BILLINGS, Mont. — With more than 150 gray wolves shot in the Northern Rockies so far this fall, a panel of federal judges Tuesday will consider halting public wolf hunts until a lawsuit seeking to restore protections for the animals is resolved.
Congress cleared the way for the hunts last spring, when lawmakers took the unprecedented step of stripping Endangered Species Act protections from more than 1,300 wolves in Montana and Idaho.
Wildlife advocates sued to reverse the move and want the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to suspend the hunts. They claim Congress violated the Constitution’s separation of powers mandate by reversing prior court rulings that kept protections in place.
Montana set a 220-wolf quota for its hunt. Idaho’s hunt has no cap.
Prior requests for an emergency injunction against the hunts were denied. Now, more than two months after the states’ wolf seasons began, advocates will get the chance to make their case Tuesday before a three-judge panel. They said the killing is removing animals that are valuable to science and beloved by wolf watchers.
“They get a bad rap — they’re the big, bad wolves,” said Dave Hornoff with the National Wolfwatcher Coalition. “But you see them with their pups, you watch them raise their pups and you watch the pups grow up. You become very attached. Dying in this manner (hunting) is very hard to accept. It’s disheartening.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is monitoring the hunts, but agency officials said they have no plans to intervene because wolves have recovered in the region and the states have promised to manage them responsibly.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead recently struck a deal with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that could allow wolf hunting in that state as early as next year.
First the plan has to be approved by Wyoming lawmakers. A legislative committee was scheduled to discuss the issue Tuesday, although final action would not come until early next year.
Congress left Wyoming out of a budget bill rider in the spring that took wolves off the endangered list across five other states. Federal wildlife officials said at the time that Wyoming’s wolf law was too tough on the animals to ensure their long-term survival.
Montana’s quota was set with the goal of reducing wolf numbers by 25 percent compared with last year, to 425 animals.
Idaho officials have said only that they plan to maintain at least 150 wolves, out of a current population of at least 700 animals.
State officials said curbing the predator’s population could help prevent attacks on livestock and big game herds.
So far this year, wolves in Montana and Idaho have killed 152 cattle and calves, 108 sheep, 12 dogs and three horses, according to confirmed kill tallies provided by state and federal officials.
Even without hunting, wolves are shot regularly in the two states in response to livestock attacks. At least 103 of the predators had been killed through last week by government wildlife agents and ranchers.
If wolf numbers drop below 100 animals in either state, federal officials would step in to restore endangered species protections. That safety valve undercuts the plaintiffs’ contention that the hunts could cause irreparable harm, attorneys for the government contended in court documents filed in advance of the hearing.
The attorneys wrote that an injunction would be an extraordinary step for the court to take and that the plaintiffs “come nowhere close to meeting the test.”
They also argued that Congress was within its bounds to act on the issue, because lawmakers had been informed by government scientists that wolves were biologically recovered.
“Congress had the right to make that policy choice,” Assistant Attorney General Ignacia Moreno wrote. He added that the plaintiffs’ separation of powers argument was flawed. Moreno also cited prior court opinions that called for a “high degree of judicial tolerance” when Congress intervenes in a matter subject to litigation.
Sporting and gun rights groups including the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International have intervened in the case on the side of the federal government.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
