DeFazio slams FWS for delisting, calls for 'safety zone' near Yellowstone

E&E News
By Scott Streater
July 9, 2014

Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) ripped the Fish and Wildlife Service's handling of gray wolves, urging Interior Secretary Sally Jewell yesterday to establish buffer zones around Yellowstone National Park to protect wolves that wander beyond the park.

DeFazio, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, wrote in a three-page letter to Jewell that Fish and Wildlife's proposal last year to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in most of the United States was premature and that populations of gray wolves in Wyoming, particularly, are dropping dramatically.

While killing or trapping wolves is illegal inside Yellowstone, he wrote, "gray wolves do not respect invisible park boundaries and once the wolves cross out of the park and onto bordering lands, there are myriad inconsistent state regulations that allow hunters to kill wolves on sight; in some instances without limit. As a result, the Yellowstone wolves are being shot and killed right outside the borders of the park."

He added that over the past three years, "the population of gray wolves in Yellowstone has steadily decreased as a result of hunting-related deaths," by about 25 percent between 2011 and 2012.

"Therefore, I respectfully request that the Department undertake a concerted and coordinated effort to work with the states to establish a uniform wolf safety zone or buffer around Yellowstone National Park," he wrote. "Additionally, I respectfully request your leadership in establishing an Interagency Wolf Task Force for the purpose of coordinating across the federal and state agencies to protect park wolves from adverse effects of trophy hunting and other causes of human-induced mortality in all National Parks with wolf populations."

Jessica Kershaw, an Interior spokeswoman, said the department has received DeFazio's letter, "and we are reviewing it."

DeFazio also sent a separate, often-scathing letter to FWS Director Dan Ashe that took the service to task for remaining "irrationally committed to delisting the gray wolf in disregard of the best available science and the fact that the recovery of gray wolves is far from complete."

Fish and Wildlife last year proposed removing wolves from the endangered species list, arguing that while the predator has yet to reoccupy suitable habitat in the Northwest, southern Rocky Mountains and Eastern states, its population in the northern Rockies and Great Lakes is robust (Greenwire, June 7, 2013).

Ashe said in an interview last month that he has no "second thoughts" on the delisting proposal and indicated that the service would stay the course despite pressure from some lawmakers and environmentalists to change his mind (E&ENews PM, June 13).

DeFazio noted in his letter a recent report commissioned by the service and led by the University of California, Santa Barbara, that concluded Fish and Wildlife had failed to use the best available science and relied heavily on a controversial study to justify its proposal to delist wolves everywhere except for Arizona and New Mexico (E&ENews PM, Feb. 7).

DeFazio in March led a bipartisan letter co-signed by 73 other lawmakers asking Jewell to maintain federal protections for wolves.

In his letter this week to Ashe, DeFazio wrote, "I was surprised to receive a response [to the March letter], not from the Secretary, but from you. I was also surprised by your tone and felt compelled to respond to the many inaccuracies contained within it.

"I find it particularly troubling that you continue to defend the 'science' upon which you base [the delisting] proposal; even in the face of having it rejected by your own peer reviewers, eminent scientists, and wolf experts."

He concluded, "It is remarkable that we would spend 20 years or more committed to the recovery of this species only to see it vanish well before the job has been completed. That is not only irresponsible, it is shameful, and I do not believe it is the goal of the ESA. In short, I find the morphing explanation based upon science which has failed a peer review to be unworthy of your agency. You can look forward to vigorous future action from me on this matter should you not administratively put the agency on the right course."