We're pleased to share exciting news for the wolves of the Northern Rockies. On August 5, 2010, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled that the wolf population of Idaho and Montana must be returned to the Endangered Species List, reinstating the same protection that already covers the wolves of Wyoming.
 
Last year, Idaho and Montana submitted to the federal government what were deemed acceptable wolf management plans. Ironically, these plans were based on a massive hunting season for the recently reintroduced wolves in those states. Wyoming submitted a plan that was deemed unacceptable, leading to the continued federal protection of wolves there.
 
Judge Molloy has now ruled that to remain in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, wolves of a distinct population segment cannot be listed as an Endangered Species in one state while not being listed as an Endangered Species in a neighboring state.
 
We at Living with Wolves are relieved by this ruling because it is our position that the wolf has been mismanaged by Idaho and Montana since management was turned over to those two states. As of now, Judge Molloy's most recent ruling will prevent a public wolf-hunting season this fall in Idaho and Montana, and will buy valuable time to redesign wolf management plans in a more comprehensive manner. It is in the best interest of both people and wolves to address critical matters not considered in the current plans.  
 
The methodology behind the Montana and Idaho management plans has been to sell hunting tags to the public as a means to reduce the regional wolf population. This black-and-white solution turns a blind eye to a wealth of biological and scientific research and has encouraged irrational anti-wolf behavior throughout the West.
 
It was the publicly stated goal of the game agencies managing wolves (Idaho Fish and Game and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks) to dramati cally reduce the regional wolf population from its current level of around 1,700 animals. Before this ruling, Montana had increased its hunt quota by 150% for the upcoming second wolf-hunting season. Idaho was planning a similar increase while introducing the use of electronic calls and trapping. If the states had their way and achieved their objectives, there would be fewer than 1,000 wolves in the entire three-state region, and perhaps as few as 300.
 
A group of 247 scientists had previously submitted a letter to the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service stating that such a small wolf population would not be genetically viable and would therefore be vulnerable to regional extinction. Research suggests that a minimum of 2,000 - 3,000 wolves would be a sustainable population. There are thousands more wolves than that already living in a much smaller region of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. And they are doing so without causing very much trouble.
 
In addition to the concern about sustainable population levels, it is also clearly stated in extensive scientific research that randomly killing wolves, members of a socially engaged pack, has dire consequences for the pack as a whole.  While packs recover from the occasional loss of an individual, the overall effect of multiple deaths within a single pack in a short period of time results in desperate and often leaderless wolves.  As leaders of the pack, and the animals most apt to investigate any disturbance within the pack territory, the alphas were often the ones to be shot first by hunters.  The loss of alphas results in the loss of a multigenerational culture of knowledge specific to that pack and its needs within its geographical niche. 
 
The pups also suffered heavy losses. Montana's statistics show that 62% of the wolves killed there during the hunt were puppies or yearlings. The death of these young animals adds further turmoil to the state of the remaining pack members who are social animals devoted to raising pups. The loss of multiple pack members in a short time leads to disbanded packs and more wolves getting into more conflict with ranching interests. Wolves, despite the expression, are not lone animals, but bonded social animals, like elephants and dolphins. Disruption of those ties through massive and random hunting quotas leads to effects that are exactly the opposite of the intended goal.
 
Mitigating conflicts between wolves and ranching interests is fundamental to reaching a common solution.  Some wolf packs have fallen into the habit of becoming chronic depredators of livestock. And those chronic packs must be removed to minimize further future conflicts with ranchers, while ensuring a better reputation for the majority of wolves not in conflict with livestock. 
 
But it is important to realize that wolves have far less impact on the ranching industry than coyotes. Wolves, as well as mountain lions, bears and even eagles all prey in similar numbers on sheep and cattle. Now reintroduced, and playing a role in those losses, wolves are not the lone scourge they are often painted to be, but part of an entire range of predators. And weather and disease both kill much more livestock than all predators combined.
 
Additionally, it should come into question whether or not state game agencies, whose revenue is largely derived from the sales of hunting licenses and tags for big game animals such as deer and elk, should be in the position to determine how many wolves is the right amount to kill.
 
Widely discussed fears from many in the hunting community that wolves are eating all the elk are misplaced. Studies released as recently as this month (August 2010) have shown that elk populations are largely stable. In many cases, the herds meet or exceed the objectives set by the state game agencies according to their own reports. Elk are simply more difficult to hunt now that wolves have been reintroduced. With their natural primary predator reintroduced, elk no longer linger in meadows and riparian zones, grazing on all the youngest shoots of willows and aspens. They eat a little and move on, as they had done before when coexisting with wolves. This has become known in the scientific community as "the ecology of fear." Elk once again spend their time on the move, finding security in thick timber and maintaining elevated vantage points. By spending more time on ridgelines rather than down in the valleys, they can see a threat coming and have many directions to flee. This is true across Montana, Idaho and Wyoming where some outdoorsmen have become frustrated as it is harder to find, hunt and get to the elk.
 
The decision of Judge Molloy to return the wolves of Montana and Idaho to Endangered Species protection is good news for wolves. But until all sides and all science are considered when determining how to manage wolves, all it takes now is a small step to the left by the designers of Wyoming's wolf management plan for wolves to be placed in the crosshairs once again. Wolves and elk lived together without any need for management for millennia. Now that they are sharing the landscape with a host of human interests, there will be a need for some management, but not the type we have witnessed thus far.