NRB missteps responsible for lawsuit
“I think we need to consider actions that are going to be scientifically defendable and legally defendable.” Bill Smith Natural Resources Board member
When wildlife protection groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday in an effort to stop the fall Wisconsin wolf hunting and trapping season, it was as much of a surprise as the sun rising over Lake Michigan.
It was going to happen. The only question was when.
The Natural Resources Board seemed to beg to be taken to court over wolf management when at its Aug. 11 meeting it voted 5-2 to set a kill quota of 300 wolves for the November season.
The decision overruled biologists and wildlife managers with the Department of Natural Resources, who had recommended a quota of 130.
And the board’s number was seemingly plucked from the air.
Wolf issues are more contentious even than those surrounding whitetailed deer.
Wolves have been see-sawing between federal protections of the Endangered Species Act and state management for more than a decade. Litigation on wolves is nothing new.
So if some board members were going to disregard a plan presented by DNR professionals, you’d think they would have offered strong, sciencebased reasoning.
But the meeting proceeded like some sort of amateur auction, starting with a motion to set the quota at 504 and dropping to 350 before a majority agreed to 300.
The world was watching, of course. In less than three weeks, groups including Animal Wellness Action, the Center for a Humane Economy, Friends of the Wisconsin Wolf and Wildlife and Project Coyote organized to file Tuesday’s lawsuit in Dane County.
“Our lawsuit challenges the quota, how it was set, the actions of the Natural Resources Board,” said Paul Collins of Stoughton, Wisconsin, director of Animal Wellness Action, at a news conference announcing the legal action.
“These people have lost their way and our lawsuit is designed to check their reckless and overreaching actions.”
Many have described wolf management in Wisconsin as “broken.”
Speaking at the same news conference, Michelle Lute of Project Coyote said her group got involved “because the NRB is arbitrarily choosing a quota to kill wolves wholly untethered from any science, and fails to consider the many voices in support of wolves as well as true proper tribal consultation.”
It’s important for the public to know the NRB is not a monolithic block. It’s comprised of seven citizens who are appointed by the governor and serve sixyear, staggered terms at the advise and consent of the senate.
The five NRB members who voted in favor of the 300 quota were Sharon Adams, Bill Bruins, Terry Hilgenberg, Greg Kazmierski and Fred Prehn (Adams later said she was confused and didn’t intend to support the motion, but her vote can’t be changed).
Board members Bill Smith and Marcy West were against it.
And while it won’t undo the lawsuit, you also should know Smith demonstrated the kind of smarts and moderation at the Aug. 11 meeting that should be the model for board actions.
Mindful of the potential for litigation or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service placing the wolf under protections of the Endangered Species Act and therefore removing the species from state authority, Smith urged his fellow board members to take the long view.
“I think it’s important we have consideration in our decision as a board for not only what’s in the upcoming season but beyond that, year after year after year,” Smith said “Where do we want to be as the State of Wisconsin and what’s our role as a board to put us there?”
Smith acknowledged he wasn’t an attorney, but he was concerned about the ramifications for setting a high wolf quota.
“I think we need to consider actions that are going to be scientifically defendable and legally defendable,” Smith said. “Some of the discussion we’ve had gives me pause.”
Smith then added a caution to his fellow board members.
“If (our numbers are not scientifically supported), we’re going to be taken to court. And we’re going to lose. And we might squeeze in another season. But the years after we’re going to sacrifice anything we might have if the wolf population gets relisted or if the Service takes away some of the authority that the state has to manage wolves.
“And when that happens we’re not only going to lose our season but we’re going to lose some of the tools that are very helpful to some of our residents who are suffering depredation right now.”
When the wolf is under federal protections, lethal control such as trapping is prohibited around sites of livestock depredation.
Most would agree it behooves the state to retain management authority over wolves. At least if it does so responsibly.
“I think we need to be conservative in our approach this year with all the uncertainties,” Smith said. “I think we need to put the department and the state in a defendable position.”
But the majority of the NRB didn’t listen to Smith’s sound reasoning or agree with the DNR’s recommendation.
And now a judge will likely decide whether a fall wolf season will take place.
Public confidence in the citizen board may be at an all-time low. If there’s a future for the NRB, it would do well to follow Smith’s lead.