|
Governor to Norton: Federal wolf message contradictory 2/7/04 News Release - Governor of Wyoming CHEYENNE, Wyo. - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's rejection of Wyoming's wolf management plan is contrary to both the agency's own previously stated positions and to the best available science, Gov. Dave Freudenthal wrote today to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. "Now, in the face of direct representations to the contrary, and in the face of nearly unanimous agreement that the best available science supports the dual-status approach, Wyoming's wolf management plan has been rejected," the governor wrote. "I cannot understand how the federal government can justify such an inconsistent and, frankly, unsupported position." In writing the secretary, Freudenthal sought to express his and other state officials' frustration with the process thus far and to inform the secretary that the state is evaluating its limited legal options. "I understand that Interior officials may be in Cheyenne next week to discuss this issue," the governor concluded his letter, referring to a planned trip by USFWS Director Steve Williams. "I hope their purpose is something more than to simply demand that Wyoming continue to modify its approach based on the latest federal policy position." The full text of the letter follows (hard copies faxed upon request), but it makes three basic points: -The state relied upon representations of preliminary federal approval while crafting its wolf management plan. -The best available science supports Wyoming's plan. -The rejection of Wyoming's plan was not based on science, but rather on political and legal considerations. *********************** February 4, 2004 The Honorable Gale Norton
I write to share with you my perspective on the efforts to delist the gray wolf. On several occasions last year, I wrote asking for clear direction regarding federal wolf policy. In response, Wyoming received several express written representations from individuals at the Assistant Secretary and Director levels that our proposed "dual-status" legislation was adequate to delist. In fact, our legislation became law on the basis of those representations. Following those representations, your hand-picked group of wolf scientists endorsed our dual-status approach this past fall. Now, in the face of direct representations to the contrary, and in the face of nearly unanimous agreement that the best available science supports the dual-status approach, Wyoming's wolf management plan has been rejected. I cannot understand how the federal government can justify such an inconsistent, and frankly, unsupported position. The Service rejected Wyoming's management plan, ostensibly on 3 grounds - predatory animal status in a portion of the state, the requirement that 8 of 15 packs be in the National Parks, and Wyoming's definition of a pack which allowed for maintenance of the originally required 10 breeding pairs instead of the apparent new federal requirement of 15. None of these ostensible grounds is based in science. In fact, the scientific review panel overwhelmingly endorsed Wyoming's plan. Rather, this rejection had a non-scientific basis which is entirely impermissible under the Endangered Species Act. Wyoming's wolf statutes, and its wolf management plan, were adopted following the express, written endorsements of senior DOI and Service officials. The Wyoming Legislature and I relied upon those representations in adopting the plan. We are now left in the untenable position of having relied to our detriment on an ever-changing federal policy which is not based on the best available science. On January 10, 1997, Ed Bangs, the Service's Wolf Recovery Coordinator, wrote the Directors of the Wyoming, Montana and Idaho wildlife management agencies and declared: Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, the hysteria and myth surrounding wolves and their management continue. I often hear second-hand rumors about how the reintroduced wolves are causing more problems than expected and how wolf management is much more difficult than predicted…A few people still hope that the wolves will all die out or be removed. Others suggest a scenario whereby wolves exceed recovery objectives, problems become widespread, and funding is reduced but politics prevents attempts to delist wolves despite sincere efforts of the resource management agencies. (emphasis added) These rumors, regarded by Mr. Bangs as "hysteria," appear to be no less than clairvoyant in light of recent events. On January 13, 2004, nearly seven years to the day after Mr. Bangs' correspondence, the State of Wyoming's Gray Wolf Management Plan was rejected by the Service. The rejection noted three concerns that led to your agency's decision. They include: (1) "Predatory animal" status in a portion of the state;
On January 21, 2003, in anticipation of the Wyoming Legislature's final vote on HB 0229, I wrote to you with the following request: I respectfully ask that you direct the Service to tell us, unequivocally, what must be incorporated into Wyoming's management plan to have the wolf de-listed. To date, Wyoming has been told there are only two criteria: 1) a minimum of 10 breeding pairs for three consecutive years and 2) a state management plan that provides adequate regulatory mechanisms. Our process is being unnecessarily delayed in trying to determine what constitutes the adequate regulatory mechanisms, which is why I am asking for your help. In response to my request, on February 21, 2003, Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, responded as follows: When making a determination that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place that will maintain the population above recovery levels, we must be able to determine that wolves are provided legal protections by the State from unregulated human mortalities in an area at least as extensive as they currently occupy. In order to reach this goal, we believe the fundamental elements of the State's management plan should include: • Management authority to maintain the wolf population at or above
recovery levels. [10 breeding pairs] Management authority is needed
to provide protections for wolves beyond National Parks and National
Forest wilderness areas and to allow flexibility to adapt protections
to changing circumstances. The Service has determined that the current
provisions of HB 0229 regarding management authorities and maintenance
of 15 wolf packs in Wyoming (8 inside National Parks and 7 outside)
should satisfy this requirement.
Beyond the representations made by Assistant Secretary Manson, Director Steve Williams made similar assertions to Representative Barbara Cubin on February 14, 2003. According to Mr. Williams: [W]e believe the fundamental elements of the State's management plan should include: • Management authority to maintain the wolf population at or above
recovery levels. [10 breeding pairs] Management authority is needed
to provide protections for wolves beyond National Parks and National
Forest wilderness areas and to allow flexibility to adapt protections
to changing circumstances. The Service has determined that the current
provisions of HB 0229 regarding management authorities and maintenance
of 15 wolf packs in Wyoming (8 inside National Parks and 7 outside)
should satisfy this requirement.
I would encourage the Wyoming Game & Fish Department to continue to work closely with the Service and Interior personnel under the framework provided by HB 229 to develop a Wolf Management Plan that contains provisions that will assure that wolf populations will remain viable after they are removed from the protection of the Endangered Species Act. The letter from the Assistant Secretary once again reassured the State that HB 0229 was an appropriate framework from which to work, including the central concepts of the dual-status classification, the "predator classification," and the definition for pack size - the identical concepts used by the Service to reject Wyoming's Management Plan not nine months later. To the extent Wyoming received later comments by subordinate Service personnel that did not fully endorse the proposed plan, those comments were clarified by Assistant Secretary Manson's letter of August 5, 2003. In that letter, the Assistant Secretary responded to my request that a single federal liaison be appointed to communicate wolf policy to Wyoming as we were receiving inconsistent messages. The Assistant Secretary replied: We believe that continued consultation with Wyoming regarding a Wolf Management Plan is extremely important. Therefore, Steve Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, will be DOI's official policy spokesman on wolf issues. Ed Bangs, the Service's Wolf Recovery Coordinator, will continue to interact with Wyoming Game and Fish Department personnel as to technical issues only. In response to your concern about inconsistent messages from Interior, I have taken internal action to ensure that the Department's message at all levels regarding the State's efforts to develop a Wyoming Wolf Management Plan is consistent. If the express statements of the Assistant Secretary were no longer to be relied upon by Wyoming, Director Williams never made that fact known. Wyoming continued to rely on the express statements of the Assistant Secretary, and not those of subordinate employees within the Service. The Wyoming Wolf Management Plan was presented to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission on July 29, 2003, and was adopted. Never did Director Williams, as the designated liaison for DOI, even intimate that a potential problem may exist. Wyoming continued to rely to its detriment on express DOI representations. As if it were not enough that Wyoming adopted its plan based upon material misrepresentations by DOI and the Service, the rejection of our plan is contrary to the best available science regarding wolves. As you know, the ESA requires that listing decisions be based upon the best available science. Wyoming's plan was reviewed by eleven (11) independent scientific experts, hand-picked by the Service. Ten (10) of the eleven (11) approved Wyoming's plan. Clearly, had this decision been based upon science, the Wyoming plan would have been approved. The "hysteria and myth" noted in 1997 have now come true. Wolf numbers today clearly "exceed recovery objectives." "Problems [have] become widespread," including excessive predation on Wyoming's game herds. "Funding" is wholly inadequate. And, the "sincere efforts" of the State of Wyoming to delist wolves were undermined by legal and political machinations, which are totally irrelevant under the Endangered Species Act. This conclusion is categorically supported by the testimony of the Service's Paul Hoffman before the Joint Travel, Recreation and Wildlife Committee of the Wyoming Legislature on January 15, 2004. Answering a question posed by Representative Mike Baker, author of Wyoming's HB0229, Mr. Hoffman testified: [I]t all hinges on what we believe is our ability to defend a rule to delist wolves if a rule goes final. It is based on our experience in these kinds of matters of litigation in the past. You know, look at the recent past on the snowmobile rule to see what kind of challenges we have in the courtroom today, and it is - under the law, the law says make the decisions based on the science, but legal analysis is an appropriate overlay after the scientific analysis is done, and from a strictly science perspective, yes, the plans were deemed adequate. It's the legal considerations that prompt us to say no at this time. (emphasis added) To be sure, Mr. Hoffman summed up the Service's philosophy as follows: "Our question is how are you going to sell it to an eastern judge?" The Endangered Species Act requires decisions which are based on "the best scientific and commercial data available." There is no exception to accommodate the sensitivities of an "eastern judge." DOI has categorically rejected Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan, and done so contrary to its earlier express representations regarding its adequacy. You have also rejected the recommendations of your own scientific panel. Your rejection constitutes final agency action on Wyoming's plan. The State has no option but to continue evaluation of its limited legal options. Several comments have been offered by Interior officials to the effect "we verbally told you were warned about the word 'predator.'" In fact, we were advised that the word predator was a political or image concern. However, as a legal and scientific matter, the written words approved the Wyoming approach. I understand that Interior officials may be in Cheyenne next week to discuss this issue. I hope their purpose is something more than to simply demand that Wyoming continue to modify its approach based on the latest federal policy position. Sincerely, Dave Freudenthal c: The Honorable Craig Thomas
|