Drath,
First, Many of the tools that Hill is proposing are already in the works, such as multiple tags, etc. Hill seems to think that he can wave a magic wand and get that going, when in reality the legislature restricted that to one tag, so he's wrong in thinking that he can just establish multiple tags for wolves without legislative approval. Since FWP has already put forward their priority as increasing the number of tags, Hill is riding on the back end of that train.
Hill further calls for managing for 150 wolves and 15 breeding pair. That number was in the original EIS and is a basement number. To manage for that number is akin to saying were going to manage for a minimum population of elk or deer. The reality that if you manage for the bottom, and you go below that, you end up being petitioned for relisting. 150/15 was never the top number. It was the number that the Fed put into an EIS, and we now know that number is not legally defensible. We know that because of Hebbewhite's study from 2010-2011 that indicates genetic diversity happens around 450 wolves,
Part of the condition of the delisting rule was that the state must maintain genetic diversity when it comes to wolf populations. If we know that number is 450 for a basement, and the state sets a management plan of 150, we invite ourselves to more court battles which will end up with a listed population again.
Secondly, on this issue of genetic diversity: It was the one issue that Malloy never ruled on, and is therefore still viable in the courts, even under Simpson/Tester. Legally, if the we dip below that 450, someone will file a petition to delist, and using the science available (peer reviewed, not Tom Remington/SFW/Toby Bridges hob-gobbery) the state cannot defend the 150/15 number. Sure that's in the EIS, but if the number in the EIS is found to be not adequate for maintaining wolf populations, we lose, and the wolf gets relisted.
Third: Hill calls for changing the Montana state wolf management plan and changing designation of the animal. Delisting is approved contingent upon a state management plan that passes muster by the panel of scientists who approve such things. By changing the management plan, we open the door for another petition to relist.
Upon delisting, the states have a 5 year monitoring phase that they have to complete. At any time during this period, if the state deviates from the accepted plan, plaintiffs can petition to relist based on the abandonment of the adequate regulatory mechanism clause in the ESA, and the in the decision to delist.
So, Hill gets in, gets his way and we end up back in court, and based off of my understanding of the ESA, we end up listed again.
After 5 years, we can take a stab at modifying out side of the plan. Before then: we're back in court, and back on the list.
The Wyoming issue isn't settled, by the way. There is still a court case that will be heard in regards to the legality of the Wyoming delisting. Given that they went for the same thing we did, but cannot get a rider to secure their status, I'm not overly confident that Wyoming will retain management authority after their case is done and settled. I hope I'm wrong, but after 12 years of working on this stupid issue, it just doesn't seem to pass muster.
On Grizz - Hill plans to ignore the ESA completely and nullify the federal law (which is unconstitutional) in order to whack a bunch of grizz. The reality of that is similar to the wolf management plan. If the Griz plan changes, more court battles, more waiting. Furthermore, the first time Hill tries to nullify the ESA, he ends up in court, costing the state millions in legal fees to defend an indefensible plan.
