THE decision this month to downgrade the protection of America鈥檚 grey wolf, just eight years after its reintroduction, is flawed, say biologists. The animals have not re-established themselves as well as their increasing numbers suggest.
In 1995, the US Fish and Wildlife Service began reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park, and gave wolves which had migrated from Canada into the Great Lakes region of the US the same legal protection applied to endangered species. Today there are some 4000 wolves in the US, and on 1 April the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) decreed that the population was large enough to sustain itself and began the process of removing federal protection. It downgraded the grey wolf鈥檚 listing from 鈥渆ndangered鈥� to 鈥渢hreatened鈥�.
The new designation allows ranchers and wildlife officials to use more aggressive methods to harass problem animals, and to kill those caught attacking livestock. The FWS also said it may remove even the 鈥渢hreatened鈥� designation later this year, and leave protection measures up to individual states.
Advertisement
Environmental groups say it is a political decision, designed to avoid difficult clashes with ranch owners and local people angry at the wolves鈥� presence. 鈥淭hey are essentially closing the door to recovery in huge areas of excellent habitat,鈥� says Brad DeVries, a spokesman for the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife in Washington DC. He says the federal government should continue reintroducing wolves into California, the eastern US and elsewhere. At present, wolves cover only 2 per cent of their historical range.
Environmentalists are even more concerned about the possibility that wolves might be 鈥渄e-listed鈥� altogether. But the FWS says the proposal shows how successful recovery efforts have been. Wolf populations are big and secure enough to be in no danger of dying out, according to the department鈥檚 studies.
But large populations don鈥檛 mean the wolves鈥� recovery is complete, say Sanjay Pyare of the Ecosystem Management Research Institute in Seeley Lake, Montana, and Joel Berger of the Wildlife Conservation Society in Moose, Wyoming. A better test is whether the wolves have completely re-integrated into their environment, they argue.
The two examined moose behaviour in Alaska, where grizzly bear and wolf populations are well established, and compared it with the prey鈥檚 behaviour in Yellowstone. Alaskan moose confronted by the telltale signs of wolves became more aggressive, and were much more likely to move away. But Yellowstone moose exposed to faeces and urine from bears and wolves were less likely to behave in this way (Biological Conservation, vol 113, p 63). This suggests that the wolf population in Yellowstone is not large enough to play out its proper ecological role.
The researchers say that population levels of prey, effects on other predators, and even effects on vegetation and birds, should all be examined to make sure that the wolf numbers are large enough to allow them to fulfil their ecological function.
Defenders of Wildlife has notified the FWS that it will appeal in court against the decision to downlist the wolves.