In support of and opposed to listing/delisting wolves

The gray wolf, Canis lupus, can be found across the North Pacific West, throughout Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon and Wyoming. There are also gray wolf species found in Alaska and by the Great Lakes, but we will be focusing on the PNW wolves. These wolves have seen years of decline and increase in population size throughout the decades due to hunting mandates and conservation efforts. As of 2014, the wolf population was around 1,700 across the five states (US Fisheries and Wildlife, 2017). The population of wolves can easily be affected in numerous ways, such as human impacts or intraspecies interactions (Hochard & Finnoff, 2014). 

The gray wolf has been known to travel all across North America, having populations from Mexico to Alaska. These wolves have been known to help food webs, they help primary and secondary consumers with the carcasses they leave, and help primary producers by keeping their predators out of their territory. But due to human colonization and expansion, the wolf population declined to only a few hundred (US Fisheries and Wildlife, 2011). The wolves were listed as endangered in 1974 to help increase their population. Due to these efforts they were able to become prominent in the North Pacific West, with numbers in the thousands.

There are three distinct regions of Gray wolf habitat in the US. Starting in the west, there are populations in Pacific Northwest states of Washington, Oregon, and California, and in the Northern Rocky Mountain region that includes Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Further south, a non-essential experimental population of subspecies Canis lupus baileyiexists along the New Mexico/Arizona border. In the Western Great Lakes region, > 4400 individuals (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010) are distributed across Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan (Map: U.S. Gray Wolf Distribution and Habitat, n.d.). 

Gray wolves require great swathes of land, with pack territories ranging from 50 square miles to  1,000 square miles, and can travel as much as 30 miles in a single day to hunt (USFWS: Gray Wolf Biologue, n.d.). They are extremely adaptable, and can therefor inhabit a wide range of habitats including: temperate forests, mountains, tundra, and grasslands (Species Profile for Gray Wolf(Canis Lupus), n.d.). A great deal of wolf habitat is found on public land where conservation is a priority and protection plans have been adopted to preserve growing wolf populations(US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). The only limitations to habitability are insufficient prey density and human harassment (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). 

One method researchers are using to determining the suitability of a habitat for supporting a growing wolf population relies on road density, which serves as a proxy for human-caused wolf mortality. Habitat with road densities < 0.7 mi per mi² are estimated to have >50% probability pack colonization and persistent presence, and are considered prime habitat. Habitats where road density is greater than 1 mi per mi² only have <10% probability of colonization (Mladenoff et al., 1999). In addition to road density, the following three factors are also being used to predict habitat suitability: human density, density of agricultural lands, and prey density (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). 

The gray wolf’s primary threat comes from people. Ranchers kill wolves because they threaten roaming livestock, hunters shoot them for sport, and rural communities view them as a nuisance and a pest (PBS 2008). They can also die from natural threats like disease; fights with bears, elk, and other wolves; and overloading carrying capacity in a region. However, these threats do minor damage to their population, effectively keeping them at a sustainable size, while the threat from humans proves a much more daunting obstacle (PBS 2008).

According to the study by Treves, et al., “For jurisdictions elsewhere, we caution that science may play little role in wolf politics where the animal has become a symbol for political rhetoric and a symbol of cultural divisions.” This cultural and political polarization of the wolf makes conservation difficult and proves a major threat to their continued existence. Gray wolves are sandwiched between federal protection and state hostility (Brunskotter, et al. 2011). Even in light of the decades-long conservation battle to protect wolves, the conflict of interest between ranchers and conservationists, as well as state and federal agencies, leaves them in a precarious place. According to an article by Brunskotter, et al. 2011, “Utah’s director of the Department of Natural Resources compared wolf restoration to a ‘resurrection of the T. rex,’ and asserted that wolves were a ‘biological weapon’ used to end sport hunting.” When wolves are delisted, these states inherit their conservation and management from the federal government. 

Among others, the methods outlined by the state officials in Wisconsin provide dubious claims for maintaining the existing population size of wolves from pre-delisting (Treves, et al. 2021). And it’s not just Wisconsin. In September 2021, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife authorized the killing of 6 more wolves from the Lookout Mountain pack, which is estimated to have only around 9 pack members (Defenders of Wildlife 2021). State interests don’t necessarily lie with the ESA and the protection of this keystone species, and can mean that the journey to full recovery is still further down the line.

Recovery for the gray wolf in the lower 48 states is largely focused in 3 areas, the western great lakes, the northern rocky mountains (including the pacific northwest), and on the mexican gray wolf in the southwestern states (Guertin, 2016). The recovery for the species has been different in each respective location. 

In the Western Great Lakes gray wolves were never completely gone, with a population surviving in Minnesota and Michigan when the ESA was signed into law (Guertin, 2016). Under protections from the ESA this population was able to expand to Wisconsin, including some migrating south from Ontario. Currently this is the largest population of gray wolves in the lower 48 with around 3,500 animals in 2013 (APHIS, 2021). 

Gray wolves were completely extinct in the Northern Rocky Mountains at the time the ESA was signed. Efforts to reintroduce the animal to the region were focused in Yellowstone national park in Montana and Wyoming, along with some in Idaho. This reintroduction was largely successful, with there now being over 1,700 wolves in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho as of 2015 (Guertin, 2016). These wolves have also migrated westward, starting populations in eastern Oregon and Washington. 

The Mexican gray wolf was almost extinct when it was listed. Recovery focused mainly on captive breeding projects. There are 50 captive breeding facilities between the US and Mexico, and experimental populations were set up in New Mexico and Arizona during 1998 called the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area. In 2015 this area was expanded to 98.5 million acres of land across the two states (Guertin, 2016). This population of wolves is currently around 100 wolves. 

In late 2020 the Trump administration delisted the gray wolf from the ESA, except for the Mexican gray wolf subspecies (DOI, 2020). Many conservationists believe that this was premature and the gray wolf has not recovered enough to warrant the delisting (Defenders, 2021). Losing many of the protections provided by the ESA could undo much of the progress made in the last 50 years to get the population back to this level. For instance, in September of this year Oreon greenlit the killing of 7 gray wolves in response to them killing livestock, (Defender, 2021). Current recovery options have been focused around non-lethal ways to prevent interactions with livestock, as well as reinstating their endangered species listing.

There are a few reasons to take the gray wolf off the endangered species list. According to a study by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the gray wolf is not “in danger of [extinction] in any significant portion of its range [in Oregon]” ( Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). Basically, the gray wolf has grown to such a large population and range that (in Oregon at least), barring some unexpected development that would cause a rapid decline in population, the population of the gray wolf should be stable for the foreseeable future (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). However, it should be noted that this study was only conducted for the state of Oregon (and not for other states like Idaho and Montana) so while it may be practical to take wolves off the endangered species list in Oregon, it may not be practical to do the same in Idaho or Montana, where there are different cultural and political factors at play. Another reason to take wolves off the endangered species list is that an increase in wolf populations due to wolves having no natural predators (besides humans) could affect ranchers in the area who depend on cattle for income. The average cattle costs around “$2000 to $5000 to raise” ( Animal Care Practice) which means that if one were to be taken by a wolf that’s a revenue loss of around that price. Since there are more wolves around (and therefore more cattle being killed by the wolves) it stands to reason that ranchers should have a way to protect their cattle, which the ESA may hamper. However, the impact that the gray wolf has on cattle ranchers may be somewhat overblown, given that for every 44,853 cattle that live in the west, wolves only kill one ((Living with wolves) . One final reason to delist wolves is that the cost of management for wolves once wolves are decreases by a significant amount (Sims et. al. 2020). An example of this can be seen in Yellowstone where, once wolves were delisted, the management cost for maintaining populations dropped by around 1.88 million dollars (Sims et. al. 2020). 

There are also a few reasons to not take wolves off the endangered species list. If wolves are taken off the endangered species list, states like Idaho and Montana could effectively eliminate the wolves within their states and get rid of all protections that the wolves may have had. Essentially, if wolves are taken off the endangered species list, they could once again become extirpated through much of their natural range, which would mean that the recovery efforts for the gray wolf would have been in vain and may need to take place again, therefore wasting time and resources. Furthermore, if wolves are extirpated in these areas, this could have a negative effect on the surrounding ecosystem, since wolves are a keystone species (Hayward 2009). Without wolves, large herbivores such as elk or deer roam around the ecosystem with almost no natural predators (besides humans) which tears up and destroys much of the riparian habitat within the ecosystem, which can affect other species (Hayward 2009). Perhaps the most famous example of this is in Idaho, where, once the gray wolf was reintroduced, the riparian habitat surrounding the rivers and streams of the state grew, which provided shelter and much needed shade cover for fry and parr of threatened salmonidae species, such as Chinook, Steelhead, Sockeye, and Coho salmon (Hayward 2009). A final reason why wolves should not be taken off the endangered species list is that they are culturally significant to many tribes in North America (Nez Perce National Historical Trail). If wolves were to be taken off the endangered species list, their protections would then be taken away and therefore face a chance of extirpation from the regions where they were introduced. If they were to become extirpated again, there would be a significant cultural loss for these tribes. By ignoring the cultural significance of wolves to the native people of the land, we would be, in a way, disrespecting their tribal sovereignty, which has, among other things, a number of legal implications, since tribes are considered “dependent sovereign nations” who the U.S. federal government has a legal obligation to protect and recognize their sovereignty (Frequently Asked Questions Bureau of Indian Affairs). 

In conclusion, although there are valid reasons to take the gray wolf off the endangered species list, it seems that the benefits of keeping the gray wolf on the endangered species list outweigh the consequences. 

Are wolves killing lots of cattle and sheep? Living with Wolves. (2015, May 7). Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://www.livingwithwolves.org/portfolio/are-wolves-killing-lots-of-cattle-and-sheep/.

Authorization to Kill Six More Wolves From Oregon’s Lookout Mountain Pack Announced. (n.d.). Defenders of Wildlife. Retrieved November 4, 2021, from https://defenders.org/newsroom/authorization-kill-six-more-wolves-oregons-lookout-mountain-pack-announced

Bruskotter, J. T., Enzler, S. A., & Treves, A. (2011). Rescuing Wolves from Politics: Wildlife as a Public Trust Resource. Science, 333(6051), 1828–1829. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207803

Charles Sims, David Aadland, David Finnoff, Jacob Hochard. 2020. What are the benefits of delisting endangered species and who receives them?: Lessons from the gray wolf recovery in Greater Yellowstone. Ecological Economics,Volume 174. Retrieved November 4, 2021 from (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919316271)

Folio3. (2021, August 23). How much does a cow cost in the USA?Folio3 Animal Care Practice. Retrieved November 4, 2021, from https://animalcare.folio3.com/how-much-does-a-cow-cost-in-usa/.

Frequently asked questions | indian affairs. Bureau of Indian Affairs. (n.d.). Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions.  

Gray Wolf. Defenders of Wildlife. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2021, from https://defenders.org/wildlife/gray-wolf.

Gray Wolf in the western Great Lakes. USDA APHIS | Gray Wolf in the Western Great Lakes. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2021, from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/operational-activities/SA_Livestock/CT_Gray_wolf_great_lakes.

Gray Wolf. Nez Perce National Historic Trail – History & Culture. (n.d.). Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/npnht/learningcenter/history-culture/?cid=fseprd675403. 

Guertin, S. (2016, September 21). Management of wolves. U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved November 4, 2021, from https://www.doi.gov/ocl/management-wolves.

Hayward, M. (2009). 5. In Reintroduction of top-order predators. essay, Wiley-Blackwell.

Hochard, J., & Finnoff, D. (2014). GRAY WOLF POPULATION PROJECTION WITH INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION. Natural Resource Modeling, 27(3), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12038

In the Valley of the Wolves | Are Wolves at Risk? | Nature | PBS. (2008, June 2). Nature. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/in-the-valley-of-the-wolves-are-wolves-at-risk/215/

Map: U.S. Gray Wolf Distribution and Habitat. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/gray_wolves/map.html

Mladenoff, D. J., Sickley, T. A., & Wydeven, A. P. (1999). Predicting Gray Wolf Landscape Recolonization: Logistic Regression Models vs. New Field Data. Ecological Applications, 9(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641166

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (n.d.). Biological status review for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in Oregon and evaluation of criteria to remove the Gray Wolf from the List of Endangered Species under the Oregon Endangered Species Act.. 

Species Profile for Gray wolf(Canis lupus). (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4488

Treves, A., Santiago-Ávila, F. J., & Putrevu, K. (2021). Quantifying the effects of delisting wolves after the first state began lethal management. PeerJ, 9, e11666. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11666

Trump administration returns management and protection of gray wolves to states and tribes following successful recovery efforts. U.S. Department of the Interior. (2021, September 29). Retrieved November 4, 2021, from https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump-administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010). Rule Proposal. Federal Register, 75(180), 56928–56935.

USFWS: Gray Wolf Biologue. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/biologue.htm

US Fisheries and Wildlife Service. (2017). Wolf – Western Great Lakes. Retrieved from: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/biologue.htm