JACKSON - Wildlife managers in Montana and Idaho have been told wolves will be delisted in their states regardless of Wyoming's future.
But what does that mean for the number of wolves each state must maintain?
That was part of a question posed by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer last week. Schweitzer said he had a discussion with federal officials about Montana's plan, and asked what will happen in Montana if wolf populations drop in Idaho and Wyoming.
Schweitzer said he was told Montana will be judged on its own merits, and if Montana has 100 wolves in 10 breeding pairs, it is doing its part. "I'm wondering if it's true," Schweitzer said.
Mitch King, regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Denver, said this week that the agency is looking at a state-by-state management policy. So, if Montana or any other state is maintaining its required numbers and wolf populations plummet in other states, that compliant state can continue as it is.
In past interviews, King has said as long as there are 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves evenly distributed in the tristate area, wolves are considered recovered. Schweitzer wondered if that might ever require Montana to shoulder the entire population if Idaho and Wyoming were not doing their part.
"The key is, we wouldn't be looking at any one state to boost up their numbers to cover for another state's lack of management," King said Wednesday. Montana, or any other state, wouldn't be penalized because of "inadequate management" by other states, he said.
The state-by-state listing and delisting approach is not new, but is not frequently done. King said federal attorneys have said the approach will work.
He said the idea that other states wouldn't do their share is "speculative," because all state management plans must meet federal requirements. Idaho and Montana already have acceptable state plans in place, and Wyoming is considering revising its rejected plan.
In December, representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service met with Wyoming officials to discuss negotiations regarding a state wolf plan. The federal officials floated the idea of expanding the area where wolves would be considered trophy game outside wilderness and national parks in northwest Wyoming. Wolves would be considered predators elsewhere, subject to unregulated killing.
Last month, Schweitzer called Freudenthal "sly" for having "stared the feds down" in the state's negotiations. Schweitzer last week said he may have been "too dang soft" when negotiating with the federal government.
"What works best with the feds is to tell them, 'No,' then tell them, 'Really, no. And don't call me next week,' " he
But what does that mean for the number of wolves each state must maintain?
That was part of a question posed by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer last week. Schweitzer said he had a discussion with federal officials about Montana's plan, and asked what will happen in Montana if wolf populations drop in Idaho and Wyoming.
Schweitzer said he was told Montana will be judged on its own merits, and if Montana has 100 wolves in 10 breeding pairs, it is doing its part. "I'm wondering if it's true," Schweitzer said.
Mitch King, regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Denver, said this week that the agency is looking at a state-by-state management policy. So, if Montana or any other state is maintaining its required numbers and wolf populations plummet in other states, that compliant state can continue as it is.
In past interviews, King has said as long as there are 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves evenly distributed in the tristate area, wolves are considered recovered. Schweitzer wondered if that might ever require Montana to shoulder the entire population if Idaho and Wyoming were not doing their part.
"The key is, we wouldn't be looking at any one state to boost up their numbers to cover for another state's lack of management," King said Wednesday. Montana, or any other state, wouldn't be penalized because of "inadequate management" by other states, he said.
The state-by-state listing and delisting approach is not new, but is not frequently done. King said federal attorneys have said the approach will work.
He said the idea that other states wouldn't do their share is "speculative," because all state management plans must meet federal requirements. Idaho and Montana already have acceptable state plans in place, and Wyoming is considering revising its rejected plan.
In December, representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service met with Wyoming officials to discuss negotiations regarding a state wolf plan. The federal officials floated the idea of expanding the area where wolves would be considered trophy game outside wilderness and national parks in northwest Wyoming. Wolves would be considered predators elsewhere, subject to unregulated killing.
Last month, Schweitzer called Freudenthal "sly" for having "stared the feds down" in the state's negotiations. Schweitzer last week said he may have been "too dang soft" when negotiating with the federal government.
"What works best with the feds is to tell them, 'No,' then tell them, 'Really, no. And don't call me next week,' " he