packs with 43 of those qualifying as breeding pairs, inhabit the northern Rockies recovery area. Federal officials estimate that 183 wolves, in 35 packs, and about 16 breeding pairs inhabit Montana. Federal wolf managers conclude that a total of 30 or more breeding pairs, equitably distributed in the tri-state recovery area for the past three years indicates that the population is biologically recovered. USFWS’s official proposal to delist the wolf could then begin this summer, once state wolf management plans are adopted in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Once delisted, wolves will come under state management.
Recent News
