So what happens next with wolves in the Northern Rockies?

If U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy remands the case back the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as expected the federal agencies has several options. Wyoming is also weighing its options including suing the federal government for not delisting wolves.

The environmental groups who are the victors are waiting for the agency to make the next move and waiting for a new administration that might be supportive of their goals of placing a higher floor on the number of wolves that must be protected in the region.

Start with the Fish and Wildlife Service. It first proposed delisting wolves in Idaho Montana, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and northern Utah, leaving out Wyoming. Only when they could get Wyoming to say they wouldn't kill so many wolves in a smaller recovery area did they include that recalcitrant state.

To go back to that route they will have to be able to show that there is genetic mixing between wolves in Idaho and Montana and wolves in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem and Wyoming. A new study is expected out soon that insiders say will show there already has been mixing.

Molloy suggested that Idaho and Montana’s wolf management plans are as good as the current federal plan for protecting wolves. But environmentalists are certain to sue based on delisting along state lines and because they want assurances more than 450 wolves will survive in the region.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also could wait until after the election and allow a new administration to deal with the issue. That can only mean environmentalists having more say, not less than they have had in the Bush administration.

What about Wyoming?

Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg recently wrote to state lawmakers saying the state's options include filing a lawsuit, leaving management to the federal government or writing a new wolf management plan.

Jackson, Wyo. Republican state Rep. Keith Gingery has proposed amending the state’s wolf plan to make it more like Idaho and Montana. But the reaction from livestock and hunting groups to his proposal doesn’t give it much promise.

“I disagree that legal action is futile and I don’t think the right course of action is to let extremist groups and activist judges decide state policy,” Bryce Reese, executive vice president of the Wyoming Woolgrowers Association told the Jackson Hole News and Guide.

So is there a deal out there that Idaho and Montana and the federal government can cut with the environmentalists suing?

Most of the environmental groups involved say they can accept wolf hunting if a minimum number of wolves are protected.

“It is my hope that the Fish and Wildlife Service shows a wolf population that is truly genetically healthy,” said Jenny Harbine, an attorney with Earthjustice, the environmental law group representing environmentalists. “It can do that by documenting it in the Yellowstone ecosystem but they also have to ensure the states manage wolf numbers to maintain a level of genetic exchange throughout the region.”

Environmentalists are talking about 2,500 to 3,000. But if the new study shows that wolves can mix genetically effectively in the region without human intervention at a lower number, say, the current 1,500-2000 population, there might be room for settlement.

I’m doubtful that hunters and ranchers in the two states would find that acceptable. You only have to read the comments to my blogs on wolves to see that some hunters are already threatening to kill wolves illegally in an effort to keep elk populations high.

Ultimately, what the Fish and Wildlife Service has to do is to write a plan that can stand up to legal challenge. That isn’t going to happen by the end of this year so no matter what, the next administration is going to have to deal with wolves in the Northern Rockies.