May 31

Scientific Peer Reviewers Find Flaws in Federal Wolf Delisting Rule

Nearly 1.5 Million Comments Oppose Removing Protections

Washington, D.C. – Today the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a scientific peer review of a proposed rule to remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across the United States. A majority of scientists on the peer review project found the rule failed to follow the best available science, which is required by the Endangered Species Act.

“I found the proposed rule to remove federal protections for gray wolves nationwide did not use the best available science as required by the Endangered Species Act,” said Professor Adrian Treves of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at University of Wisconsin–Madison. “In particular, the government overlooked the essential challenges posed by human-caused mortality, which is preventing wolf population recovery everywhere one looks.”

“It doesn’t make sense to me that we would be reviewing the evidence at the same time as we review a proposed rule about that evidence – as if the political decision had already been made without waiting for peer reviewers to judge if the government had met the legal standard of best available science,” said Treves. “I recommended the government start with peer review of the science, then and only then decide if wolves are ready for delisting, not the other way around.”

The wolf delisting notice was published in the Federal Register and is open for public comment until mid-July, after which the rule can be finalized by the Trump Administration. So far, nearly 1.5 million comments opposing the rule have been submitted by wildlife groups on behalf of their members.

There were once up to 2 million gray wolves living in North America, but the animals had been driven to near-extinction in the lower 48 states by the early 1900s. After passage of the federal Endangered Species Act in 1973 and protection of the wolf as endangered, federal recovery programs resulted in the rebound of wolf populations in limited parts of the country. Gray wolves returned on their own to the Western Great Lakes region and northwest Montana and were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, where they have made a successful comeback. However, wolves are still struggling in areas of Oregon and Washington, while only a few have made it to California or the southern Rockies, where substantial areas of suitable habitat exist. Roughly 5,500 wolves currently live in the continental United States – a fraction of the species’ historic numbers.

“Without the protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act, gray wolves would never have recovered in the places where they are now,” said Leda Huta, Executive Director of the Endangered Species Coalition. “By removing protections across the country, the Trump Administration is essentially abandoning all efforts to restore this iconic American species to millions of acres of wild habitat.”

17 Comments on Scientific Peer Reviewers Find Flaws in Federal Wolf Delisting Rule

  1. Isn’t it time the Government stops destroying our wildlife and our national resources to enrich a few at the expense of many, many, including our children, grandchildren, and so many others Greed of a few are being allowed to the extent that soon the creatures, lands that we enjoy will only be pictures and memories that are discussed in classroom.

  2. The proposed rule to remove protection is completely ridiculous! The people trying to do this are heartless and not at all concerned about the future of the wonderful animals! I pray this foolishness is defeated!!

    • JUDITH SALYER says:

      Deborah you read my mind!!!! Cattle do not belong on Public Lands!!! They belong on privately owned pasturelands.!!!!!! NO MORE subsidies for cattle ranchers THIS HAS TO STOP!!!!!

  3. Kathryn Carterman says:

    We absolutely need our wildlife. We must protect them. We humans are the ones to be their voices.

  4. Flamme says:

    Non il ne faut pas enlever les loups de la liste des espèces protégées ! Des millions de personnes veulent des loups dans les forêts du monde et on ne décide pas de l’extinction d’une espèce. Ils doivent vivre.

  5. Linda Riebel says:

    Scientist aren’t perfect, but they’re the BEST WE HAVE.
    (better than some political appointees you could name)
    Nature is WHERE WE LIVE.
    You do not have the right to destroy where we live by ignoring scientific truth.

  6. Kathie O’Shea says:

    The ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SHOULD NEVER BE IN THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT!! Scientists and wildlife agencies know the real story and will protect our wildlife. I am so sickened by trump and his destruction.

  7. Georgene McKinney says:

    Our wolves are essential to our Ecosystems! They keep everything in balance! The trees, plants, rivers, other small animals…they only pick the weakest or oldest of deer/elk herds…by doing this they keep the herds from getting diseases! The cattle ranchers complain about the wolves killing some of their cattle…that’s what happens when they put their cattle on public lands! Put them on their own land…then when wolves kill a cow, the ranchers complain & they get compensated by the government, plus here lately they have the FWS kill the wolves…this is NOT RIGHT!! Our wolves need to be protected and listed on the ESA!!

  8. Diane Lang says:

    The ESA is essential for saving many species. Wolves are essential for a healthy ecosystem. I am sick of the government destroying our wildlife & natural resources. Without the EDA grey wolves will become extinct. Grey wolves must be protected by the ESA.

  9. Pingback: Strange Animals 28:06:2019 – ghostmanraines

  10. Helen Rector says:

    Wolves are rare enough. Let’s leave some animals, natural areas and a clean ocen for the kids.

  11. Helen Rector says:

    Wolves are rare enough. Let’s leave some animals, natural areas and a clean ocean for the kids.

  12. Bill Mecham says:

    My grandchildren deserve to be able to see and visit the natural wonders of this country. We must put them ahead of the profits of multinational corporations.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *