Marie Curatolo

ESRM 470
Issue Analysis Synthesis Assignment

For our issue, we were fortunate enough to have a retrospective position in that the policy and planning
process is largely complete and there has been sufficient time since its implementation to critically examine and
evaluate the results and effects. From this, we were able to identify several areas where our issue seemed to
“work”. One was in the area of implementation. Before implementing the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf
Recovery Plan, science and research were gathered and applied to evaluate the likelihood of success. Studies by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as well as various academic institutions examined the effects on
livestock, ungulate populations, tourism, human/wolf interactions, wolf population viability, etc. This information
was employed in making projections and predictions about the ability of the Plan to achieve the desired goal of
wolf recovery while accounting for other effects. The expansive use of information also played a prominent role
in monitoring and evaluation: Since the Plan was a specific task outlined by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), it
included empirical population statistics as a goal, making it easy to monitor and evaluate the success of the
program. The use of information and expertise was highly employed in successful alternative development as
well, especially when it came to prediction of effects. The NEPA process also helped develop suitable alternatives
by ensuring input from various stakeholders and interests and including their concerns. The FWS included
substantial consideration for a variety of alternatives in the final Environmental Impact Statement.

Some barriers faced by our issue involved actors, interests, and influences. There were quite a few
prominent actors whose interests were at odds with each other. The FWS had a duty to Congress and the ESA to
recover an endangered species, while ranchers were concerned about the effects of livestock depredation. There
were also some concerns by the public for human safety. Another barrier was the broad scope and setting as part
of the issue identification. Yellowstone National Park transcends multiple state boundaries as well as Native
American reservations. This provided for some tricky provisioning of management duties.

The conflicts of interest presented perhaps the most difficult challenge for our issue. This occurred in
large part due to contested priorities. The desired effects of the institution in charge of the plan (the FWS) were
not mutually desired by other actors. Complicated moral and ethical considerations arise when one examines the
difference in prioritizing goals by the actors involved. It came down to the recovery of an endangered species
versus successful rancher livelihoods. On one side, the FWS emphasized their role as protectors of species
deemed worth saving by a federal law backed by moral obligation. On the other, ranchers saw this as a threat to
the success of their lifestyles. The protected status of the wolves left ranchers feeling powerless to protect their
land/livestock. They also expressed concern about the increased presence of government in their lives and the
encroachment of regulation on their land. The contested norms and values between various actors provided the
fundamental base for conflict of interests, which in turn became a significant barrier in the issue as a whole.