Scientists find flaws in plan to lift US wolf protections

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Scientists tasked with reviewing government plans to lift protections for gray wolves across most of the U.S. said in a report released Friday that the proposal has numerous factual errors and other problems.

The five-member scientific panel's conclusions were detailed in a 245-page delivered to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

One reviewer said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appeared to have come to a pre-determined conclusion, not supported by its own science, that should come off the .

"It looks like they decided to delist and then they compiled all the evidence that they thought supported that decision. It simply doesn't support the decision," said Adrian Treves, an environmental studies professor at the University of Wisconsin.

Treves said a chief concern is poaching: Without protections, illegal killings of wolves could rise, he said.

The findings could undercut the government's contention that across the Lower 48 have recovered from near extermination.

Federal officials have been under increasing pressure to put wolves under state management, which is already the case in parts of the Northern Rockies where hunting and trapping of the animals is allowed.

Prohibitions on hunting elsewhere have fueled resentment against wolves among livestock owners who must deal with attacks by the predators. Also, some hunters see wolves as competition for big game animals.

After being nearly wiped out in the Lower 48 early last century, more than 6,000 gray wolves now live in portions of nine states. The decades-long, government-sponsored recovery effort for the animals has cost roughly $160 million.

Yet gray wolves remain absent from most of their historical range. Critics of lifting protections say the move would be premature and worry that more hunting will reverse the species' rebound.

Wildlife service spokeswoman Vanessa Kauffman said officials were still going over the scientific report and had no immediate response.

Members of the review panel questioned the agency's treatment of a basic issue: whether gray wolves in the Lower 48 states are biologically the same or consist of more than one species.

Daniel MacNulty, an associate professor at Utah State University, said the proposed rule had "demonstrable errors of fact, interpretation, and logic" and its description of where wolves presently range is fuzzy.

Five years ago, a similar report helped convince federal officials to temporarily shelve plans to lift wolf protections. That report, too, questioned the science used by .

Explore further

US plans end to wolf protections; critics say it's premature (Update)

© 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: Scientists find flaws in plan to lift US wolf protections (2019, June 1) retrieved 20 September 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 01, 2019
More from Treves

"PhD in 1997 in Behavioral Ecology and Biological Anthropology from Harvard University. After six years working for international wildlife conservation organizations, he returned to applied research... In 2007, he founded the Carnivore Coexistence Lab"

"Chapron, G. and A. Treves 2016a and b, 2017a and b. We first showed that Michigan and Wisconsin wolf population growth slowed whenever the government liberalized wolf-killing and the slow-down was proportional to the length of time that culling was liberalized, regardless of how many wolves were killed"

"Non-lethal methods were more effective than lethal methods in preventing carnivore predation on livestock generally; at least two lethal methods (government culling or regulated, public hunting) were followed by increases in predation on livestock; zero tests of non-lethal methods had counterproductive effects"

-True objectivity is so hard to come by, no?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more