by David Tucker
Last month marked the latest chapter in the wolf wars of the West saga, a history punctuated by massacres, lawsuits, acts of Congress and political horse-trading. On February 7, the Western Environmental Law Center notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of their intent to sue in response to the “not warranted” decision regarding the relisting of western gray wolves as an endangered species.
In publishing the proposed rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service noted that “after a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial data, we find that gray wolves within the [Northern Rocky Mountains] area do not, on their own, represent a valid listable entity,” and concluded that “the gray wolf in the Western United States … does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species.”
Since its reintroduction to the Northern Rockies in 1995, the gray wolf has been a political hot potato that hasn’t cooled off. Based on the success of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan, this nearly eradicated species made an impressive comeback, establishing packs throughout Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, and more recently returning to eastern Oregon and Washington, California and Colorado. As far as conservation stories go, many say this one has been a triumph.
In fact, the plan’s results were so impressive that the Fish and Wildlife Service removed wolves from the endangered species list in 2009, though wildlife biologists and regional environmentalists disagreed with the action at the time, and subsequent relistings and delistings throughout the 2010s speak to the contentiousness of the ongoing issue.
Central to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination is the conclusion that the wolf population will avoid regional extirpation within the next 100 years.
As it stands now, the Fish and Wildlife Service considers the Northern Rocky Mountain and Western gray wolf populations adequately recovered. Central to the agency’s determination is the conclusion that the wolf population will avoid regional extirpation within the next 100 years, one metric by which they measure a species’ suitability.
According to the Endangered Species Act, five factors are considered when making this assessment: “the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.”
“According to our analysis … wolves in the Western United States are projected to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity, increased human-caused mortality, potential disease events, and changing environmental conditions,” Fish and Wildlife Service officials wrote in the proposed rule. (Agency representatives declined additional comment for this article.)
Environmental groups represented in the potential lawsuit balk at the determination, believing the Fish and Wildlife Service has performed an inadequate analysis, defying their own “best available science” mandate. In their notice of intent to sue, lawyers for the Western Environmental Law Center argue that “the Service’s not warranted finding largely ignores and/or misinterprets and misconstrues the best available science on the Western U.S. gray wolf population in at least two primary ways,” alleging the agency failed to consider relevant genetic diversity research and population size studies.
“We contend [the Fish and Wildlife Service] didn’t consider all of the best available science,” said Mike Garrity, executive director with the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, “mainly by Dr. [Robert] Crabtree and Dr. [Scott] Creel that questions the estimate for number of wolves in the Northern Rockies.”
Currently in Wyoming, wolves are considered a predator species that can be shot on sight in 85 percent of the state.
While the determination remains in effect, states continue to administer wolf management within their respective jurisdictions, as they do for other wildlife species not listed as endangered. Currently in Wyoming, wolves are considered a predator species that can be shot on sight in 85 percent of the state, while hunting and trapping quotas have been established in Idaho and Montana. As of March 3 of this year, 283 of the 313-wolf quota had been harvested since the season opened on September 2, 2023.
In its proposed rule filing, the Fish and Wildlife Service considered these existing regulatory mechanisms adequate enough to ensure the gray wolf does not go extinct regionally. Wolf advocates, however, disagree. “We contend there [are not adequate mechanisms], as evidenced by the massive killing going on in Northern Rockies states,” Garrity added.
The intent to sue notice gives the Fish and Wildlife Service 60 days to reassess their findings and reissue a determination. While Garrity isn’t optimistic about that outcome, he is confident that science is on the side of the wolves. “Our attorneys think we have a good case,” Garrity said. “We won in 2012, overturning delisting, and there are less wolves now.”
For now, advocates await a response from the agency while preparing for the next chapter in this ongoing legal odyssey.
Mountain Journal is the only nonprofit, public-interest journalism organization of its kind dedicated to covering the wildlife and wild lands of Greater Yellowstone. We take pride in our work, yet to keep bold, independent journalism free, we need your support. Please donate here. Thank you.
