Feds’ decision to delist wolves a gray area

YAKIMA, Wash. — So … what’s to make of the latest delisting of gray wolves?

Do we care?

Should we?

And will it really affect us here in Washington?

OK, for the sake of argument — and wolves, like cougars, grizzly bears and other predators that can both intrigue and horrify, definitely create arguments — here’s one opinion on those answers:

1) It’s hard to say what to make of it. Since the delisting could be legally undone within the next two weeks when a slew of pending lawsuits become official, that jury is still out.

2) I think most of us do care, in one way or another. Those of us who would love to see one in the wild even once — Yellowstone sightings don’t count — might consider it premature to begin culling a Northern Rockies wolf population that exists only because of very active, very recent human intervention.

Personally, I’d love to see a wolf in the wild. Very few of us ever will. And even if we think we do, it’s probably really just a coyote in the distance, or a dog, or a wolf-dog hybrid, or wishful thinking. Might as well be Bigfoot. Or the Easter Bunny.

Wolves are something like cougars — for most of us, they might as well be ghosts. In decades spent in the backcountry, I’ve only seen one cougar in the wild — and ended up chasing it madly through the forest in hopes of another glimpse, all the while balancing the breakfast plate of blueberry pancakes I’d been enjoying when I’d spotted it sauntering by my backcountry camp.

But then, I’m guessing I’d feel differently if I lived in a rural setting, owned sheep or calves, or even had a pet that liked to play in the woods around the house. And if that house happened to be in the northeast corner near the Selkirk Mountains, through which dispersing wolves from out-of-state populations are most likely to make their way into Washington, I’d probably have this entirely different take: How long before I can buy a wolf-hunting license?

3) Should we care? Absolutely. A healthy ecosystem depends on the interaction of all its species. Predator species serve a function in the big picture, even though it’s not always pretty. Sometimes Bambi becomes lunchmeat. That’s just the way it is.

And to those who say the wolf is the most cruel, vicious predator on the planet — a conviction held by some anti-wolf folks in Idaho — I beg to differ. Man is. And I don’t think it’s even close.

4) In Washington, all it means is the state’s wolf management won’t be much more than philosophical in nature any time soon.

That’s just my opinion, and one not shared by some within the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which will unveil its draft management plan for review and possible implementation later this year. I simply don’t believe there will ever be many wolves in this state to manage if, as could conceivably happen, Idaho hunters and federal “chronic predator” eradicators take out as many as half that state’s 800 wolves.

The other question is, what will the federal delisting mean to the few wolves that do end up in Washington?

Answer: Almost nothing. Washington still lists wolves as endangered, so even if they’re hunted in Idaho and Montana, they can’t be hunted or trapped here. For that matter, the federal delisting only covers a third of Washington, the area east of highways 97, 17 and 395. So the lone verified pack in the state — the Lookout Pack in the Methow Valley, which is west of Highway 97 — is protected by both federal and state statutes.

Still, the state wildlife folks are convinced more wolves are coming. “We don’t believe for a minute federal delisting is going to change the picture completely,” says WDFW spokeswoman Madonna Luers. “There are no walls going up on the border. Wolves are still coming in and out.”

Nah. That’s not a wolf. That’s the Easter Bunny.

• Outdoors editor Scott Sandsberry can be reached at 509-577-7689 or ssandsberry@yakimaherald.com