Conservation lawyers say the removal of gray wolves in Idaho and Montana from the endangered species list could mean fewer options for Wyoming ranchers when wolves prey on livestock.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Monday said it will delist wolves in Idaho and Montana but not Wyoming, despite the threat of lawsuits from conservation groups and sportsmen.

The decision puts management of roughly 1,350 wolves in the hands of Idaho and Montana wildlife managers, opening the way for hunting wolves in those states. Federal officials say they will keep Wyoming’s roughly 300 wolves under Endangered Species Act protection until the state comes up with an acceptable management plan for the controversial predators.

Andrew Wetzler, director of the Wildlife Conservation Project of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the delisting threatens an Endangered Species Act provision that gives Wyoming ranchers the ability to shoot wolves in the act of harming or killing livestock.

The Endangered Species Act says ranchers can shoot wolves harming or preying on livestock only if wolves are an “experimental, nonessential population,” meaning the endangered species’ population is geographically separate from any other population of the same species, said Wetzler and Jenny Harbine, a lawyer with Earthjustice.

“It’s clear that the Wyoming wolves no longer qualify for that status,” Wetzler said. “They’re obviously not separate from the Montana population. I think Wyoming is going to lose its ‘experimental, nonessential population’ status.”

Several problems

Harbine also said the experimental status is now in doubt.

“I’d be nervous about it if I were someone who was wanting the flexibility to control wolves in Wyoming,” she said. “It’s a problem with the Fish and Wildlife Service delisting. It is one among many. Our goal is to throw the delisting out all together. That would correct any defect in retaining this [experimental status].”

Harbine said a probable lawsuit from Earthjustice for the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance and other groups wouldn’t necessarily make an issue of the experimental status.

“The delisting rule “created numerous legal inconsistencies,” Harbine said. “It highlights the reality that the northern Rockies wolf population is a single population and should be treated in its entirety rather than on a piecemeal basis.”

Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said federal officials discussed the experimental, nonessential status and said it would remain intact.

“The rule clearly states that Wyoming will remain under a experimental nonessential population in the entire state,” he said.

If, through court proceedings, Wyoming wolves do somehow lose that experimental status, Bangs said, the Endangered Species Act does allow federal officials to kill wolves for harming livestock. But for ranchers, there are no provisions for defense of private property.

“You could yell at it and run it off, but that would be the extent,” he said.

Lost latitude

Bangs said Wyoming livestock producers and Wyoming Game and Fish have already lost a lot of latitude when it comes to wolf control because the state hasn’t come up with an acceptable wolf management plan.

“Wyoming has penalized itself for not having an approved plan,” he said. “So [federal officials] are making those decisions in Wyoming and will continue to make those decisions.”

Wyoming Game and Fish spokesman Eric Keszler said he couldn’t comment on the potential livestock issue but said the agency is disappointed in the decision to delist wolves in Idaho and Montana but not Wyoming.

“We’re confident that Wyoming’s current management plan is adequate to maintain a recovered population of wolves in Wyoming,” he said.

Wyoming Attorney General Bruce A. Salzburg did not immediately return calls for comment.

Numerous groups on both sides of the issue, including the state of Wyoming, have threatened lawsuits over the delisting rule, which was published in the Federal Register in April.

Conservation groups say the rule is vulnerable because the Fish and Wildlife Service is acting illegally by not including Wyoming. Further, they say the federal government has not ensured genetic connectivity between populations in the Greater Yellowstone Area and populations in central Idaho.

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Wyoming Executive Director Bob Wharff said his group also isn’t happy with the decision to split the region’s wolves into two groups. Unlike many conservation groups, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife has supported Wyoming’s management plan, which allows wolves to be killed by any means at any time in all but the northwest corner of the state.