The gray wolf, which once ranged all across the United States in the hundreds of thousands, now numbers an estimated 3,700 individuals who dwell in only a few regions. The U.S. government apparently believes those numbers are strong enough to merit a reduction of federal protections, despite the objections of conservationists who say wolves still face many threats to their long-term survival.

On March 18, the Department of the Interior (DOI) issued the much-anticipated "final rule," which downlists most gray wolves in the lower 48 states from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On the same day, officials from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) told conservationists that the agency is already making plans to remove federal protections entirely for gray wolves in two major geographical areas.

These "delisting" plans, which could be implemented within the next year, will leave most wolves bereft of federal protections. Their survival will be in the hands of individual states, the same states that have shown these animals little mercy so far.

Gray Wolves: A Brief History

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) and red wolf (Canis rufus) once ranged throughout the United States, in numbers thought to be near 400,000 for the two species combined. But from the moment European settlers stepped foot on North America, they began large-scale eradication efforts. Federally funded eradication programs, which lasted through the mid-1900s, employed bounties, poisons, trapping, and aerial shooting. They succeeded in extirpating wolves from all of the lower 48 states except Minnesota, where a tiny remnant population sought refuge in the Northwoods.

The gray wolf finally earned protections under the ESA in 1974, but those protections have constantly been under attack by livestock and hunting interests. The protections, though undermined by illegal killings and continued habitat loss, have allowed wolves gradually to make their way back to Wisconsin and Michigan. Reintroduction projects have also allowed the gray wolf to begin recovery in the west and southwest.

Approximately 3,700 wolves, 2,400 of them in Minnesota, are now known to live in the contiguous 48 states. This is certainly an improvement for the species, but most of the wolves outside of Minnesota exist in small, isolated populations, surrounded by lands where wolves are not welcome. What's more, the habitat that gray wolves now occupy represents only a small fraction of their historical habitat. Substantially more suitable habitat is available in regions where wolves have not yet naturally recolonized and where no plans for reintroduction exist.

Gray wolf populations are currently found in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Wolves from these states have also made short-lived forays into neighboring states such as Oregon, Washington, Utah, and North Dakota. Until March 18, gray wolves were listed under the ESA as threatened in Minnesota and endangered in the remaining lower 48 states.

In places where they have been reintroduced (such as Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho), wolves were (and still are) classified as "experimental, non-essential," a designation that allows for more relaxed management, which translates into more killing. (See page 2 for more details on the gray wolf's new federal status.)

One of the many gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), or "lobo," has been reintroduced in eastern Arizona and allowed to disperse into New Mexico. There are only about 200 Mexican gray wolves, most of them in captive breeding programs. Of the 34 Mexican gray wolves released since 1998, only 22 are still free-ranging. Five have been shot, one disappeared, one was hit by a vehicle, and five were returned to captivity.

The Gray Wolf Reclassification Final Rule

In its final rule, the USFWS outlines the different regions in which it has reduced (downlisted to threatened) or removed (delisted) federal protections for the gray wolf throughout most of the lower 48 states.

At the core of the final rule is a set of Distinct Population Segments (DPS), which divide the wolf population into geographical areas. In its 2000 "draft rule," the USFWS proposed to established four DPSs—incidentally, it's worth noting that public comments to this draft rule were overwhelmingly against decreasing protections—but the final rule has reduced these to three by lumping the northeastern states with the Great Lakes states.

The three DPSs include: 1) the Eastern DPS (Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin—where wolves currently exist—and states reaching from the Great Plains to the northeastern U.S., where there are currently no wolves); 2) the Western DPS (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, and northern portions of Colorado and Utah); and 3) the Southwestern DPS (Arizona, New Mexico, the southern portions of Colorado and Utah, western Texas, western Oklahoma, and Mexico).

Specifically, the final rule includes the following impacts:

• The gray wolf has been downlisted from endangered to threatened in the Western and Eastern DPSs (though Minnesota's wolves had already been classified as threatened).
• In the Southwestern DPS, the gray wolf will retain its endangered status for now.
• In those regions where wolves have been reintroduced, the animals are still designated as "experimental, non-essential" populations.
• In 16 southeastern states, from eastern Texas and eastern Oklahoma to the Atlantic coast stretching from Maryland to Florida, federal protections have been removed entirely. The USFWS reports that new evidence shows these areas are outside of the historic gray wolf range.
• The red wolf of the southeastern United States is considered a separate species and is not affected by this rule. The species is considered endangered in the southeastern United States, except in portions of North Carolina and Tennessee (where it has been reintroduced), where the populations are classified "experimental, non-essential."
• The threatened classification in the Eastern and Western DPSs—along with additional special rules issued by the USFWS—makes it easier for people to resort to lethal methods in resolving conflicts between humans and wolves throughout the Great Lakes states and the northern Rockies. State, federal, and tribal officials may now kill wolves accused of attacking livestock on both private and public lands.

Differences Between the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule

One of the differences between the draft rule of 2000 and the final rule is a change in the DPSs' boundaries. In particular, the USFWS has conceded that California and Nevada do indeed lie within the historic range of the gray wolf, and therefore have included those states within the Western DPS. However, this change will do little to protect wolves because only those states that currently have a wolf population (Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in the Western DPS) will be required to develop wolf management plans, and put them in place before the USFWS delists wolves there.

As a result, once the wolf is delisted within the Western DPS, many states within that DPS will have no safeguards to protect wolves who attempt to recolonize these parts of their historic range, much of which is suitable habitat. The few individual wolves who have attempted to disperse to states such as Utah and Oregon have already run up against the negative attitudes of some of the residents there. In many cases, these wolves have been killed.

Collapsing the northeastern United States and the Great Lakes states into one huge DPS (of which wolves currently occupy only a small portion) also presents troubles. Wolf protection and conservation advocates have been working to restore wolves to the northeast for many years. What's more, wolves might naturally disperse to the northeastern U.S. from Canada. Unfortunately, by reducing federal protections in those states, the final rule greatly reduces the likelihood of wolf recovery in the region.

Even more disturbing, the USFWS has indicated that it hopes to begin the process of delisting the entire Eastern DPS within the next year. Again, because no northeastern states contain wolf populations recognized by the USFWS, none will be required to create management plans prior to federal delisting. This means that when federal protections are removed entirely, the northeastern states will not be required to provide any protection for wolves, much less ensure their recovery.

State Wolf Management

Federal law requires that management for a recovered endangered or threatened species cannot be passed on to a state until the state has written an adequate management plan for the species. Before delisting a species in a state, the federal government must be assured that the threats that originally endangered the wolf no longer exist. Therefore, the gray wolf cannot be removed from the federal endangered species list until each state develops a wolf management plan. However, as noted above, states within historical gray wolf range will be required to devise a plan only if they are currently home to a wolf population—and only the USFWS decides what is a wolf population.

Wolf management plans for Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho have been in the works for the past several years. Though these plans include a few positive elements, they would also allow for a number of antiquated and barbaric management practices such as bounties, sport hunting, trapping, and unnecessary lethal predator control methods, like those now widely employed against coyotes and foxes. In other words, the same factors that first imperiled the wolf would be allowed under the state plans.

All of these state plans provide for what many consider to be excessive and often inhumane lethal control of wolves. For example, Wyoming's management plan seeks to classify the wolf as a "predatory animal" throughout much of the state, a classification that would allow unregulated hunting and trapping of the animal. In a small portion of the state, the wolf would be classified as a "trophy game animal," so that hunting and trapping of wolves would be subject only to minimum restrictions. Wyoming's plan also includes no explicit consideration for the wolf's habitat requirements.

Likewise, Minnesota's plan includes a $150 bounty on wolves, as well as provisions that would allow landowners in much of the state to shoot wolves who merely appear on their property, whether or not they have attacked livestock.

Minnesota's plan is particularly troubling, given the state's large population of wolves and the unknown future of federal protections in the state. If the feds carry out their plan to delist the Eastern DPS, which includes Minnesota, thousands of wolves would instantly find themselves vulnerable.

Of particular concern is that fact that, although most of the state plans acknowledge the importance of non-lethal methods for preventing or reducing conflicts between wolves and livestock owners (such as improvements to livestock husbandry), none of the plans would require the implementation of non-lethal measures. Most of the plans would also allow for recreational hunting and trapping of wolves. Furthermore, what little protection is provided for wolves under state plans would be subject to change at the whim of state legislatures, some of which are already proposing bills to further erode the minimal protections that their own plans offer.

A Premature Decision

The removal or reduction of federal protections for the gray wolf now appears to be premature, for three reasons. First, gray wolf populations are insufficiently recovered. Second, a vocal minority of the U.S. public continues to express irrationally negative attitudes toward the wolf, demonstrating their unwillingness to tolerate this native carnivore. And third, the state plans include provisions for liberal sport hunting and trapping of wolves, and fail to mandate protections adequate to ensure the survival of wolves.

Coexistence with large predators requires human tolerance and education regarding the means by which conflicts may be avoided. That willingness to coexist has not been developed in any portion of the gray wolf's range; therefore, simply restoring a certain "magic number" of wolves to a region (which is what state plans focus on) may not be enough.

State and federal agencies must be held accountable for preserving this majestic animal by establishing humane, realistic policies for managing wolf populations. Pandering to fears that are based on misinformation rather than science will neither ensure the recovery of the gray wolf nor address legitimate human-wolf conflicts.