Listed as endangered in 1974, wolves were one of the first species to be placed on the Endangered Species Act formed in 1973. Recently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) put the finishing touches on decreasing the protections of gray wolves in the lower 48 states. With this comes a new status for wolves, in most of the Unites States they are now listed as threatened, rather than endangered.

In planning for this downlisting, the USFWS created three Distinct Population Segments, (see map at http://midwest.fws.gov/wolf/fnl-rule/status-map.pdf) essentially grouping populations of already existing wolves with territories where they have yet to make their comeback, and without essential protections most will have a difficult (if not impossible) time doing just that.

The Western DPS includes Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, northern Colorado and northern Utah. These are also the nine states where the USFWS plans to completely delist wolves at this time next year. There are currently about 664 wolves in this DPS, most if not all existing in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming mainly as a result of the reintroductions in 1995 and 1996. The Eastern DPS includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine. The Great Lakes region holds this segment's only wolf population with about 2,400 in Minnesota, 320 in Wisconsin and 280 in Michigan. That leaves the Southwestern DPS that includes Arizona, New Mexico, southern Colorado, southern Utah and portions of western Texas, western Oklahoma and Mexico. Existing wolves in these states are limited to the Mexican Wolf population of New Mexico and Arizona where there are around 40 currently in the wild. Wolves in the Western and Eastern DPS (including 27 states and portions of 2 others) are now classified as threatened (except for the experimental populations in Yellowstone and Central Idaho), however, wolves in the Southern DPS continue to be listed as endangered, except for the reintroduced Mexican wolves who retain their experimental/non-essential status. Wolves are not listed in the southeastern states because they were not historically surviving there. The 75-100 red wolves, a separate species, in North Carolina remain endangered. Wolves have never been considered threatened or endangered in Alaska.

Although wolves are indeed recovering, downlisting is not the victory USFWS is claiming it is. Wolves are not recovered in a significant portion (as the ESA states) of their native territories. The nearly 4,000 wolves in the US survive in only 2% of their historic range. Two percent is not significant. The greatest negative impact will be in those states, which contain excellent wolf habitat that is currently void of wolves. This includes Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada and Utah, among others. The USFWS is saying that wolves are no longer endangered in states where they don't even exist. There are credible scientific studies to show that additional western states could successfully provide territory for up to 1,600 wolves. USFWS is aware of these studies and the existence of empty native wolf territories; however, they have crushed those plans of possible recovery efforts or a successful natural relocation with the drop in protection. Similarly, scientific studies have shown that the North Woods of Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont could support nearly 2,000 wolves. Without protections, these viable territories could remain void of wolves, except for an occasional drifter who will likely become the victim (legally) of a rancher's bullet.

What does this reduction in protections truly mean to the immediate future of the gray wolf? Killing an "endangered" wolf is punishable by fines and even jail; killing a "threatened" wolf is allowed (in the western US) if it is killing livestock or pets. Special provisions, or 4(d) rules allow for differing control actions. In the Eastern DPS, the 4(d) rule states that only state and tribal agents can kill wolves, private citizens cannot lethally control wolves. However, the 4(d) rule in the entire Western DPS (except for the experimental/non-essential populations) now allow the general public to shoot and kill wolves attacking livestock or pets on private land, without a permit. The rule also allows private citizens to obtain permits to shoot wolves that go after livestock on public land. The special 4(d) rule also allows for harassment by private citizens without a permit. Some state laws do not allow this type of management of wolves, however, federal law supersedes state law. This poses yet another problem with the downlisting. By making it legal for livestock producers and landowners to lethally control wolves on their private land without a permit, simply puts twice the amount of control on the ground and in the air for wolves to contend with. This scene is one we all know well, more dead wolves. According to USFWS, 5% of the population is taken each year due to lethal control. Will this number now increase to 10% with ranchers claiming just as many, or possibly more? That could be up to 70 wolves killed in the northern Rockies each year. Under the threatened classification, wolves in the Western DPS can be shot and killed by ranchers on private land if they are caught in the act of killing livestock. On public land, however, a permit (basically a free hunting license) will have to be obtained before actually taking a wolves life. If landowners are given the legal "go-ahead" to shoot wolves, why should the federal government continue their lethal control too? After all, Wildlife Services and the USFWS claim that they kill wolves because of complaints by ranchers and landowners due to depredations. Since the ranchers won the right to use lethal control and also be allowed to harass wolves by firing rubber bullets and even small mortars, they should also be responsible for solving their own problems on their land. In addition, should ranchers continue to be compensated for losses due to threatened wolves? Livestock producers have all the power they have been asking for now and the resources to take care of their property, livestock and livelihood. Compensation should stop when control was handed over to private landowners. Take care of your possessions without penalty, but don't ask for a handout if you can't do what you have been wanting all along.

It does seem strange that in the Eastern DPS where there are nearly 3,000 wolves, it will remain illegal for private citizens to kill wolves, however in the Western DPS where not even 700 wolves survive, a permit isn't required to kill a wolf preying on livestock. The Fish and Wildlife Service says the downgraded status of the gray wolf is just a preliminary step to delisting it altogether. More likely, the agency's premature downlisting is going to reverse the wolf's progress and push it back to the levels of extinction.

Read the final rule.

Downlisting/Delisting...whats the difference?