Delisting the Grey Wolf Could Endanger Other Species

It could be a bad idea to discontinue protection for gray wolves across the United States. Scientists have discovered that their delisting could have the unintended consequence of endangering other species. The findings could make the federal government take another look at their decision.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed removing the grey wolf from the list of threatened and endangered species in June. The rule covers most of the continental U.S. where wolves historically existed before they were exterminated by people in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.

Yet there's a problem with the proposed rule, according to scientists. It would set a precedent that would allow the FWS to declare habitat unsuitable for an endangered animal because a threat exists on the land. In this case, the FWS has stated that U.S. land currently unoccupied by wolves is unsuitable because there are humans living in these regions. Yet these areas were historically inhabited by wolves.

"The Fish and Wildlife Service is supposed to detail what the threats are and if they're substantial enough, they're supposed to list a species and put in place policies to mitigate the threats," said Jeremy Bruskotter, one of the researchers, in a news release. "Here, they're saying that they recognize the threat of human intolerance and instead of mitigating the threat, they're just going to say the land is unsuitable."

In fact, the proposed rule discounts the other 85 percent of the wolf's historic range, which stretches across northern states from the west coast through New England and as far east as mid-Texas in the southern half of the country. Yet because the wolves are recovered in the northern Rockies and upper Great Lakes, the FWS has declared it is no longer endangered.

"The law is supposed to help the protected species, not just describe the threats to that species," said Bruskotter in a news release. "But to construct this delisting rule, they've had to interpret policy and science in every case in a way that either disregards threats to wolves, or treats them as insurmountable. They're doing the opposite of what the act requires."

The critique of the new ruling has been published in the journal Conservation Letters.