Biden administration wants to remove protections for gray wolves.
After years of legal battles and political discord, the fate of gray wolves in the U.S. hangs in the balance once again. The Biden administration recently made a bold move by asking an appeals court to reinstate a Trump-era rule that removed remaining protections for these iconic predators under the Endangered Species Act.
If successful, this decision would mean that gray wolves would fall under the oversight of individual states across the nation. It would also pave the way for hunting to resume in the Great Lakes region, a practice that had been put on hold due to a court order two years ago.
Environmentalists had previously challenged the Trump administration’s decision to lift protections for wolves, leading to a temporary halt in the hunting of these animals. The latest filing with the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals represents the Biden administration’s first concrete step to revive this controversial rule.
Wolves have been a contentious issue in the U.S., particularly in the western regions where they have made a comeback in recent years. As these predators repopulate certain areas, they have come into conflict with livestock and other big game, sparking debates about their protection status.
Environmental groups advocate for the continued expansion of wolf populations, emphasizing that these animals still occupy only a fraction of their historical range. However, attempts to lift or reduce protections for wolves have been ongoing for decades, spanning multiple presidential administrations.
Gray wolves once roamed vast territories across North America but were significantly reduced in numbers due to government-led eradication efforts in the mid-1900s. They were granted federal protections in 1974, a status that has been the subject of legal challenges and court battles ever since.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly declared wolves as recovered in certain regions, only to face scrutiny and legal opposition. Wolves have lost and regained protections multiple times in recent years, reflecting the ongoing struggle to find a balance between conservation efforts and human interests.
Vanessa Kauffman, a spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stated that the agency aims to promote wolf recovery while recognizing the concerns of those who coexist with these animals. The current administration finds itself aligned with livestock producers, hunting groups, and certain states that support the lifting of protections for wolves.
On the opposite side of the debate are environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and the Humane Society of the United States. These groups argue that wolves thrive under protection measures and face significant risks if those safeguards are removed.
Collette Adkins, representing the Center for Biological Diversity, expressed disappointment at the Biden administration’s efforts to reinstate the Trump-era rule. She emphasized the importance of maintaining protections for wolves to ensure their long-term survival and ecological role.
Efforts to restore wolf populations have been limited to specific regions, with federal officials agreeing to develop a national recovery plan by 2025. However, the future of this plan remains uncertain as the legal battle over wolf protections continues.
In a court filing, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that the Endangered Species Act is designed to prevent extinction rather than restore species to historical population levels. This perspective reflects a broader debate about the goals and scope of conservation efforts in relation to endangered species.
The decision to seek reinstatement of the Trump-era rule stemmed from a 2022 ruling that highlighted deficiencies in the evidence supporting wolf recovery in certain regions. The Great Lakes area has a substantial wolf population, while states in the Rocky Mountains and Pacific Northwest also harbor significant wolf numbers.
Congress previously took action to remove federal protections for wolves in the northern U.S. Rockies, leading to a surge in wolf hunting and trapping in those states. Lawmakers in the Great Lakes region have advocated for state control over wolf populations, despite concerns about over-harvesting and population declines.
States like Michigan and Minnesota have conducted wolf hunts in the past, but the practice has been halted in recent years. In other states such as Washington, Oregon, California, and Colorado, public wolf hunting remains prohibited.
The Biden administration faced criticism for its decision not to restore protections for gray wolves in the northern Rockies, a move that drew opposition from conservation groups. The ongoing debate underscores the complex interplay between conservation goals, state interests, and public attitudes towards wildlife management.
While the focus has largely been on gray wolves, other species such as red wolves in the mid-Atlantic region and Mexican wolves in the Southwest also face challenges. These populations, categorized as endangered, receive special protections under federal law.
As the legal battle over gray wolf protections unfolds, the future of these iconic animals remains uncertain. The conflicting perspectives on wolf conservation reveal deep-seated tensions between conservationists, policymakers, and stakeholders with vested interests in the management of wildlife populations.
