Dances With Wolves: How Cooperation Between State and Federal Agencies Will Allow The Gray Wolf To Prosper

By: Trey Shearer

On October 29th, 2020, the United States Department of the Interior announced that the Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) would be removed from the Endangered Species Act (ESA)[1]and that the management of the wolf population in the United States will now solely rest with the individual state and tribal wildlife agencies in which the wolf populations reside.[2]On November 3, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) officially entered this rule[3]in the Federal Register and it became effective on January 4, 2021.[4]  This act seemed to be a conclusory end to the extensive litigation surrounding the listing/delisting of the gray wolf and its numerous sub-populations on the ESA.[5]However, since the gray wolf was officially removed from the ESA on January 4, 2021, a Complaint[6]against the FWS has been filed on behalf of six environmental groups that claim that the FWS disregarded scientific data in concluding that the gray wolf population had fully recovered and was therefore delisted off of the ESA.[7]Furthermore, in September of 2021, members of the Biden administration stated that they will be conducting a year-long study into whether the Trump administration’s decision to delist gray wolves was misguided.[8]It is abundantly obvious that this issue will be a heavily discussed and litigated topic for the foreseeable future, and it very well may never be fully resolved. This complex dilemma raises the question of whether it is environmentally and ecologically responsible for gray wolves in the lower 48 states to be regulated by the federal government, or should the individual states and tribes be tasked with managing the wolf populations with their own funding and resources?

In short, there is no “right” answer to this question. However, based on the data that is available to the public, I believe that the most economically and environmentally sound solution to this issue would be for individual state and tribal agencies to monitor, control, and protect the gray wolf population in their individual jurisdictions and the FWS would in turn monitor these individual programs on a yearly basis to ensure that they are allowing healthy wolf populations to flourish. 

This belief is based on the fact that the gray wolf currently inhabits three distinct geographical areas that have been categorized separately by the FWS, the Northeastern sub-group, which spans from Wisconsin to Maine;  the Western sub-group, which encompasses a large area of rugged terrain from Washington to Colorado; and the Southwestern sub-group, which includes the northern boundary of Mexico.[9]The wolves in each of these geographically defined areas need different levels of protection[10]and their presence causes unique challenges and threats to the wildlife and humans that share the land with the wolves. To impose an all- encompassing legislative act that does not take into consideration the benefits and detriments that wolves provide in each region would not be a prudent decision. For example, only 186 gray wolves inhabit the Southwestern United States, and a federal judge recently ruled[11]that the FWS recovery plan for this distinct population of gray wolves did not adequately address the issue of illegal killings and ordered that the plan be re-written.[12]It can be argued that if the recovery plan for these wolves was left to the individual state and tribal wildlife agencies then they would have a more in-depth understanding of the threats these wolves face in their road to recovery and could implement specific measures that would ensure their success. However, putting this power in the hands of the individual states is also fraught with challenges to the recovery of the gray wolf. 

On February 26, 2021, the Montana Senate passed Senate Bill 267[13]and Senate Bill 314[14], which combined allow for third-party bounty programs on wolves, night-hunting for wolves, and highly effective trapping methods.[15]These bills also allowed for a quota of 450 wolves to be killed each year in Montana, or roughly 40% of the entire gray wolf population in the entire state.[16]These conservative, and ecologically reckless, bills have received backlash from environmental groups and hunters alike[17], as a healthy wolf population keeps animals such as elk and mule deer numbers in check and this benefits the entire ecosystem.[18]This is just one example of how putting the management of gray wolves in the hands of individual states could go awry. However, as I proposed earlier, this issue could be remedied by forcing the FWS to do yearly “check-ups” on these states and ensure that they are not enacting any bills or creating methods that may detrimentally effect the gray wolf population.

While this proposal for a joint effort between the state bureaucracy and federal agencies may suffer from conflicts between the two, I believe that this is the best course of action for ensuring that the gray wolf population continues to grow and to create healthy ecosystems. By allowing state and tribal agencies to manage the gray wolf population in their respective jurisdictions, they can use their localized ecological expertise, which federal agents may not have, to create the most beneficial policies for the gray wolves. Also, by making the FWS ``check-up” on these states on a yearly basis, they can ensure that no methods are being used that will significantly decrease the gray wolf population, as we saw in Montana. The gray wolf has made an extraordinary comeback in the last several years, and by creating a harmonious relationship between state, tribal, and federal agencies, we can help this amazing animal to continue to prosper. 

[1]Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (1973)

[2]U.S. Department of the Interior, Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts, (Oct. 29, 2021) https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump-administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes. (Last Visited October 31, 2021). 

[3]Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 85 Fed. Reg. 69,778 (Nov. 3, 2020) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17).

[4]Carter Ostrowski, Are Gray Wolves Ready to be Delisted as an Endangered Species?, University of Cincinnati Law Review, (January 22, 2021) https://uclawreview.org/2021/01/22/are-gray-wolves-ready-to-be-delisted-as-an-endangered-species/#_ftn1(Last Visited November 11, 2021).

[5]Id. 

[6]Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association, Oregon Wild, and Humane Society of the United States v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; David Bernhardt, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Case No. 3:21-cv-344-JSW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2021). 

[7]Laura Bies, Lawsuit challenges gray wolf delisting, The Wildlife Society, (Jan. 27, 2021), https://wildlife.org/lawsuit-challenges-gray-wolf-delisting/(Last Visited November 13, 2021).  

[8]Biden Administration Says Wolves May Need Protections After States Expanded Hunting, (Sep. 15, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1037347160/hunting-wolves-endangered-tribes-us-protection (Last Visited November 12, 2021). 

[9]The Gray Wolf Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): A Case Study in Listing and Delisting Challenges, (Jan. 17, 2020). https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R46184.html#_Ref21361851(Last Visited November 13, 2021). 

[10]Id. 

[11]Order, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, Case No. 4:18-CV-00047-TUC-JGZ (D. Ariz. Oct. 14, 2021). 

[12]Ryan Heinsius, Federal wildlife officials propose changes to endangered Mexican gray wolf management plan, KNAU (Oct. 28, 2021, 1:00 A.M.), https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2021-10-28/federal-wildlife-officials-propose-changes-to-endangered-mexican-gray-wolf-management-plan(Last Visited November 12, 2021). 

[13]SB 267, 67th Reg. Sess. (Mont. 2021).

[14]SB 314, 67th Reg. Sess. (Mont. 2021).

[15]Tom Kuglin, Montana Senate passes wolf bills, Helena Independent Record (Mar. 1, 2021) https://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-senate-passes-wolf-bills/article_bcb7a667-8927-513a-9a17-faf47b538976.html(Last Visited November 14, 2021). 

[16]Id. 

[17]Natasha Daly, Montana has made killing wolves easier. Some hunters are pushing back., National Geographic (May 13, 2021) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/efforts-to-make-wolf-hunting-easier-upset-hunters(Last Visited November 12, 2021). 

[18]Id.