Wolves of Western Great Lakes No Longer Endangered, Fish and Wildlife Service Declares in Final Rules

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined, in final rules, that the gray wolves of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan no longer meet the definition of threatened and endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The gray wolf has been protected since 1974, though initially called the eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon). In 1978, the gray wolf species was listed as endangered throughout the lower 48 states and Mexico, except in Minnesota where it was classified as threatened.

In 2010, the Service received petitions from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requesting delisting of wolves in the states. Additional petitions to this effect were received from Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association of America. The Service acknowledged that there were factors supporting these petitions.

The delisting covers the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (DPS), shown in the map. (Double click on images to enlarge.) The final rules were published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2011 (71 Fed. Reg. 81666). The proposal to remove wolves in most of the eastern U.S. from coverage under the Endangered Species Act was described in a blog last May. The proposed delisting of wolves in Wyoming was discussed last October.

Classification of Western Great Lakes Wolves

The Service’s December 2011 release describes the various scientific classifications that have been proposed regarding wolves in the western Great Lakes:

1. A subspecies of gray wolf, Canis lupus lycaon.
2. A second subspecies, Canis lupus nubilis.
3. A wolf population that has interbred with coyotes.
4. A separate species, Canis lycaon (distinguished from Canis lupus).
5. Same as red wolf, Canis rufus, or a hybrid between the red wolf and the gray wolf.
6. A mixed population including various species and hybrids.

All of these possibilities have received support from various groups of scientists in the last ten years. Body and skull measurements were primarily used for classification in earlier studies, while DNA analysis dominates in more recent research. DNA research has supported various classification hypotheses. A particularly influential study was that of vonHoldt et al. (2011), which found that the Great Lakes wolf is a “highly admixed” variety derived from gray wolves, with some coyote hybridization. David Mech, a peer reviewer of the proposal, is quoted in the release regarding the current status of the argument that the wolves in the area are a separate species:

“Although it is true that at the writing of the proposed rule, it seemed like considerable evidence had accumulated supporting the existence of the separate species, Canis lycaon, or the eastern wolf, the vonHoldt et al. (2011) article published since adds enough doubt as to question that proposition. At the least, the vonHoldt et al. (2011) article evinces that there is not consensus by the pertinent scientific community about the existence of C. lycaon and therefore about the original range of C. lupus.”

Some of the research cited by the Service is not yet in print, including a manuscript by Service employees (Chambers et al.) which concludes that the eastern wolf is most probably not a subspecies but a full species, Canis lycaon. Despite acknowledging this possibility, the Service at present continues to recognize Canis lupus as the only species occurring in the western Great Lakes. Within this species determination, the Service notes that genetic research indicates the wolves of the area “are mostly of the same genetic makeup.” Wheeldon & White (2009); Fain et al. (2010).

Sizes of Wolf Populations

Probably anticipating opposition from conservation groups (which so far does not seem to be materializing), the Service makes a considerable effort to distinguish its actions from much less conservation-minded Canadian policies. The release notes that there are an estimated 4,000 wolves in Manitoba, which may be hunted nearly everywhere in the province from August 31 to March 31, and may be trapped about half the year. There are about 8,850 wolves in Ontario, with hunting and trapping permitted year-round in much of the province.

There is no doubt that wolf populations in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have been increasing, or at least staying constant. The table shows minimum winter wolf populations of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The size of the population in Minnesota has remained most stable (though a census is not taken annually in the state), which the release explains as due to the fact that wolves “have successfully colonized most, perhaps all, suitable habitat in Minnesota.”

Wisconsin’s Bureau of Endangered Resources, within the Department of Natural Resources, issued a report in September 2011 describing the recovery of the state’s wolf populations, including the graph below. Wydeven et al. (2011).

Environments in Which Wolves Can Survive

The release describes the environments in which wolves now live as follows:

“A common misconception is that wolves inhabit only remote pristine forests or mountainous areas, where human developments and other activities have produced negligible change to the natural landscape. Their extirpation south of Canada and Alaska, except for the heavily forested portions of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced this popular belief. However, the primary reason wolves survived in those areas was not because of habitat conditions, but, rather, because remote areas were sufficiently free of the human persecution that elsewhere killed wolves faster than the species could reproduce [citing Mech (1995)].

“In the western Great Lakes region, wolves in the densely forested northeastern corner of Minnesota have expanded into the more agricultural portions of central and northwestern Minnesota, northern and central Wisconsin, and the entire UP [upper peninsula] of Michigan. Habitats currently being used by wolves span the broad range from the mixed hardwood-coniferous forest wilderness area of northern Minnesota, through sparsely settled but similar habitats in Michigan’s UP and northern Wisconsin, and into more intensively cultivated and livestock-producing portions of central and northwestern Minnesota and central Wisconsin.”

Road density has been shown to be “the best predictor of habitat suitability.” When road density is greater than 0.9 to 1.1 linear miles per square mile, wolves will not maintain breeding packs in the area. See Wydeven (2001). Other factors important for suitable habitat are human density, prey base, and size of the area. White-tailed deer density is important for wolves in the western Great Lakes. The Service concludes that for the foreseeable future, there should be adequate protection of suitable land, some of which is federal and state property and some of which is used commercial for logging.

Livestock Depredation

One downside of increased wolf populations is that more livestock will be killed by wolves. In Michigan, wolves were only verified to have killed three animals in 1998, but this rose to 46 in 2010. Naturally, this will increase the number of legal and illegal kills of wolves. For a study of risk mapping of livestock depredation from gray wolves, see Treves et al. (2011).

Comments on Proposed Rules

When delisting was proposed in May 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service requested comments, and received over 800, 24 of which were from nongovernmental organizations with various interests. Some scientists, including David Mech, agreed that delisting in some areas was supported by the data. Environmental groups were particularly concerned with delisting by reclassification, an issue discussed here in May.

Conclusion

Although the wolf populations of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have significantly increased, in many areas reaching stable levels, it must be hoped that federal protection can be resumed in the event that state, tribal, and other authorities do not pick up or continue their responsibilities to protect wolves. Given anti-regulation biases at most government levels in the U.S. today, and a public that is increasingly intolerant of any regulation perceived as threatening ancient rights, including hunting and trapping rights, despite the massive environmental changes introduced by humans, the long range protection of the wolves may not be as solid as the Fish and Wildlife Service would have us believe. A different administration, or maybe even this one, may not allow the Service to get back into the wolf preservation business even if it becomes necessary. It must also be questioned whether the Service would have the stomach for the inevitable political fight, something not evident in its wolf rulings in recent years.

Sources:
1. Chambers, S.M., Fain, S.R., Fazio, B., and Amaral, M. in prep. (2012) An Account of the Taxonomy of North American Wolves from Morphological and Genetic Analysis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2. Fain, S.R., Straughan, D.J.,and Taylor, B.F. (2010). Genetic Outcome of Wolf Recovery in the Western Great Lakes States. Conservation Genetics. DOI 10.1007/s 10592-0068-x.
3. Mech,L.D. (1995). The Challenge and Opportunity of Recovering Wolf Populations. Conservation Biology, 9(2), 270-278.
4. Treves, A., Martin, K.A., Wydeven, A.P. and Wiedenhoeft, J.E. (2011). Forecasting Environmental Hazards and the Application of Risk Maps to Predator Attacks on Livestock. Bioscience, 61(6), 451-8.
5. vonHoldt, B.M., Pollinger, J.P., Earl, D.A., Knows, J.C., Boyko, A.R., Parker, H., Geffen, E., Pilot, M., Jedrzejewski, W., Jedrzejewska, B., Sidorovich, V., Greco, C., Randi, E., Musiani, M., Kays, R., Bustamante, C.D., Ostrander, E.A., Novembre, J., and Wayne, R.K. (2011). A Genome-Wide Perspective on the Evolutionary History of Enigmatic Wolf-Like Canids. Genome Research, 21, 1294-1305. For particularly good graphics relating to this paper, one of the authors, Roland Kays, has posted a slide show.
6. Wheeldon, T. and White, B.N. (2009). Genetic Analysis of Historical Western Great Lakes Region Wolf Samples Reveals early Canis lupus/ lycaon Hybridization. Biology Letters, 5, 101-104.
7. Wydeven, A.P., Mladenoff, D.J., Sickley, T.A., Kohn, B.E., Thiel, R.P., and Hansen, J.L. (2001). Road Density as a Factor in Habitat Selection by Wolves and Other Carnivores in the Great Lakes Region. Endangered Species UPDATE, 18(4), 110-114.
8. Wydeven, A.P., Wiedenhoeft, J.E., Schultz, R.N., Bruner, J.E., Thiel, R.P., Boles, S.R., and Windsor, M.A. (2011). Wisconsin Endangered Resources Report #141: Status of the Timber Wolf in Wisconsin. Bureau of Endangered Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, Wisconsin.

Thanks to L.E. Papet, Eric Krieger, and Yva Momatiuk for additional sources and thoughts.

Wolves May Lose Federal Protection in 29 States

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to substantially reduce North American wolf protection by declaring all or parts of 29 eastern states as not being in the historical range of the gray wolf, thereby removing those areas from the application of the Endangered Species Act as to gray wolves.

The 29 states (or parts of states) where gray wolves will no longer protected, if the regulatory change is made final, are Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and parts of Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Indiana, and Illinois.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is not saying that there are no wolves in those 29 states, or that they are no longer endangered, but is rather determining that the wolves that belong in those areas are not, and never were, gray wolves (except where gray wolf populations have spread beyond their historical range). The wolves in those areas are now to be denominated eastern wolves or eastern timber wolves.

Rather than automatically allowing eastern wolves to pick up the protection previously given to the mistakenly denominated gray wolves in the areas, the agency has decided to spend some time studying the issue before giving any protection to eastern wolves. While it must be hoped that study will lead to action, it is by no means certain that the federal government really has the well-being of wolves, gray, eastern, or otherwise, as its primary goal. There are indications that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been compromising protection of wolves in an effort to placate politicians who would delist gray wolves almost everywhere (but certainly in their own districts).

This rather facile way of disenfranchising so many wolf populations is made possible through the Fish and Wildlife Service's acceptance of the conclusion of some scientists that Canis lupus lycaon, the eastern wolf, should no longer be a subspecies of the gray wolf, but should now be treated as a separate species, Canis lycaon. The two categories interbreed, resulting of mixed populations that include hybrids. Though not all scientists agree, there is genomic evidence for the distinction the Fish and Wildlife Service is now making. See Wilson et al.(2003). The Service says that it will evaluate this species for possible protection under the Endangered Species Act “in the near future.”

States and tribes may also protect wolves, but the mood in most states is not to protect wolves but to hunt them, though some tribes are much more charitable to our ancient shadow. The wolves might well ask why we don’t stay in our historical range and stop pushing them out of theirs. Road density has been found to be inversely correlated with the density of wolf populations. See Mech et al. (1988). If roads become dense enough, wolves disappear. Human population growth is a great enemy of wildlife outside of zoos.

There is a long history to this, the early stages of which the Fish and Wildlife Service summarizes as follows:

“European settlers in the Midwest attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely in earlier times, and the U.S. Congress passed a wolf bounty that covered the Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties on wolves subsequently became the norm for States across the species’ range. In Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty became the ninth law passed by the First Michigan Legislature; this bounty remained in place until 1960. A Wisconsin bounty was instituted in 1865 and was repealed about the time wolves were extirpated from the State in 1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf bounty until 1965.”

The plate above, from the early 15th century book on hunting by Gaston Phoebus, shows a way of trapping wolves used in the middle ages. Variations of such horrors are used even now.

In 1967, the Department of the Interior listed as endangered the eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon) in the Great Lakes region (32 Fed. Reg. 4001, March 11, 1967), followed by listing the subspecies in the northern Rocky Mountains (Canis lupus irremotus) in 1973 (38 Fed. Reg. 14678, June 4, 1973). In 1976, the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) was listed (41 Fed. Reg. 1740, April 28, 1976), as was the Texas gray wolf (Canis lupus monstrabilis) (41 Fed. Reg. 24064, June 14, 1976). In 1978, the Department realized that the entire species was endangered throughout the lower 48 states (43 Fed. Reg. 9607, March 9, 1978), except for Minnesota.

The eastern wolf, now sometimes recognized as a separate species (Canis lycaon), occupied the northeastern United States, while the red wolf (Canis rufus) was found in the southeastern United States. The extent of the range of the gray wolf, and the overlap of ranges of wolf species and subspecies, has been debated for at least 65 years, going back to the early studies of Young and Goldman. Genomic studies have placed more precision on range boundaries, and have indicated that the gray wolf did not occur in the eastern United States.

To be fair, the wolf populations in some states, such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have grown under the Endangered Species Act. From 1,000 to 1,200 wolves in Minnesota in 1976, there are now around 3,000. Wisconsin has gone from a negligible population of about 34 in 1990 to nearly 700, and Michigan has gone from 10 in 1990 to nearly 600. The animals are also more widely distributed than they were a few decades ago, but the populations of Wisconsin and Michigan remain small.

Illegally shooting and trapping wolves continues, but the Fish and Wildlife Service notes that because such killings “generally occur in remote locations and the evidence is easily concealed, we lack reliable estimates of annual rates of intentional killings.” In the Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, there were around 20 wolves before managed and illegal shootings reduced the number to six in 1999. This has grown to between 10 and 12 in recent years. In Wisconsin, the percentage of wolf mortality attributable to illegal killing varies considerably from year to year. In 2006, illegal killing accounted for 67% of all mortality, only 19% in 2007, 23% in 2008, 62% in 2009, and 38% in 2010.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has gathered federal, state, and tribal representatives to review overall wolf strategy with a view to (in the Service’s own words):

1. Promote and sustain wolf recovery.
2. Comply with requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
3. Minimize the regulatory burden on the states, tribes, and the general public.
4. Facilitate state and tribal management of wolves.
5. Minimize wolf-human conflicts.
6. Promote public acceptance of wolf listing and recovery actions.

The first of these policy objectives is good for the wolves but, one way or another, the remaining ones amount to bureaucratic fudging, which no wolf should trust. An exception involves tribal management. The Service describes protective efforts and policies of tribes, nations, and regional subgroups, including the Ojibwe (Chippewa), Odawa, Ho-Chunk, Menominee, the Keweenaw Bay Community (a band of the Chippewa), and others.

Just because the Fish and Wildlife Service wants to cut loose the eastern wolf (even if only temporarily), this does not mean that it will succeed. Certain groups, such as Defenders of Wildlife, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Humane Society of the United States, have taken on the Department of Interior’s attempt to delist wolves before, and have sometimes won. In Humane Society of the U.S. v. Kempthorne, for instance, the federal district court of the District of Columbia asked how the Service could delist a population within a larger listed group. On this questioning of its authority, the Service became rather defensive and got the Solicitor General of the Department of the Interior to issue a memo in support its authority to revise lists to “reflect recent determinations.” The Service cites this memo as the basis for other actions it has taken towards delisting and will undoubtedly continue to cite it if a lawsuit is brought on its delisting of a large part of the wolf population of the U.S.

Sources: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Eastern United States, Initiation of Status Reviews for the Gray Wolf and for the Eastern Wolf (Canis lycaon), 76 Fed. Reg. 26086 (May 5, 2011)(revising 50 CFR 17.11, the present version of which (p. 25 of the pdf) lists the gray wolf's habitat as the coterminous (lower 48) states with certain exceptions); Young, S.PL. and Goldman, E.A., Wolves of North America (Dover Publications 1944); Wilson, P.J., Grewal, S., McFadden, T., Chambers, R.C., and White, B.N. (2003). Mitochondrial DNA Extracted from Eastern North American Wolves Killed in the 1800s Is Not of Gray Wolf Origin. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81(5), 936-940; Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008) ; See Mech et al. (1988) Wolf Distribution and Road Density in Minnesota, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 16, 85-87; Defenders of Wildlife v. Secretary of the Interior, 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005); National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D.C. Vt. 2005); Humane Society v. Kempthorne, 481 F.Supp.2d 53 (D. D.C. 2006); Defenders of Wildlife v. Tuggle, 607 F.Supp.2d 1095 (D. Az. 2009) (Mexican wolf); Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mt. 2010); New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Defenders of Wildlife, 1999 WL 34797509 (D. N.M. 1999).

One website that continues to follow wolf issues closely is Wolfwatcher.com.