Here are some facts about wolf subspecies:
FACT: North American wolves were classified as many different subspecies prior to the introduction in ID/YNP
FACT: Wolves in the NRM (ID/MT/WY) were classified as
canis lupus irremotusFACT: Wolves from Alberta to the McKenzie valley were classified as
canis lupus occidentalisFACT: The northern wolves which were planted in ID/YNP were originally considered a different subspecie
canis lupus occidentalishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupushttp://www.wolfhowl.org/subspecies.php (map showing areas of subspecies)
Note: If the subspecies of wolves were recognized as different, it's unlikely
canis lupus occidentalis could have planted in ID/YNP if
canis lupus irremotus was the resident wolf, it was very convenient for the USFWS the way things worked out for these subspecies to be reclassified as one wolf "canis lupus" just before they planted them.
Now that the northern wolf
canis lupus occidentalis was planted and has multiplied greatly and likely polluted the blood of the native wolves, most likely killing or breeding them out of existence, it probably doesn't matter, it's an old argument that is too late to be corrected, the impacts are irreversible.
Now that western North American wolves are classified as one wolf "canis lupus" they were delisted in much of the west and there is a proposal to delist in most states in the US. Essentially, wolf groups are now trying to regain other classifications of certain sub-species so that they can prevent delisting in certain areas. This is a game the wolf groups are playing to further their cause of promoting wolves.
My position is that the USFWS already messed up, the wolves were planted, genetics have been messed up, now we have only one specie of wolf "canis lupus" in most of the western US and Canada, with the exception of the Mexican wolf and perhaps the arctic wolf. These wolves should all be delisted since there are 60,000+ cross bred "canis lupus" wolves.
The fact that we now have essentially one wolf should not vindicate USFWS and other agencies for their involvement in essentially destroying the subspecies of wolf known as
canis lupus irremotus which has likely been killed or bred out of existence by
canis lupus occidentalis which was introduced by these agencies and has very successfully multiplied and spread across the western US.
After wolves were planted and multiplied now the wolf groups want to have the cake and eat it too. They now want to claim there are other subspecies. I think it's too late for the wolf groups to successfully argue that all these subspecies still exist. It's public record that
canis lupus occidentalis was planted, multiplied rapidly, has traveled, and is breeding all over the western US.
USFWS tells the story of reclassifying wolves to fit their needs:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/fws_wolf-5yr-review_feb2012.pdfU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceWashington Office
Arlington, VA
5-YEAR REVIEWSpecies reviewed: Lower 48-State and Mexico gray wolf (Canis lupus) listing, as revised1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION1.1 Reviewers
Lead Office: Endangered Species Program, Headquarters Office, Arlington, VA
Cooperating Regional Offices: Endangered Species Program, Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8.
1.2 Methodology used to complete the review: This 5-year status review was initiated on
May 5, 2011, in conjunction with the Service’s proposed rule to revise the list of endangered
and threatened wildlife for the gray wolf in the Eastern United States (76 FR 26086). This
review was a national effort (see cooperating offices above) lead by the Headquarters Office in
Arlington, VA. None of this review was contracted out.
1.3 Background:
1.3.1 FR Notice citation announcing initiation of this review: Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for
the Gray Wolf in the Eastern United States, Initiation of Status Reviews for the Gray Wolf and
for the Eastern Wolf (76 FR 26086, May 5, 2011)
1.3.2 Wolf biology: For information on the biology of gray wolves refer to the preambles of
our previous actions (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 75 FR 46894,
August 4, 2010; 76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011).
1.3.3 Listing history: Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional
populations of subspecies in the conterminous United States and Mexico. In 1967, we listed
the eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon) in the Great Lakes region (32 FR 4001, March 11,
1967), and in 1973 we listed C. l. irremotus in the northern Rocky Mountains (38 FR 14678, June
4, 1973). Both listings were promulgated under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of
1969; subsequently, on January 4, 1974, these subspecies were listed under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (39 FR 1171). We listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican
wolf (C. l. baileyi) as endangered on April 28, 1976 (41 FR 17740), in the southwestern United
States and Mexico. On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24064), we listed the Texas gray wolf subspecies
(C. l. monstrabilis) as endangered in Texas and Mexico.
In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) reclassifying the gray wolf as an
endangered population at the species level (C. lupus) throughout the conterminous 48 States
and Mexico, except for the Minnesota gray wolf population, which was classified as threatened.
At that time, we considered the gray wolf group in Minnesota to be a listable entity under the
ESA, and we considered the gray wolf group in Mexico and the 48 conterminous States other
than Minnesota to be another listable entity (43 FR 9607 and 9610, respectively, March 9,
1978). The separate subspecies listings thus were subsumed into the listings for the gray wolf
in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the rest of the conterminous United States and Mexico. In
that 1978 rule, we also identified critical habitat in Michigan and Minnesota and promulgated
special regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA for operating a wolf management program in
Minnesota. The special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793, December 12, 1985).
The 1978 reclassification was undertaken to “most conveniently” handle a listing that needed
to be revised because of changes in our understanding of wolf taxonomy, and in recognition of
the fact that individual wolves sometimes cross subspecific boundaries. In addition, we sought
to clarify that the gray wolf was only listed south of the Canadian border. However, the 1978
rule also stipulated that “biological subspecies would continue to be maintained and dealt with
as separate entities” (43 FR 9609), and offered “the firmest assurance that [the Service] will
continue to recognize valid biological subspecies for purposes of its research and conservation
programs” (43 FR 9610, March 9, 1978). Accordingly, recovery plans were developed for the
wolf populations in the following regions of the United States: the northern Rocky Mountains
in 1980, revised in 1987; the Great Lakes in 1978, revised in 1992; and the Southwest in 1982,
the revision of which is now underway.
Between 2003 and 2009 we published several rules revising the 1978 conterminous listing for C.
lupus (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27,
2008; 74 FR 15070 and 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). However, each of these revisions was
challenged in court. As a result of court orders (Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Norton, et al., 354
F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005); National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. Norton, et al., 386 F.Supp.2d
553 (D. Vt. 2005); Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Hall, et al., 565 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. Mont.
2008); Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Salazar, et al., 729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010);
Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)) and, in
one case, a settlement agreement (Humane Society of the United States v. Salazar, 1:09-CV-
1092-PLF (D.D.C.)), by the spring of 2010 the listing for C. lupus in 50 CFR 17.11 remained
unchanged from the reclassification that occurred in 1978 (except for the addition of the three
experimental populations (Yellowstone Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November
22, 1994), Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994), and
the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998)). For additional
information on these Federal Actions and their associated litigation history refer to the relevant
associated rules (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007; 73 FR 10514,
February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15070 and 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009) or Previous Federal Actions
sections of our most recent wolf actions (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011; 76 FR 81666,
December 28, 2011).
On May 5, 2011, we published a final rule that implemented Section 1713 of Public Law 112–10,
reinstating our April 2, 2009, delisting rule which identified the Northern Rocky Mountain
(NRM) population of gray wolf as a distinct population segment (DPS) and, with the exception
of Wyoming, removed gray wolves in the DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (76 FR 25590). Although gray wolves in Wyoming were not included in the May 5th final
delisting, we have since proposed to remove gray wolves in Wyoming from the List (76 FR
61782, October 5, 2011).
On December 28, 2011, we revised the 1978 listing of the Minnesota population of gray wolves
to conform to current statutory and policy requirements. We revised what was previously
listed as the Minnesota population of the gray wolf and identified it as the Western Great Lakes
(WGL) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (the DPS includes all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan and portions of the adjacent states) and removed that WGL DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (76 FR 81666). This action became effective on January
27, 2012.
As a result of the recent actions described above, the 1978 reclassification for C. lupus now
encompasses all or portions of 42 States (AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD,
ME, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, VT and WV, AZ, NM, TX, and
portions of IA, IN, IL, ND, OH, OR, SD, UT, and WA) and Mexico (Figure 1). Therefore, this
review, a review of the listed entity, is limited to this remainder of the 1978 reclassification,
except where historical context and a wider discussion would benefit the reader’s
understanding of the current listed entity. Although gray wolves in Wyoming remain protected
under the ESA, they are part of the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS and are proposed for
delisting (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011). Therefore, gray wolves in Wyoming are not part of
this status review.
