Northeast Wolf Coalition Position Statement in Response to: “Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered” For Immediate Release March 20, 2014 Contact: Maggie Howell, Coordinator, Northeast Wolf Coalition, [email protected] This letter is written in response to the US Fish & Wildlife Service’s (FWS) proposal to delist the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from federal Endangered Species (ESA) protection per 78FR 546145616, dated 5 September 2013 and the agency’s extension of the public comment period per 79FR 7627 7629, dated 10 February 2014. We have two major concerns with this proposal and discuss them below. Our first comment focuses primarily on the northeastern region of the United States (hereafter Northeast). We believe FWS’ proposed blanket delisting violates the ESA, which requires the FWS to protect both individuals and populations of listed species throughout their historic range. Our specific objections follow: (1) The FWS claims (78FR 546145616) that the wolf (Canis lupus) was erroneously listed in the Northeast in 1978. FWS based their proposed delisting action on this assumption, which was based mainly on a single paper (Chambers et al. 2012) that was not subject to scientific peer review. A thorough review of the scientific literature pertaining to large Canis taxonomy in the eastern portion of the United States (and adjoining Canada) supports the conclusion of the independent peer review panel that the best science was not used by FWS in reaching its delisting decision (NCEAS 2014). The FWS stance that the eastern wolf is a distinct species (putatively labeled Canis lycaon) is not universally accepted nor recognized in the literature; research papers that are presently in preparation or in review may alter the current conclusions drawn by Chambers et al. 2012 and the Service. Because of this, we believe it is premature for the Service to adopt the conclusions of Chambers et al. 2012 as the basis for their proposed rule. In addition, we believe there is insufficient evidence for the FWS’s position that the gray wolf did not exist in the Northeast. (2) Whatever the outcome of the ongoing taxonomic debate surrounding Canis in the Northeast, the FWS has the responsibility of protecting whatever large Canis was present in this region at the time of European contact and beyond. Therefore, we consider the current delisting proposal premature and unlawful because the agency neglected to list the putative Canis lycaon at the same time it proposed to delist Canis lupus. Additionally, both C. lycaon and C. lupus (and their hybrids) historically existed in this region, and northern portions of the Northeast (i.e., the ‘North Woods’) would be a plausible zone of hybridization between the two wolf species, much as the Great Lakes region is believed to be (Fain et al. 2010; Wilson et al. 2009). FWS should recognize that hybridization is a natural process between closely related Canis species (Way 2013; Wilson et al. 2009), and this may have historically occurred in the Northeast between C. lupus and C. lycaon (Wilson et al. 2009). 1

(3) Individual wild wolves (either Canis lupus, C. lycaon, or their hybrids) have recently been recovered from the Northeast (Villemere and Jolicouer 2004; Kays and Feranec 2011). Such individuals—if they survive—could support a natural repopulation in the region similar to what occurred in the western Great Lakes region between the 1970’s and early 1990’s, where initial colonizers subsequently formed populations that allowed wolves to recolonize (Wydeven et al. 2009). The FWS acknowledged in its Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timberwolf that sufficient habitat exists for wolves to repopulate in the Northeast (Wydeven et al. 1998), yet all five states (ME, NH, VT, MA and NY) fail to have sufficient precautions in place to protect wolves. None has a management plan to address the potential return of wolves and none promotes wolf recovery. Removal of gray wolves from ESA provisions would essentially strip away any semblance of protection and thus threaten the survival of individual wolves that may occasionally disperse into the region from extant populations located farther north and northwest in Canada that are well within dispersal range of reaching the Northeast (Glowa et al. 2009; Kays and Feranec 2011). By removing federal protections the FWS is de facto removing the possibility of natural re-colonization of large Canis to the region. (4) The existing canid in the Northeast, the eastern coyote, presents a problem for recolonizing wolves and canid management (Way 2013). Thus, we believe that in addition to maintaining federal protections, it should be within the mandate of FWS to implement comprehensive public education and outreach programs to promote knowledge of regulations and laws as they relate to the protection of Canis across the Northeast. (5) The return of the wolf in the Northeast would help create a more fully functional and wild ecosystem. We realize that Canis populations in the Northeast are dynamic and evolving (Wilson et al. 2009) and strongly believe that a larger Canis also has an ecological function in the changing environments of this region (Prugh et al. 2009). We are concerned that FWS now rejects the existence of the gray wolf in the Northeast; we believe FWS’ proposal to delist wolves will deny them the protection to which they are legally entitled under the ESA. We believe, in fact, the FWS needs to establish a “Northeastern Wolf Distinct Population Segment” in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and New York that accounts for the possible presence of both gray and eastern wolves and their hybrids (Fain et al. 2010; Rutledge et al. 2012, Wilson et al. 2009) much like that which helped recover wolves in the Great Lakes region (Wydeven et al. 2009). We also urge FWS to develop a “Northeastern Wolf Recovery Plan” that includes continued legal protection in order to enhance natural re-colonization of wolves to the Northeast, and to recognize that despite the ongoing debate of classifying C. lycaon as its own species, there is an important ecological role for a larger Canis in the Northeast whether it be C. lupus, C. lycaon, and/or their hybrids, all of which have populations that are within dispersal range of the region.

Our second comment relates to nationwide delisting of Canis lupus. We agree with Bruskotter et al. (2013) that FWS misrepresented the evidence behind tolerance for wolves in the 2013 nationwide delisting proposal, as quoted from the proposed rule: “The areas that wolves currently occupy correspond to ‘suitable’ wolf habitat...wolves persist where ungulate populations are adequate to support them and conflict with humans and their 2

livestock is low...[t]he areas considered ‘unsuitable’... are not occupied by wolves due to human and livestock presence and the associated lack of tolerance of wolves...” (78 FR 35680) A meta-analysis, conducted more than a decade ago, synthesized the results of 37 empirical studies on human attitudes toward wolves conducted through the year 2000 (Williams et al. 2002), and a simple search of the scholarly literature uncovered an additional 63 relevant articles published after this metaanalysis (Bruskotter et al. 2013), none of which is cited in the FWS review. Moreover, in 2010 the Midwest regional office of the FWS contracted Dr. Christine Bronwe-Nuñez to review human attitudes toward wolves (76 FR 26086-26145). Therefore, the FWS cannot plead ignorance. Ignoring this literature is not merely a procedural shortcoming. In failing to account for or even acknowledge the relevant science, the proposed rule grossly mishandles the concept of intolerance. The scientific evidence contradicts the FWS claim quoted above (Williams et al. 2002; Treves et al. 2009; Hogberg et al. 2013). In addition, the quotation above and numerous passages (78 FR 35680) seem to justify FWS inaction against illegal killing or unsustainable but legal, lethal management of wolves and other endangered species (Bruskotter et al. 2013). By defining most of the USA as unsuitable for wolves, the FWS has capitulated to the threat rather than mitigating the threat as mandated by the ESA. Finally, the 2013 proposal redefines the "significant portion of range" (SPR phrase) of the ESA. The FWS 2013 proposal defines SPR as current range (78 FR 35673), which runs contrary to congressional intent as expressed in the ESA (Bruskotter et al. 2013). Moreover, this same approach was explicitly rejected by a federal court in the case of the Canada lynx, where the court found that FWS disregard for three-fourths of the Lynx’s historic range within the US was “antithetical to the ESA’s broad purpose to protect endangered and threatened species” (Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F.2d 9, 14 D.D.C. 2002), as explained more fully in Bruskotter et al. (2013). Because the FWS 2013 proposal would set a precedent for diluting the SPR phrase and abdicating the ESA mandate to prevent threats to listed species, we urge FWS to withdraw its proposal. We anticipate opposition to delisting the gray wolf, as currently proposed, from many individuals and organizations concerned with federally listed species. Also, we believe the decision is indefensible in court. We, the undersigned, thank the FWS for the opportunity to comment on the proposed delisting of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, under the ESA. Northeast Wolf Coalition and Supporters Include: Organizations: Adirondack Council, Adirondack Wild, American Ecological Research Institute, Center For Biological Diversity, Cougar Rewilding Foundation, Endangered Species Coalition, Maine Wolf Coalition, Protect the Adirondacks, Wildlands Network, Wolf Conservation Center Scientific Advisors: Brad Bergstrom, Ph.D., Cristina Eisenberg, Ph.D., John Laundré, Ph.D., Paul Paquet, Ph.D., Brent Patterson, Ph.D., Richard Thiel, Jay Tischendorf DVM, Adrian Treves, Ph.D., Jon Way, Ph.D.

3

Literature Cited Bruskotter JT, Vucetich JA, Enzler S, Treves A, Nelson MP. 2013. Removing protections for wolves and the future of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (1973). Conservation Letters DOI: 10.1111/conl.12081. Chambers, S. M., S. R. Fain, B. Fazio, and M. Amaral. 2012. An account of the taxonomy of North American wolves from morphological and genetic analyses. North American Fauna 77: 1–67. Fain, S. R., D. J. Straughan, and B. F. Taylor. 2010. Genetic outcomes of wolf recovery in the western Great Lakes states. Conservation Genetics 11: 1747-1765. Glowa, J., W.L. Pepperman, C.L. Schadler, J. Butera, and J.G. Way. 2009. Petition submitted to protect wolves and allow wolf recovery in the northeast. Submitted to US Department of Interior on 31 January 2009. 17 pages. Hogberg J, Treves A, Shaw B, Naughton-Treves L. 2013. 2013. Wolf Policy Survey. http://faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/wolves/wolfhuman.php Kays R., Feranec, R, . 2011. Using Stable Carbon Isotopes to Distinguish Wild from Captive Wolves. Northeastern Naturalist 18:253 – 264 NCEAS (National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis). 2014. Review of Proposed Rule Regarding Status of the Wolf Under the Endangered Species Act. University of California, Santa Barbara. 68 pages. Nowak, R. M. 2009. Taxonomy, morphology, and genetics of wolves in the Great Lakes region. Pp. 233 – 250 in Wydeven, Adrian P., Timothy Van Deelen, and Edward J. Heske (Eds.) Recovery of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region of the United States. Springer. New York. Prugh L, Stoner C, Epps C, Bean W, Ripple W, Laliberte A, Brashares J. 2009. The Rise of the Mesopredator. BioScience. Vol. 59 no. 9 pages 779-791. Rutledge, L. Y., C. J. Garroway, K. M. Loveless, and B. R. Patterson. 2010. Genetic differentiation of eastern wolves in Algonquin Park despite bridging gene flow between coyotes and grey wolves. Heredity 105: 520-531 Rutledge, L. Y., P. A. Wilson, C. F. C. Klutch, B. Patterson, and B. N. White. 2012. Conservation genomes in perspective: a holistic approach to understanding Canis evolution in North America. Biological Conservation 155: 186-192. Treves A, Jurewicz RL, Naughton-Treves L, Wilcove D. 2009. The price of tolerance: Wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 4003–4021. Villemere, M. and H. Jolicoeur. 2004. First confirmed occurrence of wolf, Canis lupus, south of St. Laurence in over 100 years. Canadian Field-Naturalist 118: 608-610. 4

Von Holdt, B., J. P. Pollinger, D. A. Earl, J. C. Knowles, A. R. Boyko, H. Parker, E. Geffen, M. Pilot, W. Jedrzejewski, B. Jedrzejewski, V. Sidorovich, C. Greco, E. Randi, M. Musiani, R. Kays, C. D. Bustamonte, E. A. Ostrander, J. Novembre, and R. K. Wayne. 2011. A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids. Genome Research 21: 1294-1305. Way, J. G. 2007. A comparison of body mass of Canis latrans (coyotes) between eastern and western North America. Northeastern Naturalist 14: 111–124. Way, J. G., L. Rutledge, T. Wheeldon, and B. N. White. 2010. Genetic characterization of eastern “coyotes” in eastern Massachusetts. Northeastern Naturalist 17: 189 – 204. Way, J.G. 2013. Taxonomic implications of morphological and genetic differences in northeastern coyotes (coywolves) (Canis latrans × C. lycaon), western coyotes (C. latrans), and eastern wolves (C. lycaon or C. lupus lycaon). Canadian Field-Naturalist 127 : 1–16. Williams CK, Ericsson G, Heberlein TA. 2002. A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972-2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 575-584. Wilson P. J., S. K. Grewal, F. F. Mallory, and B. N. White. 2009. Genetic characterization of hybrid wolves across Ontario. Journal of Heredity 100: S80-S89. Wydeven, A. P., T. K. Fuller, W. Weber, and K. MacDonald. 1998. The potential for wolf recovery in the northeastern United States via dispersal from southeastern Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 776 – 784. Wydeven, A. P., J. E. Wiedenhoeft, R. N. Schultz, R. P. Thiel, R. R. Jurewicz, B. E. Kohn, and T. R. Van Deelen. 2009. History, population growth, and management of wolves in Wisconsin. Pages 107 – 117 in Wydeven et al. (Eds.) Recovery of gray wolves In the Great Lakes Region of the United States. Springer.

5