1. The gray wolf as a species is not in danger of becoming extinct.
There are approximately 70,000 gray wolves in Canada, another 15,000 in Alaska, and yet
another 2,500+ in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. In addition, there are close to 100
wolves already in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.
The introduction program was not done to save the gray wolf. Since
the gray wolf population does not need protection, this program also was not done for any
of the reasons that are listed in the Endangered Species Act. Rather, it was done to
artificially increase the number of wolves already existing in these three states.
2. Wolves kill livestock and pets. There is absolutely no dispute
about that from anyone. Ranchers and farmers are concerned that wolves released by their
government will kill their livestock and maybe force them out of their livelihood without
taking any responsibility for these consequences. Introduced Canadian wolves have killed
livestock and have caused problems for some people.
3. This is not a question about preserving introduced wolves in
Yellowstone National Park. The area covered by this introduction program (and thus the
area where these introduced wolves are expected to roam) includes about two-thirds of
Montana, almost all of Idaho, and all of Wyoming. It is much larger than just wolves in
Yellowstone Park. Even for wolves put into the Park itself, there is no fence to keep
these wolves from moving outside the Park onto private lands where livestock may be
present.
4. There are wolves already living in the Yellowstone area and the
Central Idaho area. That was the critical finding in the case. Because there are wolves
already living there, the Endangered Species Act says that the government cannot place any
more wolves there and call them an "experimental" population. The reason for
that is because it will be almost impossible to distinguish the Canadian experimental
wolves and the native endangered wolves. Also, because the wolves are already there, they
are beginning already to naturally re-inhabit the areas and do not need help from outside
wolves.
5. Any protections that the government gave to livestock producers
as a result of designating the Canadian wolves as "experimental" are not
adequate for the ranchers to protect their livestock from wolves. Ranchers can do nothing
but try to scare wolves away from their livestock unless they actually catch wolves in the
act of biting livestock. That is an extremely rare occurrence. But even if the ranchers
scare them away, the wolves wait until the ranchers leave and then return to kill their
livestock. This means that the government has put wolves in the middle of ranchers and not
given them the means to protect their livestock from wolf killing.
6. Farm Bureau challenged this program before it was started. We
hoped to keep the Canadian wolves from being unnecessarily brought down. Unfortunately,
the Judge allowed them to come in and then took almost two years to make his decision. We
do not want to see any wolves killed. We think they can be safely captured and returned to
Canada.
7. The important thing to consider in all of this is that, according
to the judge, the government acted against the law in the way that it put together this
program. The government is, or should be, subject to the same laws that any individual is,
and when the government violates the law its actions should negated. I hope this is
sufficient for your class. Please let me know if you need any additional information, or
if you have any questions. The following analysis of the Farm Bureau
victory in federal district court challenging the wolf introduction program in Yellowstone
and Central Idaho is prepared by American Farm Bureau Federation attorneys who brought and
argued the case.
