Blame it on Wyoming. Idaho's estimated 1,000-plus wolves are back under federal control largely because Wyoming has written a faulty plan for handling its own wolves.
Late Friday, Missoula, Mont.-based U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy returned wolves to federal jurisdiction, for the time being. His injunction is a setback for Idahoans who have waited to manage wolves. It's all the more disappointing because Molloy generally endorsed Idaho's plan for wolves removed from the federal government's endangered species list.
Molloy offers a sharp reminder. Idaho is not an island, and its wolves don't live in isolation. Recovering the wolf across the Northern Rockies - the goal of reintroduction - will require a regional effort. In the absence of one, a federal judge will step in on the wolves' behalf.
That's what happened Friday, in a ruling focused on two key points:
Molloy questioned whether the plans would protect wolves in Yellowstone National Park - or leave America's oldest national park with an isolated population condemned to genetic weakening.
Molloy fired his sharpest criticism at Wyoming. Across 90 percent of the state, wolves would have no protection; they would be treated as predators that can be shot at any time. The judge questioned Wyoming's commitment to holding up its end of wolf recovery, maintaining at least 15 breeding pairs of wolves.
Molloy's ruling will save some wolves from hunting seasons - which are now on hold. It will also head off some wolf kills under Wyoming's cavalier predator policy. But this ruling isn't exactly a boon to Idaho, which has done its share during the wolf reintroduction process.
Barely a decade ago, the federal government introduced 34 wolves in Central Idaho. Wolves have bred prolifically and expanded their range relentlessly, and Idaho now accounts for more than half of the region's 2,000 wolves. It's hard to argue that Idaho's wolf population remains endangered. Continued federal protection will not eliminate - and may instead amplify - the controversy surrounding this majestic but polarizing predator.
What should Idaho do in the meantime? The state can make sure its plan addresses a pair of reasonable concerns Molloy raised in his 40-page ruling.
Idaho can work to ensure wolves will have adequate protections in the wildlife "corridors" linking Yellowstone with Central Idaho - connections that will enrich the genetics of Yellowstone's wolves. And the state should take a close look at a question Molloy raised: Can Idaho maintain a genetically viable wolf population while allowing hunters and ranchers to kill 428 animals per year?
Then there's the Wyoming thing. Telling another state how to manage its business - including its wolves - is a delicate matter. But Wyoming leaders have failed to write an acceptable wolf plan, and they are dragging their neighbors down with them. Wyoming should have received an unmistakably blunt message from Molloy. A little prodding from Idaho and Montana probably wouldn't hurt.
"Our View" is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman's editorial board. To comment on an editorial or suggest a topic, e-mail editorial@idahostatesman.com.
The Idaho Statesman is pleased to offer this opportunity to share information and observations about what's in the news. Some comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate but ask that you remain on topic. Comments that are profane, personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate are subject to removal.
@Nyx.CommentBody@