The gray wolf, a stirring icon of Minnesota's north country, is back. Returning with the majestic predator is the question whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources should manage the state's wolf population, now estimated at about 3,000. Two previous attempts to normalize the wolf's status were reversed due to lawsuits. This time, management should stay with the state.

Along with providing more-flexible rules for balancing protection of the wolf against protection of property, restoring state management would also constitute a symbol as inspiring in its way as the wolf itself -- a symbol of how splendidly wildlife protection can work.

"We're long overdue for making the switch. We've exceeded the recovery criteria for decades," said Dan Stark, wolf management specialist at the DNR, adding "the [federal] protections have pretty much run their course and are not providing any more benefit. The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect a species and then take them off the list."

Gray wolves originally went on the endangered list in 1974. They were reclassified in Minnesota as "threatened" -- a less-protected status -- four years later. In 2007, the wolf was taken off the federal list and managed by the DNR, but after lawsuits from animal protection groups wolves returned to federal control after 18 months. A similar round-trip migration from federal to state management and back took place between May and July of 2009.

Independent experts agree that federal and state management efforts have been successful. "Science indicates it will be difficult to [deplete] a population in Minnesota because of the large quantities of wolves," explained Mary Ortiz, executive director of the International Wolf Center. "Wolves do repopulate really well," she said, adding that the gray wolf population isn't likely to be harmed by a switch to state management.

L. David Mech, a senior researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey and an adjunct instructor at the University of Minnesota, calls the gray wolf repopulation efforts "a great success from a scientific and conservation standpoint."

Moving protection from federal to state jurisdiction would allow for more flexibility in mitigating the downside of the gray wolves' resurgence: attacks on farm animals. In recent years the DNR has had to compensate farmers and ranchers for livestock or sheep killed by wolves. The frequency of reported attacks varies, often depending on weather conditions and available food supply, as well as the density of a pack at any particular place and time.

At their peak, 121 attacks were recorded in 2000. Last year there were 87. Under federal management, farmers and ranchers are not allowed to protect their livestock, even if they witness an attack. State management allows for farmers or ranchers to defend their animals if they witness wolves actively pursuing or killing them, according to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

During the periods when the DNR managed the population, about 10 wolves were killed over 20 months that wouldn't have been killed under federal protection rules. While few want to see any wolves lost unnecessarily, livestock owners being able to protect farm animals "builds tolerance about having wolves out on the landscape," according to Stark at the DNR.

A balanced approach in such matters is vital in maintaining support for human populations coexisting with wolves. Indeed, it's key to sustaining public backing for all federal and state efforts to protect species.

Not every animal stirs the imagination as the gray wolf does. During tough economic times, especially, it will be tempting for some to choose jobs or economic development over endangered species. Moving the gray wolf from federal to state management, as science suggests it is time to do, will assure the public that reasonable processes are in place to safeguard the interests of people as well as wildlife.