Since 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been a tool to prevent extinction of a plant or animal that was in risk of disappearing. It was intended to be an important catalyst for coordinated efforts to improve habitat. It was designed to be both a carrot and a stick to ensure wildlife diversity didn’t suffer.
It was never intended to be a destination. The Act was designed as a means to an end, to devote concerted resources to identifying and recovering truly imperiled species. Success stories soar across the American skyline and ramble through American hearts: the bald eagle, the Channel Island fox, and the inspiration for the famous “Teddy Bear.” Now we add the gray wolf to that list of victories—and rightfully so.
Since Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Director Aurelia Skipwith announced the recovery and delisting of gray wolves in early November, activists have decried the decision, calling it premature, ill-founded, and unjustified. We have even seen rhetoric like “rebounding population of endangered species is no excuse for delisting.” With gray wolves, we’re not talking about rebounding populations, we’re talking about runaway populations of this apex predator.
We represent Americans who put great weight behind history, science, and the law. History tells us that while gray wolf management is often controversial, states are successfully managing thousands of other wildlife species. History also tells us that this delisting effort has been supported by administrations past and president, with proposed delisting for the gray wolf nationwide spanning more than seven years under both President Barrack Obama and President Donald Trump. Federal wildlife managers have been working to delist gray wolves in some form since 2004, and each of those efforts has been rooted in the best available science.
Science tells us that it is well past time for gray wolves to be returned to state management. The USFWS has confirmed and reconfirmed that wolf populations have sustainable numbers regionally and nationwide.
The law tells us that when recovery goals have been achieved, that species no longer meets the qualifying factors of the ESA. With that direction, the course is clear: Wolves must be returned to state management.
We know that conversations about the ESA aren’t just limited to science, history, and law. Emotion features heavily in debates about gray wolf recovery, especially when activist groups use emotion as an excuse to ignore the science. While the science is clear, the recovery of gray wolf populations is also evident on the ground. Livestock producers who see these runaway populations don’t just see them from afar.
Rapidly expanding packs means wolves seek out new food in new areas. Wolves are in their pastures, at times causing total devastation of sheep flocks and cattle herds that would otherwise be safe from predators of this size. To be clear, livestock producers don’t support delisting gray wolves because they deal with the financial and emotional fallout from depredation; they support gray wolf recovery and delisting in spite of the challenges.
From the first draft of the ESA, to the hard-fought victory in gray wolf recovery, the Act was always intended to be a tool to intervene in an emergency situation to stop extinction by providing clear federal authority and a framework for coordinated conservation. The recovery of the gray wolf is a story of ESA success: hard-fought, long-awaited, and well-deserved. — Marty Smith, president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Niels Hansen, president of the Public Lands Council; Benny Cox, president of the American Sheep Industry Association
