While the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been successful in preventing 99 percent of listed species from going extinct, it has been equally ineffective in recovering them, with a mere three percent recovery rate. One species in particular, however, stands out as a remarkable exception to this sorry trend: Canis lupus, the gray wolf.
When the gray wolf was listed in 1978, there were only 1,235 wolves left in the lower 48, with almost all of them found in Minnesota. Today, there are more than 6,000 wolves in the continental U.S., with their populations biologically connected to nearly 30,000 wolves in Canada. The wolf’s recovery is one of the great success stories of the ESA. Unfortunately, rather than being celebrated, this success is threatened by a federal district court ruling that would require the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ignore the recovery of the population as a whole and regulate the species as individual members.
The Biden administration, several states, and interest groups defended FWS’s decision to delist the gray wolf and appealed this ruling to the U.S. Ninth Circuit in Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This case will determine whether the gray wolf in the lower 48 is recovered under the ESA and if the Service properly analyzed the wolf’s status in its delisting decision. While several questions in this case are on appeal, PERC filed an amicus brief focused on one distinct ruling by the district court: whether the Service can recognize the recovery of a listed species even when lone, dispersing members of that species remain vulnerable to external threats. This is a critical issue when considering the status of the gray wolf’s recovery because although wolves are thriving in two large metapopulations, the species has a natural tendency for lone wolves to disperse outside established locations and create fledgling populations.
The district court’s ruling punishes the Service, states, landowners, and conservation groups for recovering the wolf so successfully that it dispersed into new locations. Requiring FWS to analyze threats to and the recovery status of all members of the lower 48 population, even if they are not necessary for the general species’ recovery, ignores the recovery progress made by wildlife managers. Doing so distorts our understanding of the species’ recovery status and requires strict regulations to be imposed on all wolf populations regardless of how well core populations are doing. In its delisting decision, the Service already analyzed dispersed wolf populations and concluded that the wolves outside the two core populations are not necessary for the continued recovery and survival of the species as a whole. Disregarding this finding ignores the sound science and hard work of the many partners, both public and private, that helped recover the gray wolf.
This ruling would not just affect wolves, but any listed species that disperses outside of its core population. Of the eight animals recovered from the endangered species list in the last five years, the Service relied on this same logic for at least two of them. The precedent set by this ruling could have far-reaching effects that leave recovered species lingering on the endangered species list longer than is necessary.
Aligning with the Biden administration, several states, as well as sportsmen’s and agricultural groups, PERC’s amicus brief urges the Ninth Circuit to reverse the lower court’s ruling so that the ESA can live up to its intended purpose of protecting and recovering species. Acknowledging and rewarding successful recovery stories, like that of the gray wolf, will incentivize more recovery efforts, and improve the outcomes of all imperiled species.
