Wolves - They Can Stay
Farm Bureau mulls appeal in landmark wolf ruling
An appeals court rules that Yellowstone wolves can stay, causing celebration, consternation.
By Rachel Odell, Jackson Hole News 1-20-00
Attorneys for state and federal Farm Bureaus have not ruled out appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court a recent decision that allows wolves to remain in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
The attorneys have until April 13 to file an appeal in the nation's highest court, said Larry Bourret, executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau. Bourret said he was disappointed by a Jan. 13 decision by a three-judge federal panel in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that reversed a 2-year-old decision that a government wolf transplant program in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho was illegal.
"I was surprised by the [appeals court] decision, disappointed," Bourret said. "I was against reintroduction from the beginning. If our attorneys feel we should press to get wolves out, that is what we will do."
Environmentalists greeted the decision with robust enthusiasm, calling it a victory for the Endangered Species Act.
An attorney with the National Wildlife Federation, which intervened in the case on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, called the ruling, an "outstanding victory for common sense conservation."
"It says we have a flexible tool that works, and works well," Tom France said. "Here we can customize the regulatory program under the act to the needs of the species and the needs of the people to a very particular area."
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt called the decision "a ringing endorsement to our wolf reintroduction program," while Diamond G Ranch manager Jon Robinett said it would lead to the illegal shooting of wolves.
Those who are opposed to the transplant program have been kept in check by hopes the lawsuit would be successful, Robinett said.
"Now that [the district court decision] is reversed, civil disobedience is going to take over," Robinett predicted. "People may start shooting wolves."
Earthjustice Legal Defence Fund attorney Doug Honnold celebrated the ruling after arguing the case on behalf of several environmental groups. Still, he said he was disappointed the court did not give more protection to wolves that weren't transplanted.
The court arguments centered on elements of the Endangered Species Act and how they were applied to the transplant efforts. The Farm Bureaus and Honnold had argued the transplant program endangers the naturally occurring wolves because its rules allow ranchers to shoot individual wolves that attack their livestock. They made similar arguments despite being on opposite sides.
The appeals court said the argument that reintroduction rules illegally deny full protection to naturally occurring wolves unnecessarily limits the flexibility of federal laws. As such, the argument ''ignores biological reality and misconstrues the larger purpose of the Endangered Species Act.''
Such a ''restrictive interpretation [of the law] could actually undermine the department's ability to address biological reality, and thus handicap its ability to effectuate species recovery,'' it said. ''The Endangered Species Act simply does not countenance that result.''
Though he said he would not appeal the ruling, Honnold is worried that the wolves aren't being protected. For example, the same day the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued two permits to two individuals in Dubois, Wyo., to each shoot a wolf on private land. One went to Diamond G Ranch manager Robinett and the other was issued to Absaroka Ranch owner Budd Betts. The permits are valid through March 1, the permits are for an uncollared wolf only.
Wolves were confirmed to have killed livestock and dogs on both ranches last year. The permit offers some relief to Betts, but the former member of the state House of Representatives said he is still worried about losing game to wolves.
"We're in an area where a lot of game passes through and we are right in the middle of a wolf run," Betts said. "It's pretty much a wolf smorgasbord, and trying to make a living, dealing with the wolves, is not fun. It's not romantic." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Mike Jimenez defended the permits.
"We're not managing for individuals, we are managing for packs," Jimenez said.
network of Travel Guides