.png)
OLYMPIA – A sharply-divided state panel earlier this month retained strict protections for gray wolves in Washington, concluding their status under the state’s endangered species law should not change despite signs of a growing population.
In a pair of 5-4 votes, the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission rejected downlisting wolves from “endangered” to either “threatened” or “sensitive,” moves that would have led to lower penalties for poaching and slightly easier access to permits to kill wolves that attack livestock.
Friday’s debate, the latest in the decades-long fight on how to manage wolves in Washington, centered on the extent to which gray wolves are increasing in population and recovering as a species in the state.
Department of Fish and Wildlife staff recommended wolves be downlisted to “sensitive” more than a year ago as part of a process known as periodic status review. They pointed to a rising number of wolves. Last year’s annual wolf report found their population had reached an estimated 260 in the state – up about 20% over 2022 and the 15th consecutive year of growth.
Some commissioners doubted the numbers and said the biological evidence does not justify lowering the status. They worried doing so could slow recovery in the long term.
Tim Ragen, the commission vice chair, said gray wolves are doing better but it’s unclear at what point they will number enough to be deemed recovered.
“What is a recovered population? What is endangered? Threatened? We have not really defined them well,” he said. That should be done before deciding on gray wolves status, he said.
“We’re not only considering what to do with the wolves. We’re also trying to build a ‘best management’ approach for all species,” he said. “I want us to do all of our homework. I think we can do a better job than we have now.”
Commissioners on Friday did briefly endorse a downlist for wolves, voting 5-4 to accept their staff’s recommendation.
But Commissioner Woody Myers subsequently changed his mind, providing the critical fifth vote to prevent any changes. He said he’d been torn on what to do.
“I wish I could tell you with conviction what is the right way to go,” he said before casting any votes. “I’m not necessarily sure there is a right decision.”
Washington’s endangered species list has three categories: endangered, threatened and sensitive.
“Endangered” means a species is “seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state.” The “sensitive” classification means a species is “vulnerable” or declining and is likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range within the state without “cooperative management or removal of threats.”
Department officials and supporters of downlisting said not much would change for wolves practically if their status were lowered and that it’s time to recognize their population growth since they were first designated as endangered.
But environmentalists and wildlife advocates said the move would lead to inadequate protection for wolves when they still haven’t recovered in some parts of the state, particularly the southern Cascades and Olympic Peninsula.
They also pointed to concerns with the data considered in the process.
“Science tells us that a decision to downlist wolves would have put the population at even greater risk, so we are relieved and grateful that the Commission decided to keep current state protections in place,” Dr. Fran Santiago-Ávila, Washington Wildlife First’s science and advocacy director, said in a statement Friday.
While the population growth in the last year was the most in state history, environmentalists and some commissioners have been skeptical, specifically related to the higher numbers on Colville tribal lands. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation reported a significant rise in wolves in their territory despite an increase in the number of wolves killed by tribal hunters.
Wildlife advocates say the tribes have provided little information on how they gathered their data, and they’re suspicious of the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s willingness to take the numbers at face value.
At a meeting in June, agency staffers told the commission that the decision to downlist was not based solely on last year’s numbers but instead on years of recovery efforts that are working.
“I think the information is still there to make a decision regardless of what this year’s count is,” Ben Maletzke, the department’s wolf specialist, told commissioners last month in response to questions about the data.
After Friday, the next time a decision might be made is in five years when the next periodic status review is completed. In addition to state law, wolves in the western two-thirds of the state are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.
