Reintroduction of Wolves

Robert J. Noecker
Analyst in Natural Resources
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

August 1, 1997

97-747 ENR

Summary

Prior to European settlement, wolves ranged over most of North America, from central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean. Systematic eradication programs aimed at top predators, in addition to habitat loss and over-hunting of prey populations, had eliminated wolves from most of the contiguous United States by the 1940s. The listing of wolves as an endangered species in 1967 bolstered official efforts to restore viable populations to remaining areas of suitable habitat. A primary focus of these efforts was the Northern Rocky Mountain region. Despite controversy over wolves' impact on livestock and game populations, and land-use restrictions, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has successfully reintroduced gray wolves into central Idaho and the Yellowstone Park area. The FWS also has reintroduced the red wolf in the Southeast, and is developing reintroduction plans for the Mexican gray wolf in the Southwest, the gray wolf in Olympic National Park, Washington, and the eastern timber wolf in the Northeast. Ranching and hunting interests remain largely opposed to the return of wolves, while many in the scientific and environmental communities have been supportive These controversies, to date, have been played out in Congress primarily through amendments to appropriations bills.

 

Background

 

Two species of wolves exist in North America; the gray wolf, Canis lupus, and the red wolf, Canis rufus. The historic range of the gray wolf included most of North America, from central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean, except for red wolf habitat in the southeastern United States. As European settlement expanded into wolf habitat, interactions between wolves and humans became more frequent. Several effects of this settlement played an important role in the decline of wolf populations. First was the clearing of forest habitat in the eastern United States. This was accompanied by a significant over-hunting of ungulate (e.g., deer and elk) populations, the preferred prey of the wolf. Lastly, as settlers turned to raising livestock, fear of depredation led to eradication programs that poisoned, trapped, and shot remaining wolf populations. In 1914, Congress authorized funding for the removal of all large predators, including wolves, from federal lands. By the 1940s, humans had eliminated red and gray wolves from almost all of their historic range in the contiguous 48 states.

Federal Protection and Recovery Planning

In 1967, the timber wolf subspecies Canis lupus lycaon, was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (32 Federal Register 4001). Following the passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Secretary of the Interior also listed the northern Rocky Mountain subspecies, C 1. irremotus, and the Texas subspecies, C. 1. monstrabilis, as endangered (38 FR 14678). In 1978, the Secretary clarified the legal and taxonomic confusion that arose from these listings by designating the Minnesota population of wolves as threatened and all other North American gray wolf populations south of Canada as endangered, without reference to subspecies (43 F.R. 9607).

In 1975, the FWS appointed the Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Team to develop a plan to provide for the regional recovery and eventual delisting of the gray wolf. In 1978, the team identified three areas - central Idaho, northwestern Montana, and the Yellowstone National Park area - as having habitat characteristics suitable to sustain wolf populations. The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan, approved in 1987, stipulated that each of the three recovery areas must maintain a minimum of 10 breeding pairs for three consecutive years in order for FWS to consider delisting wolves in this region. This would provide for a population of approximately 300 wolves. The plan recommended natural recovery (i.e., immigration from Canada) for Idaho and Montana, and reintroduction into Yellowstone using the experimental-population authority of § 10(j) of the ESA. (See section below on "experimental populations".) If two wolf packs did not become established in central Idaho within five years, then reintroduction could be considered for this area.

In 1988, the Interior Appropriations Conference Committee reported that the return of the wolf to Yellowstone was desirable, and earmarked $200,000 for the National Park Service (NPS) and FWS to study: (1) whether wolves would be controlled either within or outside of Yellowstone; (2) how reintroduced wolves may affect the prey base and big game hunting in the Yellowstone region; (3) whether a reintroduced population would harm or benefit grizzly bears in the vicinity of Yellowstone; and (4) the clarification of wolf management zone boundaries (H.Rept. 100-862).

From 1989 to the present, the Interior Appropriations Acts have allocated amounts ranging from no earmarked funds (FY1993) to $498,000 (FY1992) specifically for the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone and central Idaho. Congress has often restricted recovery funds by, for example, limiting their use to further study of wolves without the development of a formal environmental impact statement (EIS) (FY1990), or by preventing any of the funds from being used to reintroduce wolves (FYl994).

In 1990, Congress directed the appointment of a Wolf Management Committee, composed of three federal, three state, and four interest group representatives, to develop a plan for wolf restoration to Yellowstone and central Idaho (P.L.101-512). In 1991, Congress instructed FWS, in consultation with NPS and the U.S. Forest Service, to prepare an EIS that considered a range of alternatives on wolf restoration in Yellowstone and central Idaho (P.L.102-154). The states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, U.S.D.A., Animal Damage Control (ADC), and the Wind River and Nez Perce Tribes participated in the EIS process. After an extensive period of public participation, the Secretary of the Interior filed the final EIS with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in May 1994.

In its final EIS, the FWS supported the alternative calling for the reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone and central Idaho as nonessential, experimental populations. The other four alternatives considered in detail in the EIS were: (1) natural recovery (no action); (2) no wolf (3) wolf management committee (i.e., state management); and (4) reintroduction of wolves that do not have "experimental population" status. The natural recovery alternative would have encouraged populations that have immigrated from Canada into northwestern Montana to continue their dispersal into Yellowstone and central Idaho. The no-wolf alternative would have actively prevented wolf recovery by removing wolves from all protections under the ESA in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho; and by removing all funding for education, monitoring, management, research and control in the northern Rocky Mountains. The FWS found this option to be inconsistent with existing law. The management committee alternative would have allowed the states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho to manage wolf recovery as a nonessential, experimental population under state law and special regulations that would have been more liberal than under the current ESA.

Experimental Populations. Section 10(j) of the ESA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to identify and release an "experimental population" that is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species, to further the conservation of such species. Each member of an experimental population is to be treated as a threatened species or as a species proposed to be listed for the purposes of §§ 4(d), 7, and 9 of the ESA. This designation enables FWS to manage the wolves more flexibly than would be allowed under the stricter, mandatory provisions for species listed as endangered under the ESA. Local concerns about unchecked depredation of livestock, restricted land use, and depletion of big game populations could be more easily addressed through the use of "experimental population" status. For example, ranchers would be allowed to "harass" adult wolves attacking their livestock and may be granted a permit to "take" wolves that repeatedly kill domestic animals.1 Wolf conservation groups generally oppose this designation, arguing that the natural recovery occurring across the Canadian border would make the Yellowstone and central Idaho populations not "wholly separate geographically" from nonexperimental populations. The wolves migrating naturally also would have the full protection of the ESA. These groups further argue that this designation would give too much liberty to ranchers to kill wolves at will.

In December 1994, the American Farm Bureau Federation, Farm Bureaus in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and the Mountain States Legal Foundation sued the Department of the Interior and requested an injunction from the federal district court to prevent FWS from reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone and Idaho. In January 1995, the District Court in Cheyenne, Wyoming denied their request and allowed the wolves to be released.

Reintroduction

In January 1995, 29 wolves were captured from healthy populations in Canada and transported to reintroduction areas in the northern Rocky Mountains. Upon arrival, 15 of these wolves were released directly into central Idaho (including the Selway-Bitterroot, Frank Church River-of-no-Return, and Gospel-Hump Wildernesses). In March, after several weeks in acclimation pens, the other 14 wolves were released into the Yellowstone area.

In January 1996, an additional 37 wolves were captured in Canada and transported to the same reintroduction areas. Twenty of these were released directly into central Idaho, and, after several weeks in acclimation pens, the other 17 were released into Yellowstone. In September 1996, 10 wolf pups from a population in northwestern Montana were moved to the Yellowstone area. These pups were translocated as a result of repeated depredation of livestock by wolves in their pack that forced authorities to destroy several of the adults. To date, FWS has reintroduced a total of 41 wolves into the Yellowstone area and 35 wolves into central Idaho. The Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho has primary management responsibility, with funding provided under a cooperative agreement with FWS.

The success of the recovery program has exceeded FWS expectations and has prompted Secretary Babbitt to announce that further reintroductions will not be necessary in the northern Rocky Mountain area. While some losses of wolves have occurred, the rate of mortality in the wolf populations has been far lower than anticipated. Several wolves have been killed illegally, with others dying from natural causes or accidents, or being destroyed by FWS and ADC for repeated attacks on livestock. In addition, wolf packs in both Yellowstone and Idaho have produced several successful litters in the breeding seasons since their release. The Yellowstone population now approaches 100 wolves and the central Idaho population has grown to approximately 70 wolves. In northwestern Montana, where populations have naturally immigrated from Canada, FWS estimates there to be 100 - 120 wolves. Thus, recovery goals may be met ahead of schedule and at lower cost.

Depredation of Livestock

One of the most significant obstacles to wolf reintroduction in the northern Rocky Mountain region continues to be the fear of wolves killing livestock. In spite of ranchers' concerns, the data thus far indicate that the wolves have remained largely within the reintroduction regions and have chosen to prey primarily on native deer and elk populations. To alleviate some of the controversy over livestock losses, Defenders of Wildlife established the Wolf Compensation Trust in 1987. This $100,000 fund was established with private contributions to compensate ranchers at fair market value for all verified losses of livestock to wolves. Between 1987 and 1997 the Trust paid a total of $29,456 to 34 ranchers in the northern Rocky Mountain region. These payments covered 57 cattle and 51 sheep killed by wolves. All reports of wolves attacking livestock and other domestic animals have been dealt with by FWS, ADC, and local authorities by relocating or destroying the problem wolves.

The wolf populations also have not had a significant negative effect on the region's big game herds, to date. Hunter harvests of deer and elk have been within the range of pre-reintroduction levels. Fears of wolf attacks on humans have proven unjustified, with no documented records of wild, healthy wolves killing humans.

Defenders of Wildlife also established the Wolf Habitat Fund in 1992 to award $5,000 to landowners who allow wolves to raise pups to adulthood on their land. Two payments have been made in April 1994 and in May 1995.

Lawsuits

A decision is still pending in a broad case concerning wolf reintroduction in the northern Rocky Mountain region. The case consolidates three lawsuits filed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, et al, and a Wyoming couple. U.S. District Judge William Downes will decide whether the wolf reintroduction program will be dismantled.

Recovery in Other Regions

In Minnesota, where wolves are listed as threatened under the ESA, 2,000 - 2,200 animals maintain a viable population. Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula each have experienced a natural recolonization and recovery of approximately 100 wolves. The NPS currently reports 22 wolves on Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior.

Congress has supported the reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf with earmarked funds in the FY1994 and FY1995 Interior Appropriations Acts (P.L.103-138 and P.L.103-332). In May 1996, the FWS issued a proposed rule for the reintroduction of a non-essential, experimental population of the Mexican gray wolf into eastern Arizona and western New Mexico (61 F~R 19237). The Mexican gray wolf no longer exists in the wild in its historical range in the United States. Since 1977, it has been held in 24 captive breeding sites in the United States and 5 sites in Mexico, where it has reached a total population of 149 animals. Small groups of wolves would be released into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in Apache National Forest, with a possible extension of reintroduction into the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

The FWS has reintroduced the red wolf, Canis rufus as two nonessential, experimental populations in the southeastern United States. One population was released from 1987 through 1992 into the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge of North Carolina (see 51 FR. 41790). The FWS released a second population in 1991 and 1992 into the Great Smokey Mountains National Park area of Tennessee and North Carolina (see 56 FR 56325). There are also three small populations with endangered status that have been released on small coastal islands of South Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida as propagation experiments. Wild populations have reached a level of approximately 60 red wolves. All remaining red wolves are maintained in 31 captive breeding facilities across the United States, where that population has risen to 180 animals. Congress has allocated funds in numerous Interior Appropriations Acts (see P.L.103-138, P.L.101-121, and P.L.100446) in support of captive breeding and reintroduction efforts for this species.

In 1992, Congress appropriated up to $50,000 for a study of the feasibility of returning the gray wolf to the Colorado Rocky Mountain area (P.L. 102-381). Several conservation groups recently have increased their efforts to reintroduce eastern timber wolves into the Adirondack Park area, inland Maine, and the Maine - New Hampshire border region. These groups are asking EWS to begin drafting an EIS, without which reintroductions can not proceed. In the FYI 998 Interior Appropriations Act (H.R. 2107), the House has earmarked $300,000 for an EIS on the reintroduction of gray wolves into Olympic National Park, Washington (11.Rept. 105-163).

Even as further reintroduction efforts continue, these issues remain very controversial. Many in the ranching and hunting industries strongly oppose the return of wolves, although some have supported the reintroduction of populations with the nonessential, experimental designation. While environmentalists have nearly unanimously supported recovery efforts, some feel that the nonessential, experimental designation is unlawful due to the possible presence of naturally occurring wolves. They have sought to reverse this method of reintroduction to give wolves the full protection of the ESA.

Endnotes

1 Section 3(18) of the ESA defines the term "take" to mean "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."