# USFW delisting of the grey wolf



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Contact: David Eisenhauer, 202-208-5634
Georgia Parham 812-334-4261 ext. 203
Sharon Rose 303-236-4580

Separate Actions Part of Larger Recovery Effort

Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett today announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is removing the western Great Lakes population of gray wolves from the federal list of threatened and endangered species and proposing to remove the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves from the list. The two separate actions are being taken in recognition of the success of gray wolf recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act.

"Wolves have recovered in the western Great Lakes because efforts to save them from extinction have been a model of cooperation, flexibility, and hard work," Scarlett said. "This same spirit of collaboration has helped gray wolves in the Northern Rockies exceed their recovery goals to the point where they are biologically ready to be delisted. States, tribes, conservation groups, federal agencies and citizens of both regions can be proud of their roles in saving this icon of wilderness."

Gray wolves were previously listed as endangered in the lower 48 states, except in Minnesota where they were listed as threatened. The Service oversees three separate recovery programs for the gray wolf; each has its own recovery plan and recovery goals based on the unique characteristics of wolf populations in each geographic area. The separate actions announced today affect the western Great Lakes wolf population, which has been delisted under the ESA, and the proposed delisting of the Northern Rocky Mountains population. Wolves in other parts of the 48 states, including the Southwest wolf population, remain endangered and are not affected by actions taken today.

Western Great Lakes wolves

The Service's removal of the gray wolf from the endangered and threatened species list applies only to the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (DPS). A DPS is a term used in the ESA to describe a significant and discrete population of vertebrate fish and wildlife occurring in a distinct portion of a species' or subspecies' range. In this case, the area includes Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan as well as parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The DPS includes all the areas currently occupied by wolf packs in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as areas in these states in which wolf packs may become established in the future. The DPS also includes surrounding areas into which wolves may disperse but are not likely to establish packs.

When the wolf was first listed as endangered in the 1970s, only a few hundred wolves remained in Minnesota. Recovery criteria outlined in the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan include the assured survival of the gray wolf in Minnesota and a population of 100 or more wolves in Wisconsin/Michigan for a minimum of five consecutive years. The recovery plan identified 1,250 to 1,400 as a population goal for Minnesota. The state's wolf population has been at or above that level since the late 1970s.

The Wisconsin/Michigan wolf population has been above 100 since the winter of 1993-94, achieving the latter numerical goal in the recovery plan.

The region's late winter gray wolf population now numbers approximately 4,000 and occupies portions of Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. Wolf numbers in the three states have exceeded the numerical recovery criteria established in the species' recovery plan.

The Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources have developed plans to guide future wolf management actions. Protection of wolves, control of problem animals, consideration of hunting and trapping, as well as maintenance of the long-term health of the wolf population will be governed by the appropriate state or tribe.

Once a species is removed from Endangered Species Act protection, there are several safeguards to help ensure it continues to thrive, including a mandatory 5-year monitoring period. The Service also has the ability to immediately relist a species on an emergency basis, if monitoring or other data show that is necessary.

The final rule removing gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes DPS from the list of threatened and endangered species will be published in the Federal Register. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication; until that date, gray wolves remain under the protection of the ESA in the western Great Lakes DPS. The rule and other information about the gray wolf may be found at www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf

Northern Rocky Mountain wolves

The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves for three consecutive years, a goal that was attained in 2002 and has been exceeded every year since. The Service believes that with approved state management plans in place in Montana and Idaho, threats to the wolf population will have been reduced or eliminated in those states. The northern Rocky Mountain DPS includes all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north-central Utah.

While the Service has approved wolf management plans in Montana and Idaho, it has determined that Wyoming's state law and wolf management plan are not sufficient to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered northern Rocky Mountain wolf population.

Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall said if Wyoming's plan is not approved before the Service decides a final action on this proposal, the agency would continue to protect wolves under the ESA in the significant portion of their range in northwest Wyoming. This excludes the national parks, which have adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve wolves.

Hall added that the Service could move forward to remove the remainder of the DPS in Montana and Idaho and portions of Wyoming, Washington, Oregon and Utah from the list of threatened and endangered species.

"The Service is committed to ensuring that wolves thrive in the northern Rocky Mountains after they are delisted and will continue to work with the states to ensure this successful recovery is maintained," said Hall. "I look forward, as do all the states that have been involved in wolf recovery, to returning management of the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains to the states."

Comments from the public are encouraged on this proposal to delist the northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves. They can be electronically mailed to [email protected]; hand-delivered to USFWS, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601; or mailed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wolf Delisting, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601. All comments must be received within 60 days of the proposed rule's publication date in the Federal Register. For more information on Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves, visit www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 547 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resources offices and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign and Native American tribal governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.

- FWS-


----------



## M*F (Nov 3, 2006)

Good news!


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

The sooner the better. It is time to start controlling these things before they ruin the ecosystem.


----------



## Labs_4_Life (Jun 22, 2006)

> It is time to start controlling these things before they ruin the ecosystem.


I think we (humans) have already done a pretty darn good job of that. Wolves are just doing what wolves do.


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

That is the same as saying snow geese do what snow geese do. Their population is out of control and they are destroying the tundra grass (their prey if you will) Wolves are unmannaged and their population is out of control and they are causing serious problems with the local prey populations.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Unless wolves are driving prey populations to extinction, they are not harming them. Snow geese are an entire different story and are to the point of causing problems. Maybe if we have a more efficient snow goose predator we could turn things around.

Most people who complain about predators have selfish motives. For some reason people think that we have more of a right to hunt prey animals than a predator does.

You and I hunt for pleasure. I know I don't hunt for the table, because I can buy prime cuts of beef a hell of a lot cheaper than I can hunt wild game for. I hunt because it is an enjoyable pastime. The predator hunts to survive.

We defend hunting by using it as a tool to manage animal populations. If we start limiting predator populations for the sole purpose of creating more prey animals to hunt, we throw this argument out of the window.

In short, we hunt to manage animal populations, we shouldn't manage animal populations for the sole reason of creating large numbers of hunting opportunities.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

I know this is a touchy subject with some but...good post muzzy


----------



## Labs_4_Life (Jun 22, 2006)

> That is the same as saying snow geese do what snow geese do. Their population is out of control and they are destroying the tundra grass (their prey if you will)


I am by no means an expert, but why do you think so many snow geese are surviving and making it back to the breeding grounds each year? In my opinion, it comes right back to us. Farming practices leave an abundance of food for the geese all along their migration route. It's a veritable buffet for them all the way back to the tundra, so the majority of birds are in prime condition for breeding when the arrive.

Yes, the snow geese may be destroying the tundra, but I would claim it's not because they "choose" to do it, but because we have made it possible for them to do it, and they're just doing what snow geese do. I think the same can be said for wolves. Sure, they're running around eating everybody's livestock and deer (as some people claim), but perhaps we should look to ourselves in terms of why this is happening.

Just my two cents worth...I think muzzy brings up some great points as well.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Labs is correct. It has been an issue of discussion among wildlife experts. Supposedly birds are arriving in wintering and breeding grounds in far better condition than they did previous to our farming of the land, improving survival rate dispite hunting. Our "control" of predators has also helped them flourish.

I'd love to see the wolves flourish but their tendency to prey on the "easiest" meal causes some problems. There is a balance somewhere it's just to find it. Unfortunatly to a rancher there is no such thing as a managable number of wolves and they will likely make every effort to wipe out any local populations at the littles provocation.


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

I think the reason that everyone does not see the problem is that you are not informed correctly. I live with these things year round, work with the USDA Wildlife Services Div., and happen to be close friends with guy who is one of the top in the state in working with wolves and grizzly bears. I have trapped these animals for research reasons and have done a good amount of work with them. Much of the information that we turn over is never released by the USFS because it is not what they want. The elk and moose populations are seriously declining. I have pulled many a dead 'moose, elk, cow, sheep etc. out of a field that have not been fed on at all and have been dead for weeks. I have been to elk wintering grounds to do head counts and seen wolf dens and no elk. They are a great animal and they will do what wolves do but any predator that goes unmanaged will become a hazzard. Also, I would like to mention that this has nothing to do with hunting oppurtunities only the good of all the wildlife.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

wyogoose..i think we all know how you feel by your quote at the bottom. :lol: 
And you are right, i think the majority of us in this area don't know what it is like to live with these animals. You have much more insight than us. But, these animals are just that animals..we can't necessarily fault them for doing what they do. On the other side now, i think you are right in that maybe they should be managed in a way that the the numbers are healthy but not out of control. 
dumb question but..what is or is there any sort of compensation to ranchers there that lose livestock to predators? I mean, let's say a cow is killed by a bear..if the gov. gave the rancher say $800 ( i have no idea what they are worth) for each kill, would that lessen the tensions??
I know that is a stupid question..i just don't know how that works.


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

My quote is just a funny saying from a bumper sticker. Ranchers are given a small compensation for when animals are killed but only when the evidence is overwhelming. Often the USFS will blame the kill on other animals. Yes, I have heard them actually say that a 1300 pound cow was killed by a coyote!! Back to the compensation issue I will use your $800 example. Say that a two year old cow is killed by a wolf and you are given the money to pay back for her. However you are not payed for the calves she would have dropped over the next few years and the calves that they would have dropped in their lifetime and so forth. For many ranchers here in Wyoming their living is made from these cattle and when they lose stock their buisness is hurt.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

> Much of the information that we turn over is never released by the USFS because it is not what they want. The elk and moose populations are seriously declining.


Wyogoose please add some factual information to that quote. Also, please show me and everyone else some factual correlation to that quote. If that was indeed true, Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming would have already filed a lawsuit to remove them from the ESA list. The point being that the big game states are going to protect there interests, and that is the selling of out of state licenses to generate substantial amounts of revenue. I just find that extremely hard to believe.


----------



## Labs_4_Life (Jun 22, 2006)

> Say that a two year old cow is killed by a wolf and you are given the money to pay back for her. However you are not payed for the calves she would have dropped over the next few years and the calves that they would have dropped in their lifetime and so forth.


Sorry for my ignorance on this compensation issue, but logic would tell me that if my cow is killed and I am compensated for it, I can then go out and buy another cow, which in turn will drop calves, and so on. So, I guess I'm failing to see why a farmer/rancher would be compensated for the future value of all of the calves that would be dropped. Please correct me if I'm missing something here.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the view point of people who have to deal with wolves and livestock, but I don't think wolves are to blame. As Cesar Millan (The Dog Whisperer) so eloquently put it, "There is no knowledge behind instinct." (i.e., wolves will be wolves, snow geese will be snow geese, bears will be bears, etc.)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There is more emotion going into wolf debates than logic, and in many cases knowledge. I have noticed that the schools and the media have even influenced hunters whether they know it or not. Years ago everyone wanted to kill all the wolves, today many hunters think they are sacred or something. They don't even realize they have been a little brain washed. I know the college wildlife classes today are a lot different than the classes I had in the 1960's. They are not biologically more competent today, but I think they have become emotionally contaminated.

Society will just have to decide what they want. For example this statement was made:


> Unless wolves are driving prey populations to extinction, they are not harming them.


The problem here is long before they are being driven to extinction the populations necessary to support sport hunting will have been depleted. Do we want no hunting at all of deer, elk, etc.? I don't think so. Are we willing to share the resource if it is plentiful? I think most sportsmen are. I know I would like to see as many different species as possible when I hunt in the mountains. Men are capable of controlling deer and elk population through hunting, but most people are willing to share some of that resource, but not all of it. 
If the antihunters get their way the forests would be destroyed by browsing, followed by the herds of animals dying of starvation. I am afraid if the schools keep enforcing the Bambi syndrome that one day sport hunting will end. Then again the wolf will be needed to control populations to preserve the habitat. I get a kick out of people talking about the balance of nature. Through our influence nature no longer balances itself. We as hunters have largely replaced the predators. Without us populations would be boom and bust from plenty to starvation. Replacing us in the ecosystem with the wolf does present a danger to sport hunting beyond the obvious. Antihunters will be right when they go to court and say hunters are not needed to control populations of grazing and browsing animals. I think this will happen in the near future in units surrounding the Yellowstone ecosystem. 
We need to keep predator populations at a reasonable level. Reasonable however means different things to different people. Some will want the wolf to take the place of all hunters, some will want the wolf gone so they have everything to themselves. All of you are entitled to your opinion, but we need to do these things in moderation. Keep in mind the number of elk in any given area, and the number of permits issued. I don't have the numbers for target harvest, but just for the sake of discussion lets say: if wolves reduce the herd by 40% I doubt you will see any hunting permits. I could live with a 25% reduction in permits, but not a 100 % reduction. 
We as hunters want to preserve as natural ecosystem as possible while still enjoying our sport. Therefore we have to be vigilant and not jump on the tree hugger bandwagon our of pure emotion.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Interesting article related to the topic

*State howls over wolf plan*

By *RICHARD HINTON *
Bismarck Tribune

A line that places wolves in western North Dakota under federal protection and wolves in the east under state control is a sore point with the state Game and Fish Department.

"We want the whole state to be in the delisted area," Randy Kreil, NDGFDwildlife division chief, said. "We think (the current plan) is unworkable and doesn't make any sense." Such a change would put wolf management statewide into NDGFD's hands.

The line that separates the wolf management agencies is the Missouri River from South Dakota to Lake Sakakawea, then continuing north on U.S. Highway 83.

The western Great Lakes population of gray wolves, except those west of the line, will be delisted March 10, Jeff Towner, supervisor of the Bismarck field office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said Thursday. The notification first must be published for 30 days in the Federal Register. The USFWS announced the removal Monday.

NDGFDis setting up meetings with the USFWS regional directors from Denver and Minneapolis next month to ask them to come up with a plan "to deal with this abnormality," Kreil said Wednesday.

"I think we share Game andFish's desire to have one management authority for the entire state," said Towner. "And I would think we would work with the state to see how to address that issue."

"The split is uncomfortable with everybody," said Phil Mastrangelo, state director for USDA Wildlife Services, which works with USFWS on handling depredating wolves.

"It doesn't make a lot of sense biologically or politically, but that's the way it is."

Removing the protected status of wolves west of the river and similar areas would require a separate proposal, Towner said.

NDGFD is working on a wolf response and action plan and also will work with Wildlife Services on dealing with depredating wolves, Kreil said. The plan is similar to what is in place for mountain lions.

"If Game and Fish would like our assistance, we certainly will be glad to help them as much as we can," Mastrangelo said Thursday.

In the western half of the state, the USFWS and Wildlife Services would continue to handle depredating wolves, Towner said.

Under its management plan, NDGFD classifies wolves as furbearers with a closed season, Kreil said. That status is the same that black bears and otters have, he added.

Landowners in the eastern half of the state would be allowed to shoot a wolf that was depredating livestock, but the carcass must be handed over to NDGFD for study, Kreil said.

North Dakota is on the periphery of the gray wolf's range and does not have a breeding population, Towner said.

The few wolves seen in the state likely are passing through, Mastrangelo added.

"Every other year, we get a report of livestock depredation. That there's not a reoccurence of the attack leads us to believe it's a transient and moving through the area."

The number of wolves that pass through North Dakota is a mystery.

"We are dealing with small numbers, but they are not something readily seen every day like deer," Mastrangelo said.

(Reach outdoor writer Richard Hinton at 250-8256 or [email protected];bismarcktribune.com.)


----------



## M*F (Nov 3, 2006)

Well put Plainsman!


----------

