Delisting the Gray Wolf

On 2/21/08, the Bush administration announced the plan to delist gray wolves from ESA. This decision will affect the population living in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The spokesperson from the Department of the Interior claimed that the gray wolves have rebounded in the area and no longer need protection.

Since the re-introduction of 66 animals into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-1990s, the wolf population in the area has grown to 1500 with at least 100 breeding pairs in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

When the Rocky Mountain population was added to ESA in 1994, the recovery target was set to a minimum of 30 breeding pairs and a minimum of 300 individual wolves for at least three consecutive years. In 2002, the objective was achieved and the population has expanded since.

Despite the impressive recovery, biologists indicated that the current population is not sufficient to make a genetically sound population; they suggested that 2000 to 3000 animals are needed to maintain a stable population.

Due to the pressure from ranchers and landowners whose properties and livestock occupy the wolves’ range, states are planning to allow hunting of the animals once they are delisted from ESA. According to some sources, the target population set by the three states is as low as 450 animals. Since the late 1980s, 724 wolves have been killed legally due to livestock conflict. Obviously, delisting the animal will allow easier wolf hunts and may very well imperil the animal once again in the region.

Once a popular species, the gray wolf was nearly wiped out in the West through a government eradication program in the 1930’s. Because of the successful recovery program in the 1990’s, the gray wolf is becoming a troublesome species again. The cycle of hunt-recovery-hunt seems to be the fate of the gray wolf.

The ‘population thinning’ plans troubled several environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Defenders of Wildlife and Earthjustice. As a result, a lawsuit is planned to reverse the delisting decision.

According to the language in the ESA, the Secretary should make determination “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the status of the species”. To justify the challenge against delisting, the plaintiffs charge the following against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) in their petition:
1. The recovery plan’s goals lack scientific basis and justification – due to the lack of any presentation of scientific literature to support the proposed recovery goal, the recovery plan is fallacious.
2. The recovery plan’s goals ignored the best available science – the evaluation process used to establish the recovery plan contained bias and did not represent best science.
3. Significant scientific objections were ignored during the survey of the recovery goals – the “peer review” process, i.e. opinion survey of biologists, in determining the recovery goals indicated scientific disagreements with FWS’s opinion. Regardless of the numerous conflicting scientific opinions, FWS adhered to its decision in setting the recovery goals.
4. Current recovery goals ignore the best available science – this violates the ESA requirement in seeking the “best scientific data” in making determination.

It is not surprising to hear that federal officials said their science was sound. Actually, what is the definition of “best scientific data”? Frankly, this debate is more on normative judgment than actual science. Biologists can estimate what is a healthy population size for the survival of the wolf. However, if wolves’ existence implies financial risks to people, it will be the policymakers’ responsibility in determining the societal balance between the interest of the beast and the interest of man.