Exposing the Big Game

Forget Hunters' Feeble Rationalizations and Trust Your Gut Feelings: Making Sport of Killing Is Not Healthy Human Behavior

Exposing the Big Game

Vehicle strikes, kills another wolf in Grand Teton National Park

Wolf killed in Grand Teton National Park
A wolf that was struck and killed by a vehicle lays beside the road Saturday in Grand Teton National Park.

Canyon Phillips had the rare experience of seeing his first wild wolf up close last weekend, though unfortunately the canine had just expired.

The 3-year-old son of wildlife-watching guide Taylor Phillips probably didn’t grasp what exactly was going on when he crawled up to investigate the still-warm carcass of the grayish-white lobo late on Saturday. Moments before the female adult wolf had been fatally hit by a vehicle cruising down Grand Teton National Park’s main interior road near Colter Bay Village.

The Phillips family rolled by just as Teton Interagency firefighters, who were also driving by, were dragging the animal’s carcass off the road.

“I don’t believe he comprehends death, and what that is,” Phillips said of his son’s roadside encounter.

“He kept on repeating, ‘Why isn’t it real?’” he said. “We were like, ‘No, it is real, but it’s dead — it no longer has any life moving through its veins.’ It’s unfortunate. That was his first wolf, really.”

The wolf was a 7-year-old female from the Huckleberry Pack, which had been tracked and given a unique identification number by the National Park Service in the past. When asked, park officials declined to identify the animal by its number. Although the wolf appears white in photos, it was actually gray and its coat was turning white in its twilight years.

Grand Teton biologist John Stephenson said that the aging lobo’s cause of death — a vehicle strike — is common for wolves within the park’s boundaries. Fourteen wolves have been hit and killed on park roads since 2005, he said.

“We have an average of one a year,” Stephenson said. “In the park, it is the No. 1 cause of mortality for wolves.”

The driver of the motor vehicle that struck the Huckleberry Pack wolf did not report it, although that is a legal requirement. Another motorist who witnessed the hapless animal being hit did phone authorities, but the reporting party did not provide enough detail for law enforcement to pursue. No investigation into the animal’s death is underway, park wildlife chief Dave Gustine said.

Gustine encouraged motorists who strike an animal — or see one hit — to call Teton Interagency Dispatch promptly, and with as many details as possible.

“If people followed the speed limit,” Gustine said, “a lot of these incidents could be avoided.”

The section of highway where the wolf was hit cuts through sagebrush and grass fields and has mostly open sight lines, said Phillips, who is the founder and CEO of Jackson Hole Eco Tour Adventures. Gustine concurred with that assessment, though noted it’s impossible to say if speed was a factor.

The Huckleberry Pack shows up on Wyoming Game and Fish Department monitoring reports as long ago as 2012, which is the year the female that just died would have been born. Its home range, maps show, extends through most of northern Teton Park and the John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway, spilling into the Bridger-Teton National Forest’s Teton Wilderness to the east. At last assessment the pack had 10 wolves in its ranks, making it one of the largest wolf packs in Wyoming.

Phillips, whose guides and business benefits from wolf watching, said the Huckleberry Pack hasn’t been a particularly visible wolf pack, at least recently. That’s true of wolves in Jackson Hole generally, he said.

“In the past year, year and a half, wolf observations have been slim,” Phillips said, “and I correlate that to the hunt that opened up.”

At least over the last two years no members of the Huckleberry Pack have been registered by successful legal wolf hunters, according to Game and Fish reports. Wolf harvest has been much more substantial in the southern and eastern parts of the valley.

(STAFF REPORTS)

WDFW maintains they are the primary responding agency for wildlife issues…

WDFW released a statement in response to the recent billboard by the Stevens County Cattlemen that says “Predator attack? Fight back! Call your local sheriff!” The state agency said they have talked with sheriffs from both Stevens and Ferry County who agree that WDFW is still the primary responding agency for problems with wildlife issues. The statement was written by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Region 1 Director Steve Pozzanghera.

“Public safety is always the number one priority at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), just like at law enforcement agencies. Any incident involving wildlife is taken very seriously. WDFW responds to reported wildlife incidents by first dealing with the immediate situation and then working with those impacted on ways to prevent future conflicts with wildlife,” the statement said.

“WDFW also works cooperatively with area sheriffs’ offices and other local law enforcement on a daily basis. All northeast Washington agencies refer wildlife calls to WDFW. I have spoken with sheriffs Brad Manke and Ray Maycumber from Stevens and Ferry counties, and they agree that WDFW is the primary responding agency for problem wildlife issues.”

“Citizens can report wildlife incidents through their Fish and Wildlife Office at 877-933-9847, Washington State Patrol, and their Sheriff’s Office. In an emergency situation, please call 911.”

Federal Judge Blocks Killing of Ferry County Wolf

file photo
https://www.kpq.com/federal-judge-blocks-killing-of-ferry-county-wolf/

The lone surviving member of the Old Profanity Territory (OPT) wolf pack has been spared by the stroke of a federal judge’s pen.

IFiberOne News reports the Friday ruling was made just days after the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) announced it had already eliminated four of the pack’s five members in an effort to curtail their depredation of livestock.

The lawsuit was filed by a pair of Seattle residents with the backing of the animal rights group Center for a Humane Economy, which is based in Washington D.C.

The suit had initially sought a restraining order to prevent the lethal removal of wolves from the OPT pack, which was denied by the judge.

The same judge ruled Friday that “due diligence on non-lethal methods” had not been properly explored by the state and ranchers who were impacted by the predations.

“Having to carry out lethal removals of wolves is a difficult situation and something the department takes very seriously,” said Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Staci Lehman in an email to the Spokesman Review. “WDFW makes every effort to make a responsible decision after considering the available evidence. We appreciate the time the court put into reviewing this material and will work with the court throughout the process ahead.”

The suit contends the WDFW acted illegally and failed to properly follow the policies of the state’s Wolf Advisory Group by reauthorizing the order to lethally remove the OPT pack.

A series of WDFW investigations had shown the pack responsible for 29 depredation incidents.  Director Kelly Susewind reauthorized the lethal removals on July 31, in response to continuing depredations of cattle on federal grazing lands in the Kettle River range of Ferry County.  The removal decision was made with guidance from the state’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan and the lethal removal provisions of the department’s wolf-livestock interaction protocol.

The OPT pack has been involved in 14 livestock depredations in the last 10 months, with nine in the last 30 days, and a total of 29 since Sept. 5, 2018. The livestock producer who owns the affected livestock took several proactive, nonlethal, conflict deterrence measures to reduce conflicts between wolves and livestock, and WDFW will continue to monitor for wolf activity in the area and work closely with producers.

The OPT inhabits the same area as the Profanity Peak Pack, which the state killed seven members of in 2016.

Alaska national park wolf hunting boundary dispute continues

(Source: Gary Kramer / USFWS / CC BY 2.0).

FAIRBANKS, Alaska (AP) – A group of Alaska advocates is petitioning for an end to wolf hunting in a national park boundary area.

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reported Monday that the group is concerned about a decrease in the number of wolf sightings in part of Denali National Park.

The group sent petitions about the Denali Park Road area to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game commissioner and the state Board of Game.

Members say hunting is impacting the number of wolves in packs that roam near the road corridor.

The National Park Service has submitted its own proposal to the game board requesting a partial closure to wolf hunting.

Wolf hunting in the area is scheduled to begin Aug. 10 while trapping season is scheduled to open Nov. 1.

WDFW asking for public comment on management of wolves

(PRESS RELEASE)

WDFW asking for public comment on Sept. 4 in Colville…

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has opened a public comment period to gather input on how the department will manage wolves in Washington post-recovery.

Biologists are confident that Washington’s wolf population is on a path to successful recovery. Since 2008, the state’s wolf population has grown an average of 28% per year. WDFW documented a minimum of 126 individuals, 27 packs, and 15 successful breeding pairs during the last annual population survey.

“Long-term sustainability and persistence of Washington’s wolf population will always be a department priority,” said WDFW Director Kelly Susewind. “We know that Washington wolves are doing well, and it’s our responsibility to be prepared to help wolf and human populations coexist in the same landscape.”

Although it may be a few years before meeting wolf recovery goals, WDFW is preparing for when wolves are no longer designated as state or federally endangered by developing a post-recovery conservation and management plan. It will guide long-term wolf conservation and management.

As part of using the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process, WDFW will include an extensive public input and engagement process to develop the plan. This involves preparing a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will evaluate actions, alternatives, and impacts related to long-term wolf conservation and management. The department will develop the draft EIS based on feedback, and the public can review and comment on the draft once it is complete.

“The department currently uses the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, adopted in 2011, to guide wolf management activities in Washington,” said Julia Smith, WDFW wolf coordinator. “However, the 2011 plan was developed specifically to inform and guide Washington wolf recovery while wolves are considered threatened or endangered. The new plan will focus on how the department will conserve and manage wolves after their recovery.”

Public input and feedback is vital to this effort. The public scoping comment period is open from Aug. 1, 2019 through Nov.1, 2019. You can share your thoughts by taking an online survey at https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/gray-wolf/post-recovery-planning, or by attending one of the following 14 public scoping open houses in your community:

Spokane
Sept. 3, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Spokane Community College (SCC), The Lair Student Center, Building #6, Sasquatch and Bigfoot Room 124 & 124C, 1810 Green St., Spokane, WA 99217

Colville
Sept. 4, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Agriculture & Trade Center, 215 S. Oak St., Colville, WA 99114

Clarkston
Sept. 5, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Quality Inn and Suites, Half Mahogany Room, 700 Port Drive, Clarkston, WA 99403

Chelan
Sept. 11, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Chelan Fire Station, 232 E. Wapato Ave, Chelan, WA 98816

Pasco
Sept. 25, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Franklin PUD auditorium, 1411 W. Clark St, Pasco, WA 99301

Selah
Sept. 26, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Selah Civic Center, 216 S. 1st St., Selah, WA 98942

Mt. Vernon
Oct. 7, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, 10441 Bayview-Edison Rd., Mt. Vernon, WA 98273

Issaquah
Oct. 8, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Eagle Room, City Hall, 130 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah, WA 98027

Kelso/Longview
Oct. 9, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Red Lion Hotel and Conference Center, 510 Kelso Drive, Kelso, WA 98626

Morton
Oct. 10, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Lyle Community Center, 700 Main Street, Morton, WA 98356

Olympia
Oct. 15, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Natural Resources Building (Room 172), 1111 Washington SE, Olympia, WA 98504

Goldendale
To be determined

Port Angeles
Oct. 29, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Peninsula College, House of Learning (Longhouse), 1502 E. Lauridsen Blvd., Port Angeles, WA 98362

Montesano
Oct. 30, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano, WA 98563

A webinar will also be available for those who are interested. It will be from 6:00-7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 17. It can be viewed here or from the home page of WDFW’s website at https://wdfw.wa.gov/.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is the state agency tasked with preserving, protecting and perpetuating fish, wildlife and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing, hunting, and other recreation opportunities.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see https://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html

Fish and Game deploys game cameras to track wolf numbers



How many wolves are on the landscape in Idaho? That’s an often-asked question that Idaho Fish and Game is aiming to answer using game cameras during a new statewide population monitoring program.

In recent months, Fish and Game staff have deployed over 800 game cameras in a high-density grid throughout the state, which will take millions of pictures. When Fish and Game staff collect the cameras at the end of September, researchers will download and analyze the photos and apply statistical modeling to estimate the population.

Sifting through millions of photos will be labor intensive, but Fish and Game Wildlife Research Manager Mark Hurley is aiming to early next year have the most robust and accurate count of wolves ever in Idaho, and the first scientific population estimate since 2015.

Wolf monitoring evolves with changing wolf populations

Wolves were federally reintroduced into Idaho, Wyoming and Montana in 1995 and 1996. Between 1996 and 2005, Idaho’s wolf population was estimated using a “total count” technique to generate an estimate of the statewide population, which was appropriate when the total population was small and many wolves wore radio collars. Biologists could track individual animals back to their packs, get an estimate of pack sizes and then estimate the statewide population.

From 2006 to 2016, Fish and Game’s wolf monitoring program remained under federal oversight. Until May 2016, the department was required to maintain enough radio collared wolves to be able to demonstrate that there were more than 15 breeding pairs of wolves in that state and more than 150 total wolves. .

“This kind of monitoring was really targeted at federal Endangered Species Act recovery goals — that’s why we were doing that. That sort of effort works with very small populations,” Hurley said.

During this period, biologists counted the number of wolves within each pack from aircraft, or on the ground, during early winter, and used that information to calculate an average pack size. While they continued to count the actual number of wolves they spotted during surveys, wildlife managers also began using a new technique to estimate the statewide wolf population that was better suited to larger and more dispersed populations. They applied the average pack size in areas known to have packs, but where individual wolves were not necessarily seen and counted by a person.

As Idaho’s wolf population continued to grow, however, it became increasingly difficult to monitor the population. After wolves were removed from the endangered species list, Idaho took full management of them and hunters and trappers began harvesting wolves, it made keeping radio collars on wolves more difficult and costly.

“That monitoring used to cost about $750,000 per year, a large portion of which came from federal funding,” said Toby Boudreau, Fish and Game’s Wildlife Bureau Chief. “That funding tapered off from the time wolves were delisted in 2011 until it was eliminated in 2016.”

Idaho’s wildlife managers knew they would need to monitor wolf populations using a more cost-effective and efficient model than one based on radio collars, and the focus of their monitoring shifted to “occupancy” — or estimating the number of wolf packs in the state, rather than establishing a total wolf population estimate.

Expanding the use of game cameras

Beginning in 2016, researchers started using a grid of about 200 game cameras to detect whether or not wolf packs were present in predetermined areas scattered across the Idaho, which biologists call “occupancy cells.”

By determining what percentage of Idaho is occupied by wolf packs and monitoring changes over time, while also monitoring wolves’ impact on elk and deer populations, wildlife managers observed large-scale trends in the statewide wolf population, and managed wolves based on population trends, i.e. whether the overall population was stable, growing or shrinking.

“If the wolf population contracts, occupancies should contract, in the same way that they increase,” Hurley said. “You can also estimate the number of packs. That is what we can do with patch occupancy, because your occupancy cells are the size of a whole pack territory.”

Biologists also used DNA analysis from scat surveys and harvested wolves, allowing them to estimate pack counts, reproduction, and the number of wolves in small areas during the summer months. Using these methods alone, however, it was difficult to get an overall, statewide wolf population estimate.

That situation changed recently after researchers developed population-estimate techniques by using game cameras, similar to how biologists are already using cameras to count and monitor elk and deer populations in Idaho.

For the new method to work, wildlife managers needed to dramatically increase the number of cameras in the field devoted to wolf monitoring, which is why Fish and Game staff deployed hundreds of additional cameras this summer.

“What we’ve done is split these occupancy cells up again, and added additional cameras within them,” Hurley said. “That will give us enough cameras to generate an abundance estimate, which we can’t get with just the occupancy cameras.”


Group Hoping To Get Wolf Reintroduction Measure On 2020 Ballot

By Dominic Garcia

JACKSON COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4) — A recent sighting of a possibly Gray Wolf in Jackson County has stirred up an old debate about reintroducing wolves to Colorado. Members of The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund are currently gathering signatures to get a measure on the 2020 ballot to do that.

(credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

“We believe that the right thing to do is give the people of Colorado a voice in restoring the balance,” said Rob Edward, President of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund.

Rob Edward (credit: CBS)

Edward says Colorado has the largest elk population in North America and one of the largest deer populations. He adds that without wolves, the two go unchecked and can cause destruction in places like Rocky Mountain National Park.

“The elk have stripped the river corridors bare. They’re putting fences around large swaths of the park in order to help the Aspen and willow regenerate. Wolves would change that dynamic over the course of a decade,” Edward told CBS4’s Dominic Garcia.

(credit: CBS)

But not everyone is excited about the recent wolf sighting. Phillip Anderson is a rancher in Jackson County, where the possible wolf was spotted. He worries about his livestock.

“We’re small ranchers and our livelihood depends on keeping the calf and lamb from the point in time it’s born to the time we market it, keeping it alive. We don’t want wolves here,” he told CBS4.

(credit: CBS)

Edward says he understands the concerns, and that’s why reimbursement to ranchers who lose livestock to wolves is in their ballot measure. But he adds that the overall threat is blown out of proportion.

“The fact is that wolves don’t pose a significant threat to livestock, and they don’t pose any threat to our burgeoning elk and deer population. In fact they pose the best answer to helping get things back in balance again.”

https://www.wolfactionfund.com/

Wolf kills calf on WA Fish and Wildlife lands in Asotin Co.

Video: KREM 2

Based on the combination of tissue damage with associated hemorrhaging and wolf locations, WDFW staff classified the even as a confirmed wolf attack.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The video above is about a different story where Washington lawmakers looked to find non-lethal methods of curbing wolf issues in Eastern Washington.

ASOTIN CO., Wash.– The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife announced Friday that an investigation into the death of a calf in Asotin County indicated a wolf was responsible for the calf’s death.

WDFW discovered a dead 400 to 450 lbs. calf in a 160-acre fenced pasture while working on the agency’s Ranch Wildlife Area July 8, according to the report posted on WDFW’s website. Conflict staff contacted the livestock producer, who has authorization to graze livestock on the land through a lease with WDFW and conducted an investigation on site.

WDFW staff’s investigation of the calf’s carcass revealed hemorrhaging and tissue damage on the calf’s left side, including the chest and lower neck area, front and back of the front leg, lower portion of the rear leg and tooth punctures and scrapes on the inside of the lower leg and groin, according to the WDFW report. WDFW also documented hemorrhaging and tissue damage on the calf’s right side, including the chest and lower neck area, rear side of the front leg continuing into surrounding tissue behind the leg, the area in front of the rear leg and the lower half of the rear leg, according to the report.

The report says most of the calf’s hindquarter had been consumer. WDFW removed the carcass and buried it after the investigation.

WDFW’s report says the damage to the carcass was indicative of a “wolf depredation,” the term used when a wolf kills a domestic animal.  Location data from the collared wolf in the Grouse Flats pack also showed at least one member of the pack in the vicinity during the approximate time the calf died, according to the report.

Based on the combination of tissue damage with associated hemorrhaging and wolf locations, WDFW staff classified the even as a confirmed wolf depredation, the report said.

The producer who owned the calf monitors the her by range riding at least every other day, the report said. The producer maintains regular human presence in the area, removes or secures livestock carcasses to avoid attracting wolves and avoids areas known for high wolf activity, according to the report.

The producer deployed Fox lights in the grazing area following the attack and will increase the frequency of range riding until cattle can be moved to a different pasture, the report said.

The Grouse Flats pack was involved in three depredation incidents in 2018, according to WDFW.

Washington Ranchers vs. wolves

RELATED: Washington OKs killing of wolf pack members preying on cattle

RELATED: Conservation group offers cash reward in killing of wolf in NE Wash.

RELATED: Number of gray wolves in Washington state continues to grow

Forest service revokes grazing permit, fines man who killed a wolf with a shovel

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

By KSL.com Staff, KSL.com | Posted – Jul 11th, 2019 @ 12:16pm

SALT LAKE CITY — The southwest regional forester with the U.S. Department of Agriculture has decided to revoke a grazing permit from Craig Theissen in the Canyon del Buey area near Datil, New Mexico, in addition to fines charged by federal courts.

Thiessen originally pleaded guilty to the killing of a young Mexican wolf through intentionally trapping and bludgeoning it with a shovel in 2015 on public lands, according to Thiessen’s court documents, in which he pleaded guilty. In explanation, Thiessen said that he had caught the wolf in a leg hold trap on his grazing allotment and killed it because he was worried that if he didn’t hit it with the shovel it would kill him as soon as he released it.

“I knew the animal I caught in the leg hold trap was a Mexican gray wolf because it wore a tracking collar affixed to all Mexican gray wolves in the area,” Thiessen explained in the court documents. Further, he acknowledged that Mexican gray wolves are a threatened species.

The U.S. Forest Service has said that failing to comply with federal laws protecting wildlife, especially with those protected by the Endangered Species Act, gives the Southwest regional forester the authorization to revoke a person’s grazing permits, according to the press release. The case was submitted for review by Calvin N. Joyner, the regional forester.

Joyner gave his official decision on the appeal on July 2nd, deciding to revoke Theissen’s grazing permit. He added that this is a situation where the cancellation is appropriate, as Thiessen “admitted to taking an illegal action and violating federal law. He pleaded guilty and he was convicted by a federal court. His conviction is a violation of the grazing permit.”

Joyner added in his official decision that the Endangered Species Act states that criminal conviction under that statute should result in the immediate cancellation of a grazing permit.

“When ranchers violate federal law or break the terms of their grazing permits, the forest service is absolutely right to revoke their permission to graze on public land,” Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, said in the press release. “Mr. Thiessen’s actions violated one of our bedrock environmental laws, shocked and horrified members of the public who want to see wolves recovered, and dealt a blow to New Mexico’s wild [wolf] population.”

Theissen’s livestock will need to be removed from the Canyon del Buey area by the end of August.

Delisting Wolves and the Impending Wolf Slaughter

JULY 12, 2019

Delisting Wolves and the Impending Wolf Slaughter

by MICHAEL LUKAS FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
On July 15, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will close comments on its proposed rule to delist wolves from the endangered and threatened species lists. While this rule may seem to be just one of many attempts in a decade-long battle over grey wolf listing to eliminate protections for wolves and turn management over to states in places where wolves have returned, such as the Northern Rockies and Upper Midwest, this rule goes far beyond any previous USFWS delisting proposal by eliminating protections for all wolves in the lower 48 states, essentially declaring 85% of the grey wolf’s historical range insignificant to wolf recovery, ending federal protections and oversight. Given recent state management, it is difficult to see how this delisting will not result in isolated populations of wolves heavily and lethally “managed” through hunting, trapping, culling, and poaching in their current range, and a free-for-all slaughter of wolves that migrate outside those zones, keeping wolves from re-establishing their populations in places like Colorado (which has habitat for an estimated 1000 wolves)[1], where they are already returning.

While I am not a biologist, as are many of the hundred signatories to a recent open letter[2] to the USFWS opposing the proposed wolf delisting rule due to the Service’s lack of attention to “the best available science” (a mandate of the Endangered Species Act), as a researcher who has studied the discourse and human dimensions of wolf management for the last decade and recently completed a doctoral dissertation that focuses on the politics and rhetoric of wolf management, particularly in the U.S., it’s nonetheless incumbent upon me to emphasize the likely implications of wolf delisting in this current moment. This is because, as many of these scientists recognize, the proposed wolf delisting rule is not a decision prompted by science, but is, rather, a socio-political decision grounded in accepting the social intolerance of wolves. This delisting, I argue, will inevitably lead to the needless deaths of wolves, as migrating grey wolves (a native species) are prevented from re-establishing themselves in states that have wolf habitat but where lobbyists for agribusiness, privatization of public lands, and trophy hunting outfitters, are pushing state legislatures to keep wolves out (such as Colorado, Utah, and North Carolina) or further reduce populations (like the Upper Midwest and Northern Rockies) to satisfy and maximize their own private economic interests over those of the public and intent of the Endangered Species Act.

When canis lupus was listed as a species on the ESA in 1978, the entire species “grey wolf” was listed as endangered throughout the coterminous states, aside from Minnesota, where it was listed as threatened. Recovery of the species, as Judge Beryl Howell re-confirmed in a 2014 decision rejecting another delisting attempt by FWS, would thus amount to a return of the grey wolf to a “significant portion of its historical range.” Howell’s decision exposed the FWS rule as an attempt to circumvent the original listing of the entire species by designating the ‘Eastern wolf’ a subspecies that was now extinct, thereby eliminating the entire eastern half of the country outside the Upper Midwest as historical grey wolf range and possible future grey wolf habitat. While that sub-speciation effort to delist and contract historic wolf range failed, FWS has nonetheless proclaimed that the range this purported wolf occupied is now no longer “a significant portion” of the listed species canis lupus’ “historical range.” Indeed, while grey wolf populations have increased in 15% of the historical range, much of that range (including the Central Rockies, the Northeast, Lower Midwest, Central Appalachia and the Pacific Northwest) remains unoccupied by wolves. However, it is almost a certainty that wolves will migrate to, and establish populations in, available habitat in this historical range in the near future. Without adequate protections, these wolves are sure to face lethal control and persecution in states where the agribusiness lobby, big game hunting industry, and privatization advocates hold immense sway, such as presently seen in Utah, Colorado, and Eastern Washington and Oregon.

Indeed, the very contraction of grey wolf range proposed in the current delisting proposal ultimately is not based upon available habitat, historical range, or the best available science. Instead, it is based on an agricultural model of wildlife management that “ranches” wolves, allowing wolves on the land so long as they are contained (ranched) and lethally controlled (slaughtered) where they exist. Given their often close ties with the agricultural industry and extractive land users, it should perhaps not be surprising that wildlife managers defer to this agricultural model and its perception that social intolerance should be a determinative factor in designating suitable wolf habitat—a designation that is wholly at odds with the scientific definition of habitat[3], which is any place that provides for the needs of a species. Indeed, it could be said that a perceived lack of social tolerance amongst even a minority of the population in places such as Utah, Colorado, and North Carolina is considered determinative of the suitability of that habitat. However, as Justice Howell notes in the 2014 decision:

While the FWS and the defendant-intervenors may have practical policy reasons for

attempting to remove the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, those policy reasons cannot overcome the strictures imposed by the ESA. The ESA offers the broadest possible protections for endangered species by design. This law reflects the commitment by the United States to act as a responsible steward of the Earth’s wildlife, even when such stewardship is inconvenient or difficult for the localities where an endangered or threatened species resides.

As Howell recognizes, protections for endangered species may often be “inconvenient or difficult” where co-existence occurs, but this alone should not be determinative of endangered status or protections more generally. Indeed, basing species protections on a lack of social tolerance would be no different than withholding protections of the Civil Rights Act for vulnerable minorities in localities where people lack social tolerance of such minorities—something we’re seeing the consequences of with voting restrictions in states now exempted from the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

So, while the grey wolf has come back from extirpation in a small portion of its range in the coterminous U.S., the listed entity canis lupus, whose range was originally designated as the near entirety of the lower-48, has not recovered in a way that would allow for delisting of the species throughout the United States. As Carlos Carrol–one of the biologists selected by the FWS to review the proposed delisting rule–emphasizes, FWS’ restrictive definition of wolf “range” to their current range is not only temporally arbitrary, but produces “perverse incentives” to eliminate wolves (or any species whose range is treated as such) to prevent their recovery by killing them before they become established. Indeed, Carrol notes that Utah’s Senate bill 36 explicitly proposes to “manage wolves to prevent the establishment of a viable pack” where they are not already protected[4]. Thus, the likely result of delisting wolves from the entirety of their range is that wolves will be heavily hunted, culled, and trapped where they exist, and unprotected and extirpated everywhere else, should they escape from such “management” in the habitat they currently occupy.

If anything, the American public should be suspicious of any delisting of canis lupus in a climate where lobbying efforts are dominated by minority interests like agribusiness and anti-regulation entrepreneurs—such as Americans for Prosperity, who promote exaggerated fears and effects of wolves[5]. As Carol and other researchers have noted, while it’s become increasingly evident from recent wolf range expansion in the Great Lakes and Europe that wolves “can persist in semi-developed landscapes if anthropogenic mortality is kept relatively low,”[6] doing so will require rejecting social intolerance as a determining factor in wolf recovery. Rather than putting resources into delisting wolves due to such pressure, FWS should instead work with wolf researchers, social scientists, human dimensions researchers, and environmental educators to develop programs to increase social tolerance, both in the range where wolves are and where they are soon to re-inhabit.

You can express your opposition to USFWS’ proposed rule by commenting on the federal website by July 15th:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097-0001