Predatory politics
U.S. Sen. Larry Craig shares the contempt many Idaho farmers and hunters have toward the wolf reintroduction program.
Yet, he’s also a realist. At a January signing ceremony that gave his state management responsibilities over the predator, Craig sought middle ground. “The wolf has a place here in Idaho,” he said. “But its place is not supreme.” Unfortunately, moderation isn’t the goal of either the anti-wolf zealots behind an initiative that calls for eliminating wolves from Idaho, nor the environmental ideologues who are threatening to sue to protect the wolves further.
Why do controversial issues like wolf protection boil down to hotheads at opposite extremes fighting over an all-or-nothing approach when there’s room for compromise? Only a zealot would believe at this point that Idaho could overturn a federal reintroduction process and kill off its 600 wolves by an initiative. Only a fanatic on the other end of the spectrum would believe Idaho’s growing wolf population poses no threat to the state’s deer and elk herds.
Idaho officials have come too far since the 2001 Legislature called for the removal of the wolves to hearken to the siren cry for an anti-wolf initiative. They should eschew any hidden agenda to manage Idaho wolves out of existence because that’s not possible with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service looking over their shoulders. Wolf management decisions by the state should be based on science rather than politics. Love wolves or hate them, the realistic goal for Idaho officials should be to manage them in a way that protects the carnivores as well as their big-game prey.
An argument can be made that the federal government ignored the farmers and ranchers of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana when it transplanted Canadian wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho a decade ago. The 15 wolves planted in Idaho have spawned a population of about 600 today. About 950 wolves now roam the three states. In 2005, the wolves were responsible for 93 rancher complaints and confirmed or suspected kills of 181 sheep, 18 calves, six cows and 11 dogs. Defenders of Wildlife have paid more than $500,000 to reimburse ranchers across the West for livestock lost to wolves. The predators will lose their protected status under the Endangered Species Act once Wyoming submits an acceptable recovery plan.
Wyoming is the poster child for supporters of Idaho’s anti-wolf initiative. By huffing, puffing and refusing to work in good faith toward a management plan, Wyoming has caused the federal government to hold off from delisting the wolves. If the wolf is delisted, Idaho and Montana could establish hunting seasons for the wolves to keep their population stable and to protect deer and the prized elk herds. In other words, Wyoming officials and their colleagues among Idaho’s anti-wolf movement are doing their cause more harm than good by refusing to accept the inevitable.
They could be right in claiming that the wolf should never have been reintroduced into Idaho’s wilderness. But the challenge today is to manage them properly – not to waste time and money with an initiative drive that’s destined to failure, even if it wins at the ballot box.