Status, Threats, and Recovery of the Gray Wolf – An overview of Canis lupus and its current population status, habitat threats, and its history on the ESA as an endangered and now recovered species.

Population Status

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) was first listed on the Endangered Species Act as endangered in 1978. In 2020, C. lupus was delisted due to a successful recovery plan under the ESA. The population was deemed stable at 6,000 gray wolves in the contiguous United States as of March 2019 (USFWS). Furthermore, in November of 2020, ballot initiative 114 in Colorado passed after a public vote to reintroduce wolves, expanding their population throughout the Rocky Mountains and New Mexico.

Although the populations were deemed stable, their range was only 20% of what it was historically at the time of delisting. According to the ESA, the range does not need to match historical records. The delisting of the gray wolves excludes Mexican gray wolves and red wolves. The Fish and Wildlife Service is now responsible for the ongoing monitoring of the wolf for five more years.

Premature delisting of the wolf is a concern among the scientific community and is supported by current research. Survival models and state numbers for hunter-killed wolves show a decline of 27-33% in gray wolf populations in Wisconsin a year before April 2021 (Treves et al., 2021). Therefore, without the management of federal agencies, the gray wolf population may not be sustainable in the coming years, and an emergency delisting may be warranted.

Habitat Status

Gray wolf habitat has been reduced drastically. “At one point the gray wolves covered 66% of the Lower 48, United States.” (Habitat status: Listing and Delisting of Wolves in the US, 2020). Today, we see with habitat loss that the gray wolves only cover a fraction of the land they used to, about 10%. They now have habitat in Canada, Alaska, the Great Lakes, Northern Rockies, and Pacific Northwest. A staggering comparison to the past, where they inhabited from the west coast, to parts of south Texas up to eastern Michigan. Habitat fragmentation is a critical issue that contributes to the habitat loss of gray wolves. We see this through a variety of ways, including logging, housing developments, fires, and floods. Some are natural, some are human impacted, but they both impact and aid in the loss of habitat. The remaining habitats for gray wolves are at risk. Forests in the Pacific Northwest, which help provide a better natural habitat and protection, are still at risk due to agriculture, climate change, and deforestation. “During this period wolf pack members (adults and pups) readily respond to simulated wolf howls (i.e., howl surveys), which allows researchers to estimate the location of the homesite via triangulation.” (Gable et al. 2018). This is important because if their homesites can be narrowed down or located, their reproductive traits, the way they consume food can all give clues to how we can best help their habitats.

Primary Threats

With the reintroduction and subsequent recovery of gray wolves, the delisting of the species is now a heated point of contention for many stakeholder groups. Questions have been raised about the relative safety of gray wolf populations and what threats they currently face. Though certainly other issues exist that negatively impact populations, such as climate change, the most significant threat that gray wolves must contend with is humans.

The history between humans and wolves is a bloody one, heavily influenced by ignorance and fear. Though there is no doubt that wolves were once a competitor for early European settlers, it is a myth that they were a deadly predator of humans. In fact, the majority of wolf attacks, both historical and modern, are caused by rabies-infected individuals or through direct provocation (Linnell et al., 2021). The truth of human-wolf conflicts is that humans compete with wolves for prey and land, which was the original catalyst for the extirpation of gray wolves in the United States. Historically and in the present-day, wolf habitat has been converted to grazing land for cattle or for the expansion of settlements and towns, which escalates conflicts. Furthermore, hunting gray wolf prey species, such as elk, increases the probability of wolves turning to alternative food sources like livestock. Consequently, humans kill wolves that impede on private property or threaten livestock. Unfortunately, in such situations, the livestock industry’s interests are treated with greater concern than the conservation of wolves, and kill permits are often issued by request.

To summarize, the primary threat facing gray wolves in the United States today is humans. Prey abundance, range, and habitat are all directly influenced by human presence, and the interests of ranchers are considered a higher-priority concern in most situations. There is no guarantee that wolves will not be hunted with impunity, nor populations remain healthy should all protections for the species be abolished, or steps taken to reduce the rate of fatality for wolves following conflict with humans.

Recovery

There are numerous options for wolf recovery; however, each option comes with its own set of obstacles. Perhaps the most obvious course is to relist C. lupus under the ESA. This should have the effect of increasing wolf populations. Afterall, it worked once, why not again? The problem is, without an effective recovery plan, the cycle of recovering populations, delisting the wolf, an increase in wolf hunting, and finally, relisting the wolf because of low populations could continue. The recovery of the wolves under the ESA was done as a single species, Canis lupus (Weiss et al, 2014). One option is to list subspecies and isolated populations individually as an evolutionarily significant unit. This would mean that wolf populations in states where hunting and trapping are allowed would have to reach healthy populations independently before being delisted, instead of associating those numbers with the country-wide population.

Current expert biologists agree that the original recovery goals for the wolf when it was first listed were not adequate enough to be considered recovered (Weiss et al, 2014). The data we have in regards to wolf conservation are much greater than they were upon first listing. In the event of relisting, the recovery goals should reflect current data and expert opinions. In theory, this should prevent another premature delisting of the wolves.

Another option for recovery is for the FWS to create safe harbor agreements and habitat conservation plans directly with states where wolf habitat exists. If agreements can be made with these states, it may force them to temper their current aggressive wolf hunting and trapping policies. However, this could be quite costly and take a very long time if it is even possible.

Tangential efforts can also be made as far as public outreach and education. Funding could be set aside for schools, museums, conservation centers, and literature. The public opinion in areas that interface with wolves has been only that wolves are dangerous and negatively affect ranching operations. If there were access to more detailed information on the wolves and on the larger conservation picture, especially in these communities, it may help sway public opinion more positively.

Outlook for Recovery

The outlook for wolf recovery is good, compared to 50 years ago. Populations have risen dramatically and efforts are being made to further support the species as it reintegrates into historical habitats. However, certain measures must be taken to ensure that the delisting of the species does not imperil wolf populations. For example, addressing the existing issues between landowners, the general public, and gray wolves is an important step to reducing conflicts. As mentioned previously, educational opportunities for local communities can aid in reducing fear related to wolf presence, and perhaps support conservation efforts. Additionally, adapting recovery and management strategies of wolves per state to ensure eradication does not occur could be highly beneficial. Such changes could plausibly assist gray wolf recovery and could lead to further opportunities for jobs and recreational activities, lessening the economic burden of wolves on ranchers by providing other means of income.

Evidence For and Against Listing

The opposition of listing gray wolves is a common stance for landowners, farmers, and ranchers. Many ranchers have seen livestock predation increase as wolf populations have risen, and therefore believe that the listing of the gray wolf has caused more harm than good. They also believe the wolf overstayed their welcome on the ESA list. According to Joe Wilebski, a rancher in Kittson County Montana, his operation lost 26 head of cattle due to gray wolf predation and many more injuries (Tomko, 2021). Along with loss of livestock, the cattle that remain in the herd experience extreme stress, which negatively impacts the overall health and wellbeing of the herd (Tomko, 2021). This stress on cattle has led to an increase in cattle aggression to working dogs and humans, which leads to an increase in time and money required for cattle management. The overall impact and prevalence of gray wolves on cattle predation has been evident to ranchers. Cattle in areas of high wolf prevalence travel shorter distances on average compared to cattle in areas with low prevalence as proven with GPS collars (Clark, 2017). The decrease in distance traveled is due to increased vigilance, cattle staying in larger groups, and searching for safe areas (Clark, 2017). This can lead to a negative impact on cattle productivity (Clark, 2017).

While some people oppose the listing of the gray wolf, others support the decision because the keystone species has allowed for the revival of ecosystems in the area to recover and flourish. Without the listing of wolves, the management of wolf populations would likely be the responsibility of individual states, or the wolves would no longer have any protection. During their 70-year absence from the Yellowstone ecosystem, large animals such as deer and elk negatively impacted the vegetation in the area by overgrazing many grasses, forbs, and shrubs, causing habitat degradation (Beschta & Ripple, 2016). After the reintroduction, many plants saw growth not seen for years due to the control of the large animal population provided by the wolves (Beschta & Ripple, 2016). The growth rates of willow, young willow, cottonwood, aspen, and other bushes in the region saw growth rates not seen during the period of the gray wolf’s absence (Beschta & Ripple, 2016). While it is not possible to pinpoint the exact cause, reintroduction of wolves heavily correlates with an increase in ecosystem health.

Though gray wolves have been considered recovered according to the ESA standards, some argue that wolves are not fully recovered as they only cover 5% of their historical habitat range (House of Representatives, 2018). With this lack of habitat, many think it is crucial that the wolves increase their range since agriculture and hunting still threaten their range (House of Representatives, 2018).