Gray Wolf Final Delisting Determination Questions and Answers

A gray wolf in the snow

Image Details

You are viewing ARCHIVED content published online before January 20, 2025. Please note that this content is NOT UPDATED, and links may not work. Additionally, any previously issued diversity, equity, inclusion or gender-related guidance on this webpage should be considered rescinded. For current information, visit our newsroom.

Press Release

Gray Wolf Final Delisting Determination Questions and Answers

FAQ

Oct 29, 2020

What action is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taking?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule to delist gray wolves (Canis lupis) currently listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to recovery. This final determination is specific to the gray wolf and does not include the separate listing of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) as endangered under the ESA. Recovery of the gray wolf under the ESA is one of our nation’s great conservation successes, with the wolf joining species such as the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, American alligator and brown pelican that have been brought back from the brink with the help of the ESA.

How were gray wolves recovered?

This remarkable recovery success is a result of more than 45 years of collaboration and partnerships with states, tribes, conservation organizations, private landowners and other federal partners. Many of our state and tribal partners in areas where the wolf is already delisted continue to demonstrate their ability to responsibly manage wolf populations so they are healthy and sustainable. The regulatory mechanisms put in place by these partners will continue to benefit gray wolves and ensure the long- term survival of the species.

The ESA does not require wolves to be present throughout all of its former range, or for populations to be at historic levels for delisting to occur. The measure under the ESA is whether wolves are in danger of extinction (endangered) or at risk of becoming so in the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. By any scientific measure, gray wolves no longer meet the ESA’s standard for protection and so should be delisted.

Under the ESA, if we determine that a species is no longer threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range, the Service must publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule to remove the species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12).

What is the range of gray wolves?

Today, the vast majority of wolves in the lower 48 exist as two large, stable or growing populations totaling more than 6,000 individuals that are broadly distributed across the northern portions of three states in the Great Lakes area and all or portions of five states in the northern Rocky Mountains.

The population in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota is about 4,200 strong, with the Northern Rocky Mountains population in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, northern California and most recently in northwest Colorado standing at around 1,900. There are further 12,000-14,000 wolves in eastern Canada and 15,000 in western Canada, each of which is connected to the adjacent gray wolf population in the United States. Wolves have also begun to expand into western Oregon, western Washington, northern California and most recently in northwest Colorado.

In western Oregon, western Washington and northern California there are seven known breeding pairs (note: because of effective documented dispersal, wolves in these states are an extension of the metapopulation of wolves in western Canada and the northern Rocky Mountains). In addition, Colorado Parks and Wildlife personnel confirmed the presence of a single group of at least six wolves in northwest Colorado.

Lone long-distance dispersing wolves have been reported from the listed states of Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Nevada. The total number of confirmed records in each of these states, since the early 2000s, ranges from one in Nevada to at least 27 in North Dakota.

What is the history of gray wolves under the ESA?

Federal protections were first established for two species of wolves under the Endangered Species List in 1967 the red wolf (Canis niger) and the eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon).

This List was published on March 11, 1967, under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 – the first piece of federal legislation that would allow native species of fish and wildlife, at risk of extinction, to be formally protected within their range. This eventually became the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

In 1978, the Service published a rule reclassifying the gray wolf as an endangered population at the taxonomic species level (C. lupus) throughout the contiguous United States and Mexico, except for the Minnesota gray wolf population, which was classified as threatened. We continue to recognize the red wolf as the species C. rufus, and note that it is listed as endangered where found. We did not consider red wolves further in the proposed rule, and the red wolf listing is not affected by the final delisting determination.

Wolves have never been threatened or endangered in  Alaska. There are an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 gray wolves in the state.

At the time of listing under the ESA, where did wolves remain and how many were there?

Excluding Alaska, wolves occurred in only two places in the entire lower 48 United States. A population persisted in northeastern Minnesota, and a small, isolated group of about 40 wolves occurred on Isle Royale, Michigan. The Minnesota wolf population was the only major U.S. population in existence outside Alaska at this time and numbered about 1,000 individuals.

While the Minnesota population was small compared to historical numbers and range within the lower 48 United States, it had not undergone a significant decline since about 1900. By 1978, when several gray wolf subspecies were consolidated into a single lower 48 United States and Mexico listing and a separate Minnesota listing under the ESA, the gray wolf population in Minnesota had increased to an estimated 1,235 wolves.

Subsequently, wolves from Canada occasionally dispersed south and successfully began recolonizing northwest Montana in 1986. In 1995 and 1996, 66 wolves from southwestern Canada were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.

What is the current legal status of gray wolves?

The effect of this final rulemaking action is to remove all gray wolves in the lower 48 states from the list of species protected under the ESA. Gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains were delisted from the ESA in 2011 and 2012. However, court decisions subsequently overturned the delisting of wolves in Wyoming. We succeeded in reversing the Wyoming decision on appeal in 2017. Wolves have never been listed in Alaska.

This final rule only addresses gray wolves that are currently listed under the ESA. It is specific to the gray wolf and does not include the separate listings of the Mexican wolf subspecies and the red wolf species.

What is the final rule based on?

In making this final determination to delist gray wolves is based on sound science, a thorough analysis of threats and how they have been alleviated and the ongoing commitment and proven track record of states and tribes to manage for healthy wolf populations once delisted. The Service analyzed a number of factors, including human-caused mortality, habitat and prey availability, disease and parasites, genetics, effects of climate change , recovery activities and post-delisting regulatory mechanisms, and predictions about how these may affect wolves in the future.

The finding of our review was clear – the gray wolf has recovered by any and all measures required under the ESA. Gray wolves are no longer in danger of extinction or at risk of becoming so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of the species’ range. Once the science indicates a species has recovered, it is the obligation of the Service to delist it and return management authority to the states so that we can focus our limited resources on those species that still require conservation attention.

What will happen if gray wolf population numbers decrease?

The Service has agreements from several states to manage wolf populations at sustainable levels, so we are confident that gray wolf numbers will remain strong. We will continue to monitor the delisted wolf populations for the statutory five years to ensure they continue to sustain their numbers. Although we do not expect it will ever be necessary, as with all recovered species, we may consider relisting, and even emergency relisting, if such an action is warranted.

Will delisting mean wolf populations will be decimated by hunting?

No. State and tribal wildlife agencies have a long track record of successfully managing wildlife in their states, including deer, elk, wild turkeys and many other game and non-game species. States will begin (Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin) or continue (Montana, Idaho and Wyoming) to manage wolves according to their Service approved gray wolf management plans. States in which gray wolves are currently recolonizing, Washington, Oregon and California, also have management plans that support wolf reestablishment in their states.

As with many species of wildlife, hunting is an accepted and successful management tool that helps to reduce conflicts with humans, maintain stable populations, generate public support and benefits all wildlife thanks to habitat improvements made possible by revenue collected from hunters. The Service is confident in the ability of state and tribal wildlife agencies to successfully manage wolf populations. Although we do not expect it will ever be necessary, we could consider relisting, and even emergency relisting wolves, if such an action were warranted.

The ESA is not designed to permanently protect individual animals from hunting or other active management. The purpose of the ESA is to prevent the extinction of imperiled species and to recover them. Once the threshold of recovery has been met, we can – and must – return their management to state and tribal wildlife agencies.

Why was the wolf reclassified in 1978 and what was the result of that action?

When the gray wolf (C. lupus) was reclassified in March 1978 (replacing multiple subspecies listings with two C. lupus population listings), it had been extirpated from much of its historical range in the contiguous United States. The 1978 reclassification was undertaken to address changes in our understanding of gray wolf taxonomy and protect all gray wolves in the lower 48 states and Mexico, rather than an indication of where gray wolves actually existed or where gray wolf recovery efforts were necessary.

The 1978 reclassification resulted in inclusion of large areas of the contiguous United States where gray wolves were extirpated, as well as the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States areas where long-held differences of opinion regarding the precise boundary of the species’ historical range remain.

While this generalized approach to the listing facilitated recovery of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, it also erroneously included areas outside the species’ historical range and was misread by some members of the public as an expression of a larger gray wolf recovery effort not required by the ESA and never intended by the Service.

Does the Service plan to continue offering funding for prevention of wolf-livestock conflict and reimbursing for depredated livestock?

The Service currently administers the Wolf-Livestock Loss Demonstration Program, which gives grants to states and tribes for proactive efforts to reduce wolf-livestock conflict as well as to compensate for confirmed wolf depredation. The Service has recommended other programs that are better suited to deliver this funding, such as the USDA’s livestock indemnity program. Additionally, funding for recovery of listed species is limited and this program takes valuable resources that could be otherwise used to conserve species in need of the ESA protections.

Where can I find more information?

Detailed background information on gray wolves in the United States can be found in a separate Gray Wolf Biological Report (see USFWS 2018, entire). This document can be found along with this final delisting rule and the post-delisting monitoring plan at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No.

FWS-HW-ES-2018-0097 (see Supplemental Documents). Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov.

The final rule will publish in the Federal Register on November 3, 2020, and be effective 60 days after on January 4, 2021.

New DEC Head Promises Changes After Investigation Into P-Nut the Squirrel Seizure

Mon, March 31, 2025 by Lucas Day

SHARE NOW https://www.fingerlakesdailynews.com/regional-state-congressional/new-dec-head-promises-changes-after-investigation-into-p-nut-the-squirrel-seizure

     

New DEC Head Promises Changes After Investigation Into P-Nut the Squirrel Seizure

By Instagram, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=78281854

Following the notable wildlife seizure by the state last October in Chemung County of Peanut the Squirrel whose controversial death alongside his raccoon friend Fred sparked outrage, led to an internal investigation by the DEC’s of its wildlife enforcement procedures.

According to Acting DEC Commissioner Amanda Lefton, at the direction of the Governor, she prioritized a review of our current wildlife protection and enforcement process to protect New Yorkers and this agency from similar incidents in the future. Lefton said the agency have carefully reviewed all the public feedback and understands the “distress caused to communities throughout the state.” She added the DEC knows it  can do better moving forward.

“Our agency is committed to developing additional protocols to address illegally possessed wildlife and ensuring that our staff and environmental conservation officers have the necessary resources to carry them out,” said Lefton. “In addition, DEC will be welcoming a new Deputy Commissioner for Public Protection & Emergency Response.”

“We recognize that these improvements are necessary and in my new role I will ensure that DEC is focused on its mission to deliver clean air and water for every New Yorker while protecting the environment and our invaluable natural resources for future generations.”

The owners of Peanut the Squirrel have sued the state of New York and Chemung County.  Mark Longo filed a notice of claim against state authorities after the animals were seized during a raid on his Pine City home and animal sanctuary by the DEC on October 30. Longo accuses officials of government overreach, privacy invasion, and trespassing.

The claim states that Peanut and Fred were killed for rabies testing, an action the owners deem “unfounded” and “unjustified.”

Testing results for rabies came back negative for both animals.

Loch Ness Monster hunting camera from ’70s found by ‘Boaty McBoatface’

Sam Smith and Loch Ness expert Adrian Shine with the camera. (National Oceanography Centre via SWNS)By Talker

By Elizabeth Hunter

Ocean exploring vessel ‘Boaty McBoatface’ has accidentally discovered a camera from the 1970s – designed to snap a photo of the Loch Ness Monster.

Sponsored

If You're Over 65, Try This Instead of Gutter Cleaning (It's Genius)

If You’re Over 65, Try This Instead of Gutter Cleaning (It’s Genius)

LeafFilter Partner

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!

Health Headlines

Here's The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Walk-in Shower Upgrade

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Walk-in Shower Upgrade

HomeBuddy

Here's What a New Roof Should Cost You in 2025

Here’s What a New Roof Should Cost You in 2025

HomeBuddy

How Seniors Can Potentially Lower Capital Gains Tax

How Seniors Can Potentially Lower Capital Gains Tax

SmartAsset

Man Spent More Than $220k Turning an Old Plane Into His Home; Look Inside

Man Spent More Than $220k Turning an Old Plane Into His Home; Look Inside

The Decor Ideas

During a test mission, the underwater vehicle – famously named by a public poll – discovered the camera system by accident around 180m deep within Loch Ness.

The camera was likely placed in 1970 by Professor Roy Mackal of the Loch Ness Bureau and the University of Chicago and is thought to have been one of the first attempts to catch the Loch Ness Monster on film.

The National Oceanography Centre (NOC), who operated the vehicle, retrieved the camera, which was still in good condition – and they were even able to develop the film.

(National Oceanography Centre via SWNS)By Talker

Sadly, Nessie does not appear to have been captured on camera.

Adrian Shine, who set up The Loch Ness Project in the mid-1970s to investigate Loch Ness and its world-famous inhabitant, helped to identify the camera and says it was one of six deployed by Professor Mackal, with three of them lost in a gale that same year.

“It was an ingenious camera trap consisting of a clockwork Instamatic camera with an inbuilt flash cube, enabling four pictures to be taken when a bait line was taken,” he said.

“It is remarkable that the housing has kept the camera dry for the past 55 years, lying around 180 m deep in Loch Ness.”

NOC’s Autosub underwater vehicle, known popularly as Boaty McBoatface, discovered the camera when part of the mooring that had held the camera system in place got caught on the vehicle’s propellor.

The camera found by ‘Boaty McBoatface’ in Loch Ness. (National Oceanography Centre via SWNS)

Bird flu finds its way into Western wildlife

The deaths of two Washington cougars suggest the virus is more widespread than thought.

Kylie Mohr

Stay informed about the West.

High Country News’ weekly email newsletters keep you up-to-date with our latest news and investigations from across the region.Email address(Required)

Last fall, a Clallam County, Washington, resident spotted a young male cougar walking slowly through a field on the northern edge of the Olympic Peninsula. It was the middle of the day — a clear sign that something was off — and he was also skinny and weak, dragging his matted tail in the mud.

The resident called a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) game warden and Mark Elbroch, puma director of Panthera, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting wild cats globally. (Cougars are also called mountain lions or pumas.) Elbroch and the warden approached the cougar, yelling and clapping to gauge the animal’s alertness. But even when they were less than 20 feet away, the cougar didn’t respond. “The cat was on its last legs,” Elbroch said. “He literally couldn’t even get out from this pasture.” 

The cougar was euthanized, and his tissue samples, which were tested for a number of diseases, revealed the presence of the H5N1 strain of avian influenza, or bird flu. Less than two weeks later, another infected cougar was found dead in Clallam County. 

Mild forms of bird flu are common in wild and domestic birds, but sometimes a strain circulating on a poultry or waterfowl farm mutates into a more dangerous form and spills over into wild birds. The H5N1 strain, which was initially identified in domestic geese in China in the 1990s, had infected wild birds by 2002 and reached North America in 2021. 

Since then, the virus has caused the deaths of tens of millions of domestic chickens, geese, ducks and turkeys in the U.S., contributing to the rise in egg prices. As of early March, it had killed at least 50,000 wild birds, according to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, and been detected in nearly 400 individual wild mammals, including felines, raccoons, rodents, seals and skunks. Globally, H5N1 has killed thousands of mammals in mass mortality events, including sea lions in Peru and Chile and elephant seals in Argentina.

The virus has caused the deaths of tens of millions of domestic chickens, geese, ducks and turkeys in the U.S., contributing to the rise in egg prices.

Over the past three years, more cases of H5N1 in wild mammals have been reported in Washington than in any other Western state except Colorado and New Mexico. Before H5N1 was identified in the two Olympic Peninsula cougars, sick animals had typically lived near wild bird populations infected with the virus. The 15 harbor seals that died in 2023, for example, frequented the same beach as a flock of infected Caspian terns. “The assumption was they were scavenging carcasses or even catching and eating sick birds,” said Katherine Haman, a WDFW veterinarian.

Advertisement

But the two cougars weren’t living near any known outbreaks in wild birds or other prey species, according to the agency. Their deaths illustrate how little we know about how the disease spreads in wildlife, and how far it may have already reached. 

A cougar infected with the H5N1 strain of avian influenza crosses a field in Clallam County, Washington, last fall. It was later euthanized.
A cougar infected with the H5N1 strain of avian influenza crosses a field in Clallam County, Washington, last fall. It was later euthanized.Courtesy of Mark Elbroch/Panthera

UNLIKE THE COUGAR in the cow pasture, Clallam County’s second victim showed no obvious signs of disease. He had been fitted with a GPS collar as part of Panthera’s Olympic Cougar Project, and Elbroch said that he looked to be “in perfect health.” Later analysis of movement data, though, revealed the cougar had started to behave differently, traveling shorter distances than previously.  

Virus-carrying prey can also appear healthy. “We don’t really know which animals are carrying and which ones have been exposed and recovering,” Elbroch said.

While there were no documented H5N1 outbreaks in the area, the cougars may have eaten infected birds along the Pacific Flyway, a major north-south migration route that runs along the West Coast from Alaska to Mexico. Or they may have consumed a mammal — a raccoon, river otter, seal or sea lion — that had eaten an infected bird. Regardless of the cause, the two deaths in the same general area during the same short timespan suggest that bird flu is circulating undetected in the apex predators’ prey. “That just really highlights, to me, that this virus may be more widespread on our landscape than we know or think it is,” said Haman.

Although 70 H5N1 cases have been confirmed in humans — mostly poultry and dairy farmworkers — in the U.S., public health officials say the virus still poses a low health risk: It has not yet spread between people, and its symptoms are usually mild. But the further it spreads among other mammals, the more opportunities it will have to mutate into a form easily contracted by humans. If the virus acquires the ability to be more readily transmitted between mammals or between humans, Haman said, “we have a potential brewing pandemic.”  

In December, the wildlife agency announced that the state was seeing an uptick in cases in both wild birds and mammals. So far this winter, it’s been detected in a long-tailed weasel, raccoon, harbor seal and bobcat. 

If H5N1 continues to proliferate among wild birds and mammals, isolated or small populations — including threatened and endangered species, such as ferrets and California condors — will be particularly vulnerable. “Flu is … rarely considered a wildlife conservation issue,” said Justin Brown, a wildlife veterinarian and professor at Pennsylvania State University. “But with this virus, now that it causes disease in (other) wildlife, there are some conservation concerns.”

Source: National Wildlife Disease Program.
Source: National Wildlife Disease Program.USDA and state agencies; Mapping by Jourdan Ringenberg; Design by Luna Anna Archey/High Country News

FULLY UNDERSTANDING any wildlife disease isn’t easy, due to the lack of monitoring and surveillance. “There’s just so much about this virus and the epidemiology and disease ecology of it that we don’t understand, especially in wild mammals right now,” Haman said. State wildlife agencies, which are chronically short of funding, primarily rely on the public to report sick and dead wildlife, meaning the numbers could be far greater than recorded. 

Regular monitoring and sampling would help researchers better understand H5N1 and its spread. “We could get ahead of avian flu right now with the right resources,” Elbroch said. After cases among dairy cows and farmworkers rose in California last fall, Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency to free up resources for monitoring; as of February, it’s the only state to do so. Though the federal government laid out a $1 billion plan to curb bird flu in domestic poultry in late February, the Trump administration is considering cutting funding for the development of a bird flu vaccine for people.

Advertisement

If the virus acquires the ability to be more readily transmitted between mammals or between humans. “We have a potential brewing pandemic.”  

Brown, who is partnering with Washington wildlife officials to continue studying the disease, plans to test blood samples collected from living wild animals for H5N1 antibodies, an indication of recovery from infection. “I think that this is a disease that will be here for the foreseeable future,” Brown said. “The challenge then is: How do we tweak our research, our surveillance and our management to now deal with this new normal?”

This story is part of High Country News’ Conservation Beyond Boundaries project, which is supported by the BAND Foundation.

We welcome reader letters. Email High Country News at editor@hcn.org or submit a letter to the editor. See our letters to the editor policy.

This article appeared in the April 2025 print edition of the magazine with the headline “Bird flu finds its way into Western wildlife.”

Make a contribution to fund independent reporting on the West

Donate $10Donate $25Other amount

If you learned something new or were moved by what you read here, help us do more of this work with your donation. We’re only able to bring this news and analysis to millions of people across the country because of readers like you. Reader contributions make up 75% of our revenue and are key to the future of healthy independent media.

Alliance transcends boundaries to conserve cougars

The fur is flying

Michael Moss’ 64-acre goat ranch sits on the edge of BLM land in southwestern Oregon. It’s “healthy cougar country,” he says, and he’d like it to stay that way. That’s not something you’d expect to hear from most livestock owners, but Moss is a member of Goat Ranchers of Oregon,…

A really strong net helps save Puget Sound’s black bears