The Illusion of the Endangered Wolf and Corrective Actions

Mr. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary

U.S. Dept. of the Interior,

Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Secretary Babbitt,

This wolf delisting will rightfully return wolf management to each of the three states giving them the ability to make regulations which will give relief :to their citizens where there are too many wolves. As you well know, the Act calls for restoring wolves to their former range where practicable. Common sense dictates it is not practicable to restore wolves to parts of this former range such as downtown Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Madison, Lansing or Detroit. The problems now experienced with wolves in agricultural, deer hunting areas and other smaller cities and towns show that it is also not practicable to restore them there as well.

Memorandum

To: Director (AES-TE)

From: Regional Director, Region 3

Region 3 has completed its analysis of the petition to delist the gray wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, submitted by Mr. Lawrence Krak. We recommend that the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) find the petition to be not substantial, because it is based upon misunderstandings of the current listing status of the gray wolf and the definition of "species" as found in the Act.

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species, or to revise a critical habitat designation, a finding be made on whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that the action may be warranted and that a notice regarding such a finding be promptly published in the Federal Register. Ile petition discussed below requires a 90-day finding pursuant to Section 4(b)(3)(A). This document constitutes the finding for this petition.

On February 13, 1998, the U.S. Department of the Interior received a petition dated February 9, 1998, from Mr. Lawrence Krak, a resident of Gilman, Wisconsin. The petition requested that "timber wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan be delisted immediately." The petition neither contained nor referenced scientific or commercial data. A copy of an undated article from the Chicago Tribune, titled "Wolves Hit People Where They Live," was attached to the petition. This Regional Office subsequently received another letter from Mr. Krak, dated June 15, 1998, enclosing a January 30, 1998, interview of Dr. L. David Mech by Mr. Rob Drieslein of Outdoor News, titled "Wolf expert Mech offers insight into the Minnesota wolf debate."

The petition asserts that wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are not a separate subspecies because they readily and frequently intermix with Canadian wolves. It further asserts that because they were listed as an endangered subspecies in 1974, but are not a separate subspecies, the listing was and is illegal, and these wolves must be delisted immediately. The Outdoor News article is referenced as evidence that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan wolves are not a subspecies.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Service's finding on whether a petition presents 'substantial information on whether the requested action may be won-anted must be made within 90 days. However, on October 23, 1997, the Service published Listing Priority Guidance, which relegated the processing of petitions, beyond the initial acknowledgment and assignment to the lead Region, to Tiers 3 and 4 of a four-tier listing priority system. Petitions for delisting species were placed in Tier 4. Thus, Region 3 was precluded from taking significant action to process this petition. Our only processing actions were to send an acknowledgment letter to the petitioner, and to send notification letters to the potentially affected States and Tribes. ,

On May 8, 1998, the Service published revised Listing Priority Guidance to cover the remainder of fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. This revised Guidance moved delisting petitions into Tier 2 of a three-tier system. Since Region 3 has no pending Tier I actions (emergency listings), and is making substantial progress on other Tier 2 actions (e.g., making final determinations for proposed listings and resolving the status of candidate species), we have initiated action on this and another petition which similarly requested the delisting or downlisting of a listed species. We will treat these petitions as having been received on May 8, 1998, the day on which the revised Listing Priority Guidance authorized the processing of such petitions. Therefore the 90 day findings are due on August 6, 1998.

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is one of two North American wolf species currently protected by the Act. The red wolf (Canis rufus) is a separate species which is listed as endangered throughout its range in the southeastern United States. The red wolf is the subject of a separate Service recovery program.

The first list of endangered species that was published under the provisions of the December 1973 Act was a May 1974 list (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1974) that included two wolf subspecies that were protected by the Act in four states - the eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon) was listed as endangered in Minnesota and Michigan, and the northern Rocky Mountain wolf (C. L irremotus) was listed as endangered in Montana and Wyoming.

Another gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican wolf (C L baileyi), was listed as endangered on April 28, 1976, (41 FR 17740) with its known range given as "Mexico, USA (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas)." On June 14, 1976, (41 FR 24064) the subspecies C, L monstrabilis was listed as endangered under the misleading common name "Gray wolf," and its range was described as "Texas, New Mexico, Mexico." This subspecies was called the "Texas gray wolf" in the 1978 notice that modified the classification of the gray wolf.

Those subspecies listings were intended to include all gray wolf If subspecies believed to still exist in the coterminous 48 states at that time. Members of other gray wolf subspecies recognized by taxonomists at that time were not covered by those listings, nor were wolves of these four subspecies protected by the Act if they ventured beyond the boundaries of the states specified in those listings. At that time it was believed that 24 subspecies of wolves originally inhabited North America (Mech 1974).

A March 9, 1978, Federal Register notice (43 FR 9607) described several problems with the earlier practice of listing separate subspecies of the gray wolf and identifying small areas in which a subspecies occurs and is protected under the Act. The problems stemmed from the fact that the Service's understanding of wolf taxonomy was changing; the recognition that wolves from the protected subspecies might wander beyond the boundaries of the areas in which they were designated as endangered and lose their protective status; and the possibility that wolves from unlisted subspecies might still exist, and be unprotected, in very low numbers in some pails of the other 48 states. In order to remedy these deficiencies in the listings of four gray wolf subspecies, the 1978 Notice relisted the gray wolf at the species level (Canis lupus) as endangered throughout the 48 coterminous states and Mexico, except for Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. Thus, for the first time the species gray wolf (Canis lupus), rather than several of its individual subspecies, was listed under the Act. The gray wolf currently retains that listing; there are no separate listings of any subspecies of the gray wolf in the United States.

The current understanding of gray wolf taxonomy (albeit likely to evolve further as molecular genetic studies advance our knowledge of the relationship among different gray wolf lineages) is that historically there were five subspecies inhabiting North America (Nowak 1995). In contrast to the earlier belief that all gray wolves east of the Great Plains were the subspecies C I lycaon (Hall 198 1), this revised taxonomy holds that C L lycaon historically occurred from Lake Michigan eastward, including southern Ontario and Quebec. Wolves occurring west of Lake Michigan, across Michigan's Upper Peninsula and through Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Great Plains, to the Pacific coast of Oregon, Washington, and northern California (and including most of eastern Canada) are considered to be C. L nubilus. The other three subspecies of North American wolves historically were found in the U.S. Southwest and Mexico (C. L baileyi); Alaska, western Canada and the northern portion of Montana (C. L occidentalis); and the arctic islands of Canada and much of the Greenland coast (C. L arctos).

The Service currently is operating three separate recovery programs for the gray wolf. They vary greatly in their progress toward recovery. The recovery program for the "Eastern Timber Wolf" in the western Great Lakes states is rapidly approaching full achievement of the recovery criteria found in the 1992 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). This progress has prompted the Service to undertake a nationwide review of the status of the gray wolf, and to announce the preparation of a formal proposal to delist the gray wolf throughout most of the eastern United Sates. A detailed analysis of the five listing factors and their current affect on the gray wolf will be published as part of that proposal. Full achievement of the recovery criteria is expected to occur in 1999.

Wolf recovery in the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains is also proceeding, not only as a result of wolves naturally immigrating from Canada into the Glacier National Park area, but also from wolf reintroduction programs into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park beginning in 1995. Currently there are an estimated 75 to 85 wolves in each of these three wolf populations. Recovery criteria (ten breeding pairs in each of these three populations) are not expected to be achieved for several more years. A detailed review of the five listing factors' affects on the status of the Northern Rocky Mountains gray wolf population will also be part of the Service's upcoming gray wolf proposal.

The recovery of the Mexican wolf in the American Southwest took a significant stride forward in March of 1998 with the release of I I captive-raised wolves on the Apache National Forest in Arizona. Currently seven of these animals, plus a wild-born pup, remain in the wild. Additional releases are planned. The legal classification of these wolves is expected to remain "endangered" regardless of changes made to wolf classifications in other parts of the United States.

In response to our notification letters, the Service received letters from the Wisconsin and Michigan Departments of Natural Resources, the Leech Lake Tribal Council, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, and the Voigt Task Force of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.

All these response letters opposed the action requested by Mr. Krak They stated a belief that the wolf was properly added to the Federal endangered species list and that the petitioner did not present any evidence to the contrary. They recommended a denial of the petition, and further recommended that the Service proceed with delisting of the gray wolf only when credible scientific evidence indicates that it has recovered, evidence that was not included with, or referenced by, the petition.

The petitioned action is a delisting of "timber wolves" in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, because they were improperly declared endangered in 1974. 'Me petition requests that the recovery criterion of 100 wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan for five consecutive years be set aside because of the original mistaken listing. The only "data" connected to the petition are the statements attributed to Dr. L. David Mech in the Outdoor News article subsequently provided by the petitioner. Those statements are in general agreement with the Service's understanding of wolf biology and will not be disputed in this finding. Dr. Mech's statements support the petition's contention that wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan do not constitute a separate and unique subspecies. The Service agrees with this statement, as well.

However, the petitioner misunderstands both the scope of the listing that currently protects the gray wolf in the United States and the Service's Vertebrate Population Policy, which describes the criteria for listing distinct population segments of vertebrate species or subspecies. This policy (61 FR 4722-4725, February 7, 1996) was promulgated to provide guidance for the Service in listing distinct population segments as threatened or endangered species. Such listings mare authorized by Congress' inclusion of "any distinct population segment" within the Act's definition of "species."

The Scope of the Current Wolf Listing. The petitioner claims that the gray wolf is improperly listed under the Act as a unique subspecies that occurs only in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. This is incorrect. The gray wolf is currently listed (50 CFR 17.11 (h) ) at the species level throughout the coterminous (lower 48) states and Mexico. Subspecies are not mentioned in the current gray wolf listing, which originated in 1978, and this listing is free of any link to subspecies affiliation. Thus, this listing remains valid regardless of the current scientific understanding of gray wolf subspeciation.

The Service's Vertebrate Population Policy. The definition of "species" in the Act includes species and subspecies of fish, wildlife, and plants, as well as distinct population segments of vertebrate species. Under this definition, and following the guidance of the Vertebrate Population Policy, the listing of distinct population segments of vertebrate species or subspecies is deemed a proper and legal action under the Act if such a population segment is (1) discrete, (2) significant, and (3) sufficiently threatened with extinction or endangerment. Since the Policy provides for the use of international boundaries to satisfy the "discreteness" criterion, the Service has the authority to list the United States portion of a vertebrate species (or subspecies) that freely mixes with a much larger population in Canada or Mexico. Therefore, even if the current listing of the gray wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan was of a subspecies of the gray wolf it would still be a valid listing due to the ability to list the U.S. portion of a larger species or subspecies. In fact, the current listing does something very similar,- it lists all members of the species (instead of the subspecies, as alleged in the petition) south 'of the United States-Canadian border. For listing purposes, it is largely irrelevant whether the U.S. population of the vertebrate species (or subspecies) does or does not mix with another population across an international border. The Act is designed to allow Federal protection of a native species or subspecies that is rare within the borders of the United States, regardless of how common it may be in another country. This capability of the Act is in recognition of the fact that the United States should not be reliant upon other nations to provide a source population to replenish our rare native species.

Therefore, the grounds upon which the petitioner founded his request are based upon misunderstandings of the gray wolf entity listed under the Act and of the definition of "species" as found in the Act. The petition neither presents nor references further arguments or data to support the request for delisting the wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan on any other grounds.

The Service has reviewed the petition, the two articles submitted with the petition, information

solicited from States and Tribes, and other relevant information already available in Service files.

After reviewing the best scientific and commercial information available, the Service has

concluded that the petition appears to be based entirely upon a misunderstanding of the current

listing status of the gray wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Furthermore, the

petitioner appears to be unaware of the Service's Vertebrate Population Policy, which would

allow a separate listing of the wolf population in those three states, should the Service choose to

list it as a distinct population segment. Therefore, the Service finds that the petition does not

contain substantial information that indicates the requested action may be warranted.

Mech, L.D. 1974. Canis lupus. Mammalian species No. 37. Am. Soc. of Mammalogists. 6 pp.

PO Box 145

Gilman, WI 54433

Feb 22, 2000

Mr. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary

US Dept. of the Interior, USFWS

Washington, DC 20240

Dear Secretary Babbitt,

I again petition you to immediately delist gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Further, the Department of the Interior and the USFWS should admit that they are not an endangered species now and never were.

In 1974 when they were first declared endangered, it was claimed that there were only a small number in Minnesota. I enclosed the USFWS map showing this. This is an attempt to make it appear as if these were the only wolves that were left in North America. At that time it was claimed that these wolves were a unique subspecies. Now it is known that they are part of the Canis Lupis Nubilius subspecies which intermixes across the Canadian border and numbers many thousands. They are not in any danger of extinction now nor were they in 1974.

Based on his fact I petitioned you in March of 1998 for their immediate delisting. The USFWS response was that wolves are declared endangered on a whole Canis Lupis Species, not a subspecies It does not matter to the USFWS that they intermix across that Canadian border as part of a total North American wolf population of at least 60,000. The Act (Endangered Species

Act) allows the USFWS to only consider wolves south of the Canadian border as a separate, discrete, endangered population. Clearly this has nothing to do with preserving North American wolves from extinction as these wolves are a very small part of that total population. Whether there are no US wolves at all or only a very small well controlled number has a very small influence on the North American survival of wolves.

The USFWS also claims that it is necessary to not be dependent on migrations from Canada to have US wolves. But why have wolves if they are not North American endangered? The USFWS then invokes it's discrete population gimmick and calls them endangered and prevents the people of the three states from deciding how to manage them.

The real reason for doing this is that it allows the USFWS to get their hands on that money that congress appropriated for restoring endangered species and spend it on their wolf restoring activities. This is a very flagrant conflict on interest and should be stopped immediately. Of course the three state DNRs love getting money from the USFWS and want it to continue for as long as possible. It does matter to them that their people have no choice at all in the wolf matters. They stifle any opposition their people have.

Much of this money is spent on trying to make wolves acceptable by propagandizing or educating on their behalf. But none of this involves making it known that wolves are the top of the line or food chain. This means that in nature they have no enemies and are controlled by food supply and diseases. If man is not allowed to intervene with hunting and trapping, they keep increasing till they kill off all prey and starve. It is true that some wolves are killed by fighting among themselves over territory, but this number is small and has no effect on their numbers.

So it is necessary for humans to participate in control of wolf numbers. But the USFWS calling them endangered prevents this. So wolves need to be delisted to allow the people of the three states to do this.

The Act says wolves should only be restored to places where practicable Excluded are urban areas. It is just as impracticable to have wolves in agricultural areas and areas where hunters have access to all of the land. If 200 or more wolves are being killed in Minnesota for doing damage to livestock then one has to be able to say that they are in places where it is impracticable to have them. Wolves need to be delisted so that they can be removed from these places where they are in conflict with human activities. State DNRs were asked about if they were in favor of delisting. What did they expect them to say? These people want that wolf restoration money coming for as long as possible. That is all that matters to them.

Indian Tribes were also asked. If the tribes want wolves let them keep them on their reservations. Its bad enough if they have those off reservation treaty rights. We don't need their wolves running around all over doing damage.

When you made that trip to Minnesota to announce your intentions to delist wolves you were met with a lot of protestors. That should not have had any influence on you. These protestors are a highly vocal minority that has no logic whatever to support their position. No wolves at all or a small well controlled number has overwhelming economical and ecological support.

So in conclusion, I am easily able to see what your response will be to this petitioning letter. This is especially true if you have the USFWS do it for you. Congress has to force curbing of the powers the USFWS has usurped. This petitioning letter, your response and my cover letter will go to my US Senator and US Representative to get the delisting actions and admission that wolves are not and never were an endangered species.

Sincerely Yours,

PO Box 145

Gilman, WI 54433

March 6, 2000

Mr. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary

US Dept. of the Interior, USFWS

Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Secretary Babbitt,

Please add this list of references to my petitioning letter of Feb. 22, 2000. My petition of two yrs. ago was criticized because I did not document points with references. Actually the two news articles from the Chicago Tribune and Minnesota Outdoor News were all that was needed. So here is that list of references that go with my Feb. 22 petition.

1. An annual report of wolf depredation control work in Minnesota by William J. Paul, District Supervisor, USDA, APHIS, ADC, 717 4th Street, Grand Rapids, MN 55744. These reports document that in some years as many as 216 wolves have to be killed and removed for doing damage to livestock.

2. "Wolf Conservation in Canada" This is a publication of the Government of Canada with a map of Canada showing where the 50,000 to 60,000 wolves are.

3. Ninety-Day Finding on Petition to Delist the "Timber Wolf" in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan by the USFWS, October 6, 1998.

4. Endangered Species Act of 1973.

5. The book "Living Among Wolves" by Author Unknown. This book documents that the subspecies Canis Lupis Nubilus is in the central US and much of Canada and that the unique Gray Wolf of the Central US never did exist. (Copy of page from book enclosed)

6. Sports Afield, August 1998, "Trapped Like Wolves" by Peter Annin. This article clearly lays out the failed USFWS wolf policy and the need for immediate delisting and stopping meddling in the wolves of the three states.

Sincerely Yours,

Lawrence Krak

References:

1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal and State Endangered Species Expenditures,

Fiscal Year 1995

August 15, 2000

Dear US Congress Member,

You will soon be considering revisions to the Endangered Species Act. You need to be made aware of how the USFWS has played the fear of things vanishing as the passenger pigeon did into many things being declared endangered or threatened. This is nothing more than a way to latch onto endangered species restoration money which congress has appropriated.

The Endangered Species Act clearly states that things should be restored to their former range where practicable. It seems to be agreed that it is not practicable to have wolves running the streets of Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Madison or Detroit. The conflict with human activities would be too great. But the conflict that farmers and hunters experience should be tolerated. It is outside the experience the urban dwelling environmentalists and wolf supporters. Wolves are declared endangered by the USFWS and nobody has any choice in this matter.

But wolves are really not an endangered species now and never were. In 1974 when they were so declared there were 60,000 in Canada as there are today. These wolves cross that international boundary at will into the bordering states. Today you can buy a Canadian hunting license and shoot as many as you can get into your sights.

The USFWS uses a map showing that in 1974 there were only a few hundred wolves in Minnesota. Canada is left blank as if there were no wolves there instead of showing the over 60,000. Of course the USFWS knew that people would figure this out so they got congress to amend the Endangered Species Act so they could set up Distinct Population Segments. These DPSs were supposed to be distinct, discrete and separate from other populations. But in no way are the Canadian wolves distinct and separate from the US wolves. But the amendment allows the use of international boundaries to establish a DPS. So the USFWS uses this boundary to call these wolves an endangered DPS

In the USFWS mid August meetings on changing the wolf listing from endangered to threatened for the bordering states that went on, they still clung to this. It is as if wolves are supposedly aware of borders between countries as people are. The USFWS still is clinging to the idea that US wolves are in a different county and the fact that they are a small part of a huge North American wolf population can be ignored. They can continue to be classified under the Endangered Species Act as they are with all of that USFWS population numbers criteria and spending going on.

So the people of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan have no choice in the matter. Their wolves are federally declared endangered and there is nothing they can do about it. Of course the DNRs of these states love this and the money that goes with it. I hope that you get the picture.

Congress needs to take away some of these powers that the USFWS has been given Ways of stopping restoring things that are really not endangered need to be established. Change the Endangered Species Act so this happens. Specifically take away this being able to call Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan wolves an Endangered Distinct Population Segment only because these wolves are on the other side of the international boundary. The USFWS uses the Endangered Species Act as is to justify doing this.

Surely you see the conflict of interest when the USFWS can declare something endangered and then spend public money on their own people to restore it. Further they also have the power to veto any attempt is made thru the petition process to put a stop to what they are doing. The functions of declaring something endangered and then restoring it needs to be split among independent organizations to avoid this conflict. Take away these powers that the USFWS is abusing.

So please consider making changes in the Endangered Species Act so that these problems are eliminated. For more information please visit the People Against Wolves web site at

home.centurytel.net/PAW/home.htm and the Abundant Wildlife Society web site at

www.vcn.com/business/AWS/default.html for more information.

People Against Wolves, Lawrence Krak

PO Box 145

Gilman, WI 54433

Go Back to Home Page