Of Wolves and Sisyphus

At last week’s federal court wolf delisting hearing, Montana’s attorney argued that wolves in Montana should be delisted, complaining that there is no remedy for Montana if Wyoming continues to  adhere to a wolf plan that established roughly 90% of Wyoming as a free-fire kill zone for wolves – a plan that the federal government has rejected as inadequate.  He said, “It’s like the story of Sisyphus.  We [in Montana] just feel like we’re pushing the boulder up hill, and it only comes rolling down on us again.”

 

 

Well maybe there’s a reason that some wolf managers in Montana feel like Sisyphus—and maybe that reason is imbedded in the original Greek myth.  A clever and arrogant king from Corinth, Sisyphus fought with the gods, and twice defeated them by outwitting death.  For his hubris and failure to play by the rules, Sisyphus was punished in the underworld, where he was tasked with pushing a stone up hill, only to watch it roll downhill upon him, and do the same thing again and again—for eternity.

Maybe there is a lesson here for Montana, as it relates to the law and the public trust regarding wolves.  Concerning the law, Montana has weak and legally unenforceable standards in its wolf plan, rules related to livestock management that undermine wolf recovery, and population objectives aimed at managing wolves at rock-bottom levels.  That’s one of the reasons why we are in court challenging the federal government’s wolf delisting decision.

Related to Montana’s trust responsibilities to manage wildlife for the benefit of the public, Montana has a proud history of upholding this public trust—look at the dramatic increase in Montana’s elk herds over the last 100 years, which benefits hunters and recreationists alike.  But in the case of wolf management, Montana appears to have lost its way.

As Montana contemplates doubling or almost tripling allowable wolf hunt quotas this fall, the state appears to be catering to certain special interests only, rather than taking the broader public interest into account.  Just attend a Montana Game and Fish Commission meeting when wolves are discussed, and you will see for yourself the level of deference given to hunters, who are seen by the agency as its primary “clients” – even though many other Montanans hold different views and values about the state’s magnificent wildlife heritage.

As an example of Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Department’s narrow view of the public it serves, last fall it allowed the first 40 days of wolf hunting to occur in the wilderness area adjacent to Yellowstone Park – a move that resulted in the death of a number of “park” wolves, some well known and deeply loved by Yellowstone’s passionate wolf watchers.  This decision was made despite that fact that Yellowstone Park wolves are known to move back and forth across Park boundaries, and the fact that wolf watchers bring an estimated $35 million annually into communities around the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which are then further “turned over” in the communities, according to a study by Dr. John Duffield of the University of Montana.  The values of wolf watchers and the economic value of wolves to Yellowstone’s communities were flatly ignored by the state in its zeal to pursue a wolf hunt.   

Even more puzzling is the profound difference between the state’s approach to wolf management and the one it has pursued for many years related to grizzly bears.  In the grizzly management arena, numerous highly skilled state managers are creatively solving conflicts on the ground, in collaboration with ranchers and communities every day where bears reside.  The fact that bears are again roaming on the plains east of the Rocky Mountain Front, 100 miles from Glacier Park--with relatively few conflicts--is testimony to the commitment, problem-solving skills, and strong community and personal relationships by Montana grizzly managers like Mike Madel.  So why isn’t Montana pursuing similar practical, collaborative approaches to addressing conflicts when it comes to wolves?

In the absence of leadership from the state, in recent months NRDC has been working to explore areas of common ground with ranchers who live and work in wolf country—and guess what?  We have found that there is much more of a convergence of thoughts and ideas about how to solve wolf-livestock conflicts than you would think from reading the newspapers.  This is critical, because so far, livestock conflicts are the biggest cause of death of wolves in the Northern Rockies region.

Until Montana revises its laws and plans to ensure healthy, recovered wolf populations, commits to new collaborative efforts to help prevent conflicts,  and changes its approach to its  public trust responsibilities in the wolf arena (to mirror those adopted for  other wildlife species), Montana’s wolf management efforts will, indeed, be Sisyphean.

Comments