The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to develop a rule to delist and/or downlist the gray wolf from the endangered species act.  This potentially applies to all the wolf populations in the United States outside Alaska. The wolf in Alaska has never been on the endangered species list. Most likely it will delist the wolf in the mid-west and Great Lakes states.

In the Rocky Mountains, it will probably change the status of naturally-occurring gray wolves from "endangered" to "threatened."

It is stated that the rule will not apply to the reintroduced "experimental non-essential" wolf populations in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.  Because it does not apply to them, then the only wolves "on the ground" in the Rocky Mountains to which it will apply will be the self-restored wolves of Montana and extreme northern Idaho. These wolves are currently classified as "endangered," but in fact they are managed, and always have been managed in a fashion that is almost identical to the "experimental wolves."

I will not comment on the wolves in the Great Lakes, except to say in terms of numbers there are clearly enough wolves in Minnesota to support complete delisting.

In Montana, recovery of the "native wolves" is clearly in a pause and has perhaps stalled out. There are fewer wolves there today than just two years ago when their numbers approached 100.  Today there are from 75 to 90 wolves in Montana outside of the "experimental population area."

Two reasons for this "pause/stall" are 1. the deer populations are down due to the severe winter of 1996-7 and also perhaps to habitat loss -- the rampant sub-division of Montana that is occurring. 2. Alberta and British Columbia just to the north have become "black holes" for wolves in Montana.  There is much good wolf habitat just north of the border, but these two provinces give the wolf little protection.  Thus, Montana "American" wolves migrate north, and many of them are then deliberately killed.

It is also possible that the wolves in Montana are not distributed into the best habitat. Unlike in central Idaho and Yellowstone, where wolves were reintroduced into many of the best possible locations, in Montana the wolves settled into areas by random exploration. Areas of good habitat and little human conflict such as the huge Bob Marshall/Great Bear/Scapegoat wilderness complex, have few to no wolves. Wolves do not naturally find the best habitat.  A classic example is the Yellowstone wolves. They have yet to discover the 15,000 to 20,000 Jackson Hole elk herd.

Although the "devil is in the details,"  I see little practical effect on current wolves from changing the status of Montana wolves outside of experimental area from "endangered" to "threatened."  However, this change should not be justified on the basis that Montana wolves are doing so well, because after a number of years of expansion, they population is static to declining, and it is no where near the required recovered status of ten pairs of wolves raising litters for three successive years. Thus, the statement in notice below that "naturally occurring wolves in the Rocky Mountains have increased and may warrant reclassification from 'endangered' to 'threatened' status" is simply not so unless one considers the size of the population more than five years ago.

The big dangers in all this are 1. that the "ten pairs with pups" goal will be weakened, and the U.S. government will settle for a token wolf population in Montana outside of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. 2. Downlisting could be used to squelch proposals to restore the wolf to the states of Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Utah, where there may be sufficient habitat for wild wolves.

The proposal has been cautiously praised by the National Wildlife Federation. Here is their news release. I have not read of the reaction of other groups, but I will link to them when I do.

After delisting-
When a wolf population is delisted, it will be managed by the states or other public entities such as Indian tribes.

In Idaho and Wyoming the state governments have shown no interest in managing a recovered population of wolves. It has been my conclusion after watching public opinion in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming since the wolves were reintroduced, that aggregate public opinion has changed hardly at all. Nor can can I see much change among local politicians.

This is the beginning of a long process-
All that has been announced is the beginning of a process. This rule-making process will begin this coming winter and public opinion will be solicited for an extended period. Of course, I will try and keep folks informed.

The biggest political dangers/opportunities for wolves is not this beginning of delisting/downlisting.  It is the congressional election of 1998. We should keep our eyes on that election.

Here is the announcement of the proposal:

GRAY WOLF RECOVERY
 NATIONAL INFORMATION REPORT

To:  All Interested Parties- Please distribute
From:  Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, Helena, MT 6/29/98

Subject: Reclassification and Delisting of the Gray Wolf, June 29, 1998

1. Today the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Jamie Clark announced that during the next several months the Service will be considering whether the gray wolf has recovered to the point that it can be removed from the list of endangered species in some areas of its historic range and reclassified to threatened status in other areas.

2. The Service plans to develop and publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register on this issue sometime this winter and to solicit extensive public input.

3. Wolf populations in the Great Lakes region exceed recovery goals.  Delisting may be appropriate for wolves in the Midwest and portions of the East.

4. Naturally occurring wolves in the Rocky Mountains have increased and may warrant reclassification from "endangered" to "threatened" status.

5. Wolves reintroduced to the Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho experimental population areas are classified as experimental.  The special rules for these wolves will remain in effect.  The ongoing litigation over the Service's use of the experimental designation will be unaffected by the proposed change in wolf's status outside the experimental areas.

6. The Northeast U.S. offers promising potential for gray wolf recovery.  Wolves there may continue to need the protection of the Endangered Species Act.  The Service will consider whether reclassification to "threatened" status might be appropriate to further recovery efforts.

7. Important conservation measures have been taken for Mexican wolves but they have not yet recovered enough to be delisted or reclassified.

8. The status of the red wolf, a separate species, will not change.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION- The Service has established a mailing list that will be used to alert interested parties of the status of the gray wolf and the progress being made to reclassify and delist it.  Individuals or organizations can join this effort by either writing to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Gray Wolf Review, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056, or by e-mail to graywolfmail@mail.fws.gov or calling the Gray Wolf Line at 612-713-7337.  In addition the Service will post information on the wolf and potential changes in federal protection on the web at  http://www.fws.gov/r3pao/wolf/

For further information about the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains call (406)449-5225, Ed Bangs (x204) or Joe Fontaine (x206).

---