State misses wolf delisting opportunity

In basketball, when an opponent is trying to steal the ball from you, teammates will shout, “wolf!”

Last Friday the Washington State Fish & Wildlife Commission ignored the cries of “wolf!” from state agency and tribal scientists, livestock raisers, and others when they voted not to downlist or delist the gray wolf in Washington state. The predators which have enjoyed 15 years of population increases are still considered an endangered species after a 5-4 vote. The most recent population count lists their numbers as “at least 260 gray wolves in 42 packs” mostly in the Northern and Eastern most parts of the state.

When the gray wolf management plan was adopted in 2011, wolf biologists were confident the predators would disperse voluntarily throughout the state. It is time for the commission to be open to the possibility gray wolves may not naturally disperse to Western Washington when there is still territory and an ample food supply right where they are. If you have a comfortable home and a grocery store that accommodates all your needs in your neighborhood, how likely are you to move?

The Endangered Species Act should not be used as a tool to keep animals in a protected status in perpetuity but rather as a motivating means to actively address their recovery needs through public-private partnerships, innovative conservation, and solutions that encourage local engagement. There is a balance to be sought. No animal species should be brought to the brink of extinction before its value is revealed. Nor should recovery benchmarks and goals be set so high they can never be achieved.

The gray wolf population has met every recovery goal set out in the management and recovery plan except one – natural regional dispersal into Western Washington. Under the plan, there are benchmarks for every step of downlisting, delisting, and full recovery.

“Three recovery regions were delineated for the state: (1) Eastern Washington, (2) Northern Cascades, and (3) Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast. Target numbers and distribution for downlisting and delisting within the three recovery regions are:

To reclassify from state endangered to state threatened status: 6 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 2 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.

To reclassify from state threatened to state sensitive status: 12 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.

To delist from state sensitive status: 15 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions and 3 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.”

Further along in the considerations for recovery, the plan notes geographic dispersal benchmarks may be set aside, “Persistence modeling suggested that if the population was allowed to grow and populate new areas, 15 successful breeding pairs was an adequate recovery objective for delisting.”

Gray wolves were removed from the federal Endangered Species List in 2021 in the Eastern-most third of the state. Bringing our state’s endangered species listing into alignment with the federal listing, or at least taking steps in that direction, makes sense and brings clarity to a difficult issue. By maintaining the state endangered status of gray wolves, the commission is potentially making a challenging local situation worse.

Since officially returning to Washington state in 2008, gray wolves have had an annual average population increase of 23 percent. Recent data indicates since 2019, when nine wolves were culled by department staff after a series of depredations, there has been a significant decrease in lethal removals, with just two gray wolves removed in 2023.

Area ranchers have noted gray wolf sightings in and around their livestock, despite following all the state’s recommended non-lethal deterrent protocols. Livestock owners have also reported gray wolves caught on game cameras walking through livestock barns, farmyards near homes, and in other locations frequented by people and animals with more regularity. As these reports become the norm, rather than the exception, it is not hard to imagine more rural communities will seek ways to control the predators with or without the permittance of the state.

There was a 90-day public comment period to weigh in on the downlisting of gray wolves in the state. According to Department of Fish & Wildlife staff, the agency received more than 14,000 comments, most of which were variations on a form letter in opposition to the status change.

Among those in opposition to downlisting was the Governor. The Governor wrote the commission July 17 requesting gray wolves not be downlisted until the species had reached the recovery goals listed in the state’s wolf management and recovery plan. This request echoed a letter sent to the commission last year.

The discussion of downlisting or delisting gray wolves from the state endangered species list, is part of the required periodic review process.

Rather than bowing to pressure from activists and the Governor, the Fish & Wildlife Commission should have looked objectively at the data. If the commission had done so, gray wolves would have been downlisted to a sensitive species, rather than remaining listed as an endangered one.

By downlisting gray wolves to “sensitive” status, the species would have remained under protection from poachers. The penalty for poaching a sensitive species is up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine per infraction. It would have signaled a willingness on the part of the commission to move toward eventual delisting and, more importantly, a recognition of the agreements reached in the gray wolf management and recovery plan.

— Pam Lewison is the director for the Center for Agriculture at the Washington Policy Center. Email her at plewison@washingtonpolicy.org.​