Processes already underway are leading directly to these outcomes. Why should we try to avoid them?
Because such a world would be immeasurably poorer.

   National parks and other public lands are important not only to the emotional and spiritual well-being of Americans, and to the economies of western communities. They are essential for dependable supplies of clean water, flood protection, soil regeneration, wildlife habitat, and many other valuable ecosystem services.

   Riparian areas and aspen communities should be primary targets of restoration efforts. "Although riparian systems typically occupy a small proportion of most landscapes," especially in the West, "they have important ecological functions that affect a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial organisms as well as hydrologic and geomorphic processes of riverine systems.…" (Ripple and Beschta, 2004: 758)

 

   Aspen, known as a foundation species, is also disproportionately valuable. In Yellowstone, for instance, it occupies only about one percent of the land area, but "it is one of the few deciduous species in the area, provides habitat for numerous bird species, supports a variety of plant associations, and is used as browse by several ungulate species." (Larsen and Ripple, 2005: 326)

 

   Both communities are vulnerable to over-grazing and –browsing. Conversely, as demonstrated in Yellowstone and Zion, they are quick to recover when top native carnivores are present.

 

The projected effects of climate change increase the need for stream restoration. Restored streams can handle high flows caused by storms and earlier snowmelt, help floodplains store water, promote groundwater recharge, and support healthy riparian communities. Some technologies for improving hydrologic function exist, and some native vegetation can be reestablished by fencing to exclude large herbivores. But to apply such measures on the necessary scale would be prohibitively expensive, and some would have their own undesirable side effects.

 

   Stream systems could be restored at much lower cost by restoring keystone species. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program recognized this when it cited Ripple and Beschta’s trophic cascades research in its recent report, Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources.

 

   In addition, minimizing controllable sources of environmental stress would alleviate climate change impacts on ecosystem services, included those provided by streams. Ending unsustainable land uses should thus be a priority.

 
   Restoring and maintaining natural ecosystems is the best insurance against devastating ecosystem changes. Indeed, it could be the only defense to current atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, which will persist for decades regardless of future reductions in emissions.

 

   Each of the federal land agencies possesses authority "to address changes in resource conditions resulting from climate change" and to implement adaptation measures. (GAO 2007) Preserving native species at landscape and regional scales ¬ would promote ecosystem resilience by ensuring that more species persist and that some individuals of each species possess traits enabling them to adapt to changed conditions.

   Taking care of man's best friend could go a long way toward achieving these objectives.

 

   Threats to wildlife habitat received considerable attention at the recent Western Governors' Association meeting in Jackson. Attendees were concerned about habitat loss and fragmentation caused by rapid population growth, residential and energy development, and climate change. They responded by announcing plans to form a Western Wildlife Habitat Council, and by calling on the federal government to enforce energy industry promises to mitigate impacts and reclaim habitat, and to work with the states to protect wildlife migration corridors. The new WGA chair, Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., warned that "there is no time to waste." (Brodie Farquhar, Wyoming Business Report, June 30, 2008).

 

   Absent from the discussions was any mention of wolves or livestock grazing. Surprising? Hardly. Western governors, by and large, are no friends of the wolf.

   For instance, Idaho's Governor Butch Otter famously announced at a rally with about 300 hunters that he wanted "to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself." (The Associated Press, "Idaho governor calls for gray wolf kill," Jan. 12, 2007)

   And Governor Dave Freudenthal once questioned "whether any [wolf] packs outside Yellowstone in Wyoming are even necessary." 

   The Wyoming Game and Fish Department's wolf management plan bears examining, since Gov. Freudenthal has explained that the "recently-passed statute governing the management of the gray wolf is the state's wolf plan." (Ibid.)

   The word "ecology" occurs nowhere in the text. The only implicit reference is a statement concerning future research to address the role of wolf predation in the population dynamics of elk and moose. The plan says nothing about aspen, willow, or cottonwood communities, let alone trophic cascade theory or climate change.

 

   The plan cavalierly dismisses as unsuitable for long-term wolf occupancy large areas of the state, such as the Wyoming Range and the southern end of the Wind River Range, where wolves could thrive. The sole reason: the potential for conflict with livestock.

The "basic philosophy," says Bill Rudd, assistant wildlife chief for Game and Fish, "will be to maintain a recovered population to ensure that wolves will never need to be re-listed on the endangered species list." The State says it will "maintain a higher number of wolves than the minimum required," but only to "allow us some flexibility in dealing with wolves that are impacting livestock or wildlife and need to be removed." (Eric Keszler, "Next Step for Wolves," Wyoming Wildlife, May 2008).

 

   A year earlier, Wyoming officials had stated publicly their intent to eliminate all but the minimum number of wolves specified by USFWS to prevent re-listing the species. (The Associated Press, "Managers target low number," June 11, 2007)

   Wyoming's management plan designates wolves as predators in about 90 percent of the state and allows them to be shot on sight. Oblivious to the irony, Keszler, Game and Fish Assistant Services Division Chief, asserted that the "health of any wildlife population is marked by opportunity for the public to participate in recreational harvest of those animals."

 

   Even if Wyoming’s plan - like the similar prescriptions of Montana and Idaho - can provide for a minimum viable population of wolves (which many conservation groups dispute), it will preclude the maintenance of ecologically effective wolf populations.

   Facing an uncertain future, these states have squandered an opportunity to restore degraded ecosystems. They are ignoring the best available science in order to protect an unsustainable land use and a few big game hunters.

   The influence of politics in wolf recovery and management is blatant. What role should the law play? 

 

Wolves and the Law

   Until this spring, all wolves in the West enjoyed federal Endangered Species Act protection. When passing the Act in 1973, Congress recognized that habitat loss and destruction had been the primary causes of species endangerment. Accordingly, a primary ESA purpose is to "provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which [threatened and endangered] species depend may be conserved." (16 U.S.C. § 1531(b)). The Act also requires that "critical habitat" be designated for every listed species. (16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)). Nevertheless, the Act relies chiefly on listing individual species and subspecies and then attempting to ensure that subsequent private and governmental actions do not harm them. USFWS makes no secret of the fact that it views critical habitat designations as largely unhelpful. It has designated habitat for many species only after lawsuits forced its hand. 

 

   On February 27, 2008, USFWS determined that wolves in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho have been "recovered": they are no longer "threatened," or at risk of becoming endangered. Consequently, it designated, and then delisted, the northern Rocky Mountains "distinct population segment." (73 Federal Register 4720)

   On the occasion of delisting, USFWS Director H. Dale Hall stated that "it's time to integrate wolves into the states' overall wildlife management efforts." (Karl Puckett, "Officials to delist wolves in Northern Rockies," Great Falls Tribune, Feb. 22, 2008) In Wyoming that could mean no management at all. According to WGF Director Terry Cleveland, "the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has no authority over animals that have predator status" - the current status of wolves in 90 percent of the state. (Cory Hatch, "State budgets $2.5 million for wolf management" Jackson Hole Daily, Mar. 7, 2008)

 

   Drs. Ripple and Beschta have urged that the "ecological role of wolves and other top predators should receive greater consideration in evaluating the success of wolf restoration efforts." (2005: 620) But USFWS, like Wyoming, ignored the wolf's role in restoring ecosystems. In fact, wolf recovery coordinator Ed Bangs was quoted as saying: "We've restored [the wolf], and now it's just another one of the resident animals in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming." (Puckett, ibid.)

Official collars and releases a female wolf.

   Within hours of the USFWS decision, a dozen conservation groups gave notice of their intent to challenge the delisting in federal district court in Montana. They filed suit in late April, claiming, among other things, that the decision is inconsistent with the best available science, that the core populations are too small and genetically isolated, and that wolves will remain endangered because of inadequate protection in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.

   The plaintiffs also assert that "the presence of gray wolves is essential to the healthy functioning of the ecosystems in which they evolved," and they argue that eliminating federal protection for wolves "over an arbitrarily large northern Rockies distinct population segment violates the Service's obligation to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend."

 

   Thanks to the July 18 decision by Montana U.S. Dist. Judge Donald Molloy granting a preliminary injunction to the conservation groups, the wolves endangered species status was restored until the lawsuit is resolved or the government successfully appeals Molloy's decision.

   In his 40 page ruling, Judge Molloy said the federal government failed to meet its requirements for full wolf recovery, particularly interbreeding of the packs in the three states. Before the ruling, none of three states was committed to retaining more than the bare minimum of wolves.

   As a condition of delisting, USFWS required the states to maintain at least 300 of the current estimated population of 1500 wolves. In other words, 80 percent of the wolves recovered at a cost to taxpayers of $27 million could have been legally "removed."

 

   On many occasions USFWS has stated that "States possess broad trustee and police powers over fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats within their borders. Unless preempted by Federal authority, States possess primary authority and responsibility for protection and management of fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats." (e.g., 59 Federal Register 34274, July 1, 1994)

   The states' wolf "management" plans, however, like the federal delisting, are more fairly characterized as abdications of the responsibility to protect and manage wolves and wolf habitats.

   There are other potential players on the legal landscape. In particular, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service manage many of the lands where wolves may occur. Politics, however, makes it just as unlikely that their management will be any more enlightened.

Which is not to say that the Forest Service and BLM do not possess ample legal authority to protect wolves and manage wolf habitat.

Federal land law and wolves

   An abstract recitation of the law is dry and unlikely to inspire. But the following excerpts from the law that governs the BLM and Forest Service’s land management indicate why trophic cascades research is relevant. These authorities and limitations are likely to figure in any future litigation that seeks to compel the BLM or Forest Service to manage for wolves and their beneficial ecosystem effects.

   First, the "multiple uses" for which BLM lands and national forests are to be managed include watershed, wildlife, and fish. (43 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1702; 16 U.S.C. § 531). According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "securing favorable conditions of water flows" is one of the two primary purposes of national forests. (U.S. v. New Mexico, 1978, construing 16 U.S.C. § 475). Both agencies are bound by the federal Clean Water Act, "the objective" of which is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters." (33 U.S.C. § 1251) In addition, both agencies' rules and land use plans call for protecting and maintaining healthy riparian areas.

 

The presence of wolves and cougars, as we've seen, is instrumental in restoring and maintaining the integrity of stream hydrology and biotic communities. Improving the functioning of streams and watersheds in turn can help maintain "favorable conditions" even as the climate shifts.    These objectives would be served if the BLM followed Congress's direction in the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act to manage public lands to protect ecological, environmental, and water resource values, to "provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife," and, "where appropriate, [to] preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition." (43 U.S.C. § 1701)

The cougar, another important predator.

 

   Both agencies are directed to manage renewable resources "without impairment of the productivity of the land" and to "best meet the … needs of the American people." They are further directed to consider "the relative values of the various resources." (16 U.S.C. §§ 529, 531; 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1702) The BLM is explicitly admonished to "weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits." (43 U.S.C. § 1712)

   Again, restoring top carnivores can better serve the long-term needs of humans. It might be necessary to sacrifice short-term private benefits, such as livestock forage, but the relative collective value of native biodiversity, clean water, and healthy ecosystems is clearly greater.

 
   Congress has recognized that "vast segments of the public rangelands are producing less than their potential" for wildlife habitat, recreation, and water and soil conservation benefits." It is aware that these "unsatisfactory conditions":

 

present a high risk of soil loss …; negatively impact the quality and availability of scarce western water supplies; threaten important and frequently critical fish and wildlife habitat; prevent expansion of the forage resource and resulting benefits to livestock and wildlife production; increase surface runoff and flood danger; reduce the value of such lands for recreational and esthetic purposes; and may ultimately lead to unpredictable and undesirable long-term local and regional climatic and economic changes.

   Accordingly, Congress established "a national policy and commitment to … manage, maintain, and improve the condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible for all rangeland values." (43 U.S.C. § 1901) The same statute recognizes BLM’s authority to discontinue livestock grazing "either temporarily or permanently … on certain lands." (43 U.S.C. § 1903(b), citing 43 U.S.C. § 1712)

 

   Both agencies have explicit authority to "cancel, suspend or modify" grazing permits, and to "devote the lands covered by the permit … to another public purpose." (43 U.S.C. § 1752) Reestablishing top carnivores would help "improve the condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible for all rangeland values" - clearly a public purpose.

   Congress specifically directed the Forest Service to provide by regulation for the "diversity of plant and animal communities" and, "to the degree practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region." (16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)) The absence of wolves itself diminishes diversity which, in turn, contributes to the degradation and loss of aspen stands and riparian plant communities, and the associated biodiversity of each.

 

   The BLM's Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing (43 C.F.R. §§ 4180.1-4180.2) direct the agency to manage for many of the values discussed above. Among other things, they call for:

 

   • maintaining watersheds and riparian areas in "properly functioning physical condition," 
   • maintaining, improving or restoring riparian-wetland functions … ; 
   • promoting the opportunity for seedling establishment of appropriate plant species when climatic conditions and space allow … ; 
   • restoring, maintaining or enhancing habitats of … special status species to promote their conservation;
   • maintaining or promoting the physical and biological conditions to sustain native populations and communities; [and] 
   • emphasizing native species in the support of ecological function.

 

   Again, each of these of these objectives could be furthered by reestablishing wolves and reducing or ending livestock grazing.

   Finally, the BLM and the Forest Service are authorized to regulate or close areas to hunting "for reasons of administration [of the lands], or compliance with … applicable law." (43 U.S.C. § 1732(b)) This would seem to empower the agencies to prohibit the killing of wolves on public lands, even if state law would allow it.

   Plainly, the federal agencies have authority to facilitate wolf restoration on their lands. But the law also affords them considerable latitude on how to exercise their authority. 

 

   To date, the agencies lack the political will to subordinate livestock interests to wildlife or watershed concerns. Whether the agencies abuse their discretion by failing to reform their management in view of the science on trophic cascades and climate change is a question for the courts. A recent Supreme Court decision makes it virtually certain that no court would order either agency to take any particular action to protect wolves. (Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Coalition, 2004) But when the agency does act, it would be subject to challenge on the ground that it failed to consider or to properly weigh the available science. The court would then decide whether the action is, for that reason, "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." (5 U.S.C. § 706). 

 

   If (as is likely) the courts aren't willing to weigh in on this controversy, Congress should. A good first step would be to end agricultural and water-use subsidies that promote unsustainable, ecologically harmful uses of water and land. 
 

"The last word in ignorance," Aldo Leopold wrote in his 1953 collection of essays Round River, "is the man who says of an animal or plant: 'What good is it?' ... To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering." To treat as expendable an animal whose value we have come to understand is perhaps the ultimate folly. If we continue to spurn man's best friend, we will lose the wolf and much besides.

 

 

 

 Sources / Resources