Agency’s Misplaced Priorities Deadly Menace To Wolves

I was howling mad when I learned that federal predator-control officers had accidentally killed a gray wolf near Priest River, Idaho, late last month.

The wolf was not one of those recently released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in central Idaho. It was there on its own.

The wolf died because agents of the federal Animal Damage Control program failed to meet the Fish and Wildlife Service’s prohibition on the use of the “M-44” in areas known to be occupied by wolves.

The M-44 is a device that sprays deadly cyanide into the mouth of an animal that tries to take the bait.

The event near Priest River deserves much public discussion, both because of the Animal Damage Control program’s irresponsibility in using M-44s in the Idaho Panhandle and for the great irony the wolf’s death represents.

There are plenty of reasons to encourage the natural return of wolves like this one to the northern Rockies. For one, wolves which naturally “recolonize” the region will receive greater protection under the Endangered Species Act. They will almost certainly be loathed less by wolf foes than reintroduced wolves because their return is a natural process, rather than another government program “shoved down our throats.” Wolves returning on their own will also probably be more savvy and thus stay out of human harm’s way.

Finally, these wolves will likely reduce the overall cost of the wolf reintroduction and recovery program.

In response to a 1992 lawsuit filed by Predator Project and four other groups, the Animal Damage Control program consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service about the impact of the program on threatened and endangered species. The resulting biological opinion said EPA restrictions prohibit the M-44 where federally listed endangered and threatened species, such as gray wolves, may be harmed or killed.

One need look no further than the wolf killed last month for concrete proof of the need for such a ban.

There is ample evidence of wolves in North Idaho, including the Priest River area. The Fish and Wildlife Service, Animal Damage Control program and U.S. Forest Service personnel all have said wolves exist in North Idaho. In a Jan. 15 Spokesman-Review article, Forest Service biologist Tim Layser said he knew of three confirmed wolf sightings in the region in the last 12 months. The Animal Damage Control program’s own Ashton Robinson told a reporter it was not unusual for wolves to be in North Idaho.

Yet, despite prohibition of M-44s by both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA, despite the goal of reducing unnecessary wolf deaths, and despite extensive evidence of wolves in the Priest River area and the rest of North Idaho, the Animal Damage Control program’s field agent still used M-44s in the Priest River area, and perhaps elsewhere in North Idaho.

I find this inexcusable.

Even if the Animal Damage Control program was unaware of wolves in the area where the M-44 was placed, the agency certainly knows of wolves’ ability to travel great distances in a short period of time, and that any of the wolves known to exist in North Idaho could easily find their way to the precise place where the Animal Damage Control program killed the wolf.

In the past four years alone, wolves have shown up unexpectedly in the Nine Mile area of northwest Montana, on the Rocky Mountain Front of Montana, the southern end of the Glacier/Bob Marshall ecosystem, south of Yellowstone National Park, in Yellowstone National Park, in various locations in central Idaho, Eastern Washington and across North Idaho. These sightings have ranged from approximately 40 miles to several hundred miles beyond where any agency knew exactly that wolves existed at the time.

Certainly, the Animal Damage Control program, or any other entity, cannot pinpoint where all wolves in North Idaho are at any time. Therefore, the Animal Damage Control program needs to be as prudent and conservative as possible in deciding where not to use M-44s.

Which brings me to the irony of the recent killing at Priest River.

First, from what I’ve heard, no livestock were killed prior to the Animal Damage Control program’s involvement, only chased by coyotes. Even so, the animal control agent decided to use the most irreversible of their methods - the M-44. Yet, in a 1992 memo, the Animal Damage Control program claimed that it “uses every precaution available to ensure the safety of threatened and endangered species.”

I would like to think that, had the Animal Damage Control program first used a trap or snare, the wolf might have been released upon inspection by the agent.

Unfortunately, the Animal Damage Control program killed another wolf less than six months ago outside of Lincoln, Mont., because a trap had not been checked frequently enough.

Finally, it is absolutely mind boggling that while the Fish and Wildlife Service is spending millions of dollars trying to recover the species by reintroducing wolves into central Idaho, the Animal Damage Control program is killing wolves and thus hindering recovery just to the north.

If the Animal Damage Control program were really concerned about protecting wolves, those within it would be more conservative in choosing where to use such indiscriminate killing methods. Apparently, the Animal Damage Control program is more interested in protecting livestock than in protecting endangered wildlife.

xxxx