The past week has been a buzz  and barrage with wolves, judges, hunters,wolves, sheep and wolves popping up faster than ants at a picnic. And as I type I’m left shaking my head in disbelief. My day job as a biologist in North Dakota doesn’t me in the middle of the Montana-Idaho soup where 3,400 wolf tagswere sold to hunters right out of the gate in Montana, a few wolves were bagged in Idaho, outrage ensued, threats were made to successful Idaho hunters comparing them to Michael Vickwhile learning weeks earlier over 100 sheep were killed at a ranch near Dillon, Montana by wolve. Anyone of which is an issue in itself worthy of discussion.

As I mentioned professionally I’m not in the tug of war, but my home state of North Dakota is sandwhiched between the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes wolf designated regions. It might seem a bit like a piece of egg shell in an omlette where the big picture isn’t as important as the one bite, but if you are a rancher in Montana, Idaho or the Dakota’s it matters. Let me give you an example as Eastern North Dakota is in the Great Lakes range and a sheep rancher could be justified in shooting a wolf stalking, harassing but not actively depredating livestock. While a few miles west where the status of wolves seems to change with every full moon the same rancher may face federal violations if action is taken on the wolf, as  the status of a wolf as endangered or threatened may limit removal only by authroized federal agents after documented connection between wolf/livestock mortality. Make sense? No it doesn’t to me, neither as a hunter/citizen or a biologist, but states like North Dakota are left to work within the constraints of the Endangered Species Act in place and lawsuits which seem to change with the moon phase.

It’s a system where litigation is faster than a .22.250 and judges are deciding policy bases on procedural issue’s rather than sound wildlife management and biology. In fact in questions to the Department of Interior Tom Strickland, assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks was asked by  Minnesota Outdoor News editor Rob Drieslein about  the delisting lawsuits wearying effect on states and responded:

Healthy gray wolf populations in the Great Lakes and the northern Rockies represent one of the great success stories of the Endangered Species Act. Wolves have exceeded recovery goals. We have shown that, working closely with states and other partners, we can bring a species back. 

The Endangered Species Act is a heavily litigated law. Sometimes, we are sued over process, rather than biology, which we understand can be frustrating for those people affected by our decisions. This is the case with the Great Lakes population of gray wolves. As part of a settlement agreement, we agreeded that additional public review and comment was required by law before making a final decision on the delisting of this wolf population. 

In coming months, we will complete the process mandated by the Act as expeditiously as possible and folllow the science to where it leads us as we once again consider delisting the Great Lakes population. 

Where do we go from here? The point in all of this is for hunters, conservation agencies and political leaders to effort moving beyond court systems in allowing science, scientists and wildlife managers at the state level to be given the authorization to best manage species on local and regional levels and remove the litgation driven anti-hunting groups from exercising more control simply because they have attorney’s and financial means to hamstring science. It makes sense to most, but the problem is making sense and implementation are about as close as Pluto is to the sun.