LANDER - A document released Monday further signals that Wyoming might not be part of in a new federal plan to remove wolves - once again - from the endangered species list.

It appears the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will at least call on Wyoming to drop its "dual status" plan for wolves, and classify the canines as trophy game animals throughout the state, officials confirmed.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Monday released a draft version of a formalized agreement - called a memorandum of understanding - meant to address concerns about a possible lack of genetic exchange among the three main wolf populations in Wyoming, Montana and central Idaho.

The lack of interbreeding among the three wolf populations - and an apparent disregard for its importance - was cited as one of the central inadequacies of the Bush administration's plan to delist wolves, in a recent U.S. District Court ruling.

This new formal agreement to ensure "genetic connectivity" could potentially be signed by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the states in the Northern Rockies.

But, as currently written, it appears to refer only to Montana and Idaho, both of which have classified wolves as trophy game animals statewide, according to Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg.

Unless Wyoming changes its wolf management laws that classify wolves as trophy game animals in the Yellowstone region, but as predators in most of the state, Wyoming would be left out of this new plan, the attorney general and two state legislators confirmed Monday.

And Ed Bangs, the federal gray wolf recovery coordinator, once again said it's possible the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will decide to remove wolves from protection under the federal Endangered Species Act in Montana and Idaho only, and leave the animals "endangered" in the Cowboy State.

The new formal agreement, as currently drafted, would commit the states and the federal government to "maintain and enhance gray wolf recovery and ensure the long-term viability and genetic diversity of gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains" by jointly monitoring wolf genetics.

The states would also commit to work "in coordination with the (Fish and Wildlife Service to) jointly assure gene flow among the three population areas of gray wolves by natural or human-assisted techniques."

Salzburg said even if the agreement were finalized and signed by the states, he's not sure it would adequately address U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's concerns about the three wolf subpopulations becoming inbred.

Regardless, unless Wyoming changes its laws governing wolf management, it appears ever more likely the state will not be part of any joint agreement:

"All that the (Fish and Wildlife Service) has said since the July 18th decision is that it will be 'very difficult' for it to find Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms adequate without statutory changes," Salzburg said. But he added later, "If the Legislature decides to amend the statutes, the whole picture could change."

Where we are now

The Bush administration removed wolves in this part of the country from the endangered species list in March, handing over management to Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. That decision was challenged as soon as legally possible in federal court by a dozen conservation and animal rights organizations.

In July, Judge Molloy sided with the conservationists and issued an injunction against the rule, saying, among other things, the Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to ensure genetic exchange between the three main wolf populations in the three states, and had flip-flopped on Wyoming's "dual status" plan, by first rejecting it and then accepting it, without good justification for the change.

He cited what he saw as flaws in Wyoming's plan, especially the provision that classified most of the state as a "shoot-on-sight" predator management zone for wolves, where the animals could be killed without any limits at any time by anybody.

The July decision effectively restored federal endangered species status to wolves until a decision in the larger legal challenge was handed down. This month, at the request of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the judge "vacated" the March delisting rule, essentially making it void.

At least two state legislators, including Rep. Keith Gingery of Jackson, have proposed revising the state wolf management statute to get rid of the predator management zone, and classify wolves as trophy game throughout the state, much like mountain lions are classified.

If the Legislature decides to make the changes Gingery and others are suggesting, it won't happen until this winter's Legislative session, which could be too late for the state to be included in the new delisting plan.

Tough sell

State Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, a member of the joint Legislative committee that is working on the wolf issue, said getting the state Legislature to first change its wolf laws and, second, agree to this proposed memorandum of understanding is probably a long shot at this point.

"I'm going to have to know a lot more about this genetic diversity business and this exchange and maintenance than I know now before I can tell you if this is a good deal or not," Brown said. "To me, this genetic diversity thing is a sleeper. It's a latecomer. We got sort of blindsided with this at the last minute."

The formal agreement as currently drafted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls for coordinated funding between the states and the federal government to pay for the collection and analysis of genetic information, which almost certainly will be widely unpopular among Wyoming lawmakers, Brown said.

"That word 'funding' in there looks like big trouble to me," Brown said. "To be honest with you, I don't know what I'm going to do on this thing. Some of this seems to me like voodoo science."

It's going to be a tough sell to get the Legislature to agree to put up even more money for wolves - this time for ongoing genetic studies - with no certainty that it would even satisfy the environmental groups that will undoubtedly sue again and whatever federal judge that will preside over the suit, he said.

The state could do everything in its power to address these genetic concerns only to find the conservation groups have new arguments up their sleeves, Brown said.

"It's always moving goal posts," he said. "I feel like the environmental community keeps moving the goal posts. I kind of feel like that was the plan."

State Sen. Bruce Burns, R-Sheridan, co-chairman of the joint committee working on this issue, echoed Brown's concerns and suggested it will most likely be a long time, if ever, before wolves are returned to state management in Wyoming.

"I appreciate Fish and Wildlife actually putting out something for negotiation and amendment," Burns said. "But as far as the state of Wyoming goes, I don't know how we could sign this." He added later, "I'm not optimistic that we'll have state management any time in the near future."

Another tough sell

While it might be hard to get the Wyoming Legislature on board with the new federal plan, a spokeswoman with one of the conservation organizations that sued over the last delisting rule indicated it will probably be equally difficult to please the wolf advocates.

A growing chorus of conservation organizations is arguing that the latest, best genetic science says the current Northern Rockies wolf population of 1,500 wolves is insufficient, and there needs to be perhaps double that number to ensure the canines don't become inbred over the next several decades.

So, even if the new plan ensures human-assisted genetic exchange between the three main subgroups, the wolf advocates might sue over what they see as inadequate overall wolf numbers.

"Everything the Fish and Wildlife Service has done has really brought us to a stalemate," said Suzanne Stone, the Northern Rockies representative for the D.C.-based Defenders of Wildlife. "I do know that they haven't done the studies yet to allow the Fish ad Wildlife Service to determine the numbers that would be required to maintain long-term genetic viability."

Stone said the Bush administration is not trying to do anything that is truly different from its last delisting rule; rather, it is trying to "rush through" the same plan with some new language attached.

And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's newly drafted agreement to monitor and ensure genetic exchange does nothing to address the core problems with the agency's delisting plan, she said.

"I reviewed the document," Stone said. "That isn't wildlife management; it's a government-sponsored dating program."

Contact environment reporter Chris Merrill at (307) 267-6722 or chris.merrill@trib.com