26086 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2011–0029; 

92220–1113–000; ABC Code: C6] 

RIN 1018–AX57 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Rule To Revise 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife for the Gray Wolf (Canis 

lupus) in the Eastern United States, 

Initiation of Status Reviews for the 

Gray Wolf and for the Eastern Wolf 

(Canis lycaon) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule, initiation of 

status reviews. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) are 

re-evaluating the listing of the 

Minnesota population of gray wolves 

(Canis lupus) and propose to revise it to 

conform to current statutory and policy 

requirements. We propose to identify 

the Minnesota population as a Western 

Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf and to 

remove this DPS from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

We propose these actions because the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information indicates that the WGL DPS 

does not meet the definitions of 

threatened or endangered under the Act. 

This proposed rule, if made final, 

would remove the currently designated 

critical habitat for the gray wolf in 

Minnesota and Michigan and the 

current special regulations for gray 

wolves in Minnesota. We also propose 

to revise the range of the gray wolf (the 

species C. lupus) by removing all or 

parts of 29 eastern states that we now 

recognize were not part of the historical 

range of the gray wolf. New information 

indicates that these areas should not 

have been included in the original 

listing of the gray wolf. 

In this proposed rule, we recognize 

recent taxonomic information indicating 

that the gray wolf subspecies Canis 

lupus lycaon should be elevated to the 

full species C. lycaon. Given that a 

complete status review of this newly 

recognized species has never been 

conducted, we are initiating a 

rangewide review of the conservation 

status of C. lycaon in the United States 

and Canada. This rule also constitutes 

the initiation of our five-year review of 

the status of gray wolves under section 

4(c)(2) of the Act, as well as the 

initiation of status reviews specific to 

gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest 

and Mexican wolves in the Southwest 

United States and Mexico. 

DATES: Comment submission: We will 

accept comments received or 

postmarked on or before July 5, 2011. 

Public hearings: We will hold two 

public hearings on this proposed rule 

scheduled on May 18, 2011 and on June 

8, 2011. Informational meetings will be 

held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed 

by the public hearings from 7:30 p.m. to 

9 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You 

may submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Enter 

Keyword or ID box, enter FWS–R3–ES– 

2011–0029, which is the docket number 

for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 

panel at the top of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rules link to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ 

By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or 

hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R3–ES–2011– 

0029; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

Public hearings: We have scheduled 

an informational meeting followed by a 

public hearing in Ashland, Wisconsin, 

on May 18, 2011, at the Northern Great 

Lakes Center, 29270 County Highway G. 

We have scheduled an informational 

meeting followed by a public hearing in 

Augusta, Maine, on June 8, 2011, at the 

Augusta Civic Center, 16 Cony Street. 

See the Public Hearings section below 

for more details. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Ragan, 612–713–5350. Direct all 

questions or requests for additional 

information to: GRAY WOLF 

QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal 

Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111– 

4056. Additional information is also 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf. Individuals 

who are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY 

assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, comments, new information, 

or suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule are hereby solicited. In 

particular, we are seeking targeted 

information and comments on our 

national wolf strategy and our proposed 

revision of the Minnesota listing; see 

items (1)-(2) below. Also, as part of this 

proposed rule we are announcing 

initiation of a 5-year status review for C. 

lupus in the conterminous United States 

and Mexico; initiation of status reviews 

specific to, respectively, gray wolves in 

the Pacific Northwest and in the 

Southwest United States and Mexico; 

and initiation of a status review for C. 

lycaon throughout its range in the 

United States and Canada. For these 

status reviews to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on items (9)–(11) below 

from governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. 

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant information concerning 

our analysis of the current gray wolf 

listing and the adequacy of our national 

wolf strategy, with particular respect to 

our recommended gray wolf listing 

units (i.e., taxonomic or population 

units); 

(2) Information that forms the basis 

for revising the currently listed 

Minnesota group of gray wolves under 

section 4(c) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), with particular 

respect to the factors in section 4(a) of 

the Act, which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

current or likely future threat, or lack 

thereof, to wolves in the WGL DPS; 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, population size, 

population trends, and threats with 

respect to wolves in the WGL DPS; 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26087 

(5) Current or planned activities in the 

WGL DPS and their possible impacts on 

the wolves and their habitat; 

(6) Information concerning the 

adequacy of the recovery criteria 

described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for 

the Eastern Timber Wolf; 

(7) The extent and adequacy of 

Federal, state, and Tribal protection and 

management that would be provided to 

wolves in the WGL DPS as delisted 

species; and 

(8) The proposed geographic 

boundaries of the WGL DPS, and 

scientific and legal supporting 

information for alternative boundaries 

that might result in a larger or smaller 

DPS, including information on the 

discreteness and significance of the 

proposed DPS. 

(9) New information concerning the 

biology and conservation of the gray 

wolf in the conterminous United States 

and Mexico that may be informative to 

the 5-year status review of Canis lupus, 

with particular attention to the listing 

units described under (1) above, 

including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

(e) Historical, current, and projected 

levels of suitable gray wolf habitat; 

(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats 

to extant gray wolf populations, their 

habitat, or both; and 

(g) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the gray wolf, its habitat, 

or both. 

(10) Information concerning the status 

of the gray wolf in the Pacific Northwest 

United States and the gray wolf 

subspecies baileyi (Mexican wolf) in the 

Southwest United States and Mexico, 

including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

(e) Historical, current, and projected 

levels of suitable habitat; 

(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats 

to these populations, their habitat, or 

both; and 

(g) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for these populations, their 

habitat, or both. 

(11) Information concerning the 

biology, range, and population trends of 

Canis lycaon, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

(e) Historical, current, and projected 

levels of suitable habitat; 

(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats 

to extant populations, their habitat, or 

both; 

(g) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both; and 

(h) The potential role that any portion 

of the historical range of the C. lycaon 

in the United States may play in the 

persistence and viability of the species. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials by one of the methods listed 

in ADDRESSES. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in ADDRESSES. 

Comments must be submitted to http: 

//www.regulations.gov before midnight 

(Eastern Daylight Time) on the date 

specified in DATES. Finally, we will not 

consider hand-delivered comments that 

we do not receive, or mailed comments 

that are not postmarked, by the date 

specified in DATES. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information, such 

as your street address, phone number, or 

e-mail address, you may request at the 

top of your document that we withhold 

this information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R3–ES–2011–0029, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the following Ecological 

Services offices: 

• Twin Cities, Minnesota Ecological 

Services Field Office, 4101 American 

Blvd. E., Bloomington, MN; 612–725– 

3548. 

• Green Bay, Wisconsin Ecological 

Services Field Office, 2661 Scott Tower 

Dr., New Franken, WI; 920–866–1717. 

• East Lansing, Michigan Ecological 

Services Field Office, 2651 Coolidge 

Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI; 517– 

351–2555. 

• New England Ecological Services 

Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 70 Commercial St., Suite 300, 

Concord, NH; 603–223–2541. 

Public Hearings 

We have scheduled an informational 

meeting followed by a public hearing in 

Ashland, Wisconsin, on May 18, 2011, 

at the Northern Great Lakes Center, 

29270 County Highway G. The 

informational meeting will be held from 

6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed by a public 

hearing from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. 

A second informational meeting 

followed by a public hearing will be 

held in Augusta, Maine, on June 8, 

2011, at the Augusta Civic Center, 16 

Cony Street. The informational meeting 

will be held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., 

followed by a public hearing from 7:30 

p.m. to 9 p.m. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy, 

‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities,’’ which was 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we will seek the expert opinion 

of at least three appropriate 

independent specialists regarding 

scientific data and interpretations 

contained in this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our decisions are based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analysis. 

We will send copies of this proposed 

rule to the peer reviewers immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Background 

National Overview 

Below we provide an overview of our 

proposed national approach to recovery 

of wolves in the conterminous United 

States and Mexico. This overview 

provides the context for our proposed 

actions for wolves in the eastern United 

States. In this overview, we discuss the 

listing history for the gray wolf, evaluate 

the current gray wolf listing, present the 

structured decision-making process we 

have used to date to formulate our 

national wolf strategy, and describe the 

strategy itself. 

Gray Wolf Listing History 

Here we present a brief overview of 

previous Federal actions relating to the 

listing of gray wolves and the recovery 

plans that have been developed 

pursuant to these listing actions. 

Additional Federal actions for western 

Great Lakes wolves are discussed in 

Previous Federal Actions for WGL 

Wolves below. 

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 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26088 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 (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 Minnesota group of gray 

wolves to be a listable entity under the 

Act, 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, 9610, respectively, March 

9, 1978). This reclassification was 

undertaken because of uncertainty about 

the taxonomic validity of some of the 

previously listed subspecies and 

because we recognized that wolf 

populations were historically 

connected, and that subspecies 

boundaries were thus malleable. 

However, the 1978 rule also stated 

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. 

More detail on previous Federal 

actions for the Southwest and northern 

Rocky Mountains wolves is provided, 

respectively, within the 90-day finding 

for Mexican wolves (75 FR 46894) and 

in various notices and rulemakings for 

the management of northern Rocky 

Mountains wolves (59 FR 60252, 

November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, 

November 22, 1994; 68 FR 15804, April 

1, 2003; 68 FR 15879, April 1, 2003; 70 

FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 71 FR 6634, 

February 8, 2006; 71 FR 43410, August 

1, 2006; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 

73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 

15123, April 2, 2009) . Further detail on 

previous Federal actions related to the 

WGL DPS is provided in Previous 

Federal Actions for WGL Wolves below. 

Evaluation of the 1978 Gray Wolf 

Listing 

The Service now considers the 1978 

Canis lupus listing rule at 43 FR 9607 

to be in need of revision. This need has 

been identified based on our review of 

the best available taxonomic 

information, which indicates that C. 

lupus historically did not occupy large 

portions of the eastern United States 

and on our reconsideration of the listing 

in light of current statutory and policy 

requirements under the Act. These 

considerations are discussed in turn 

below. 

Taxonomy and Historical Ranges of 

Wolves in the United States 

Our review of the best available 

taxonomic information indicates that 

Canis lupus did not occupy large 

portions of the eastern United States: 

i.e., the northeastern United States was 

occupied by the eastern wolf (C. 

lycaon), now considered a separate 

species of Canis rather than a subspecies 

of lupus, and the southeastern United 

States was occupied by the red wolf 

(Canis rufus) rather than the gray wolf. 

Our review of North American wolf 

taxonomy also suggests that changes in 

listing classification are warranted in 

other portions of the country. 

At the time the gray wolf was listed 

in 1978, and until the molecular 

genetics studies of the last few years, the 

range of the gray wolf prior to European 

settlement was generally believed to 

include most of North America. The 

only areas that were believed to have 

lacked gray wolf populations were the 

coastal and interior portions of 

California, the arid deserts and 

mountaintops of the western United 

States, and parts of the eastern and 

southeastern United States (Young and 

Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974, 

and Nowak 1995). We note, however, 

that some authorities have questioned 

the reported historical absence of gray 

wolves in parts of California (Carbyn in 

litt. 2000, Mech in litt. 2000). 

Furthermore, we note long-held 

differences of opinion regarding the 

precise boundary of the gray wolf’s 

historical range in the eastern and 

southeastern United States. Some 

researchers regarded Georgia’s 

southeastern corner as the southern 

extent of gray wolf range (Young and 

Goldman 1944, Mech 1974); others 

believed gray wolves did not extend 

into the Southeast at all (Hall 1981) or 

did so to a limited extent, primarily at 

somewhat higher elevations (Nowak 

1995). The southeastern and midAtlantic States were generally 

recognized as being within the historical 

range of the red wolf (Canis rufus), and 

it is not known how much range overlap 

historically occurred between the two 

Canis species. Morphological work by 

Nowak (2000, 2002, 2003) supported 

extending the historical range of the red 

wolf into southern New England or even 

farther northward, indicating either that 

the historical range of the gray wolf in 

the eastern United States was more 

limited than previously believed, or that 

the respective ranges of several wolf 

species expanded and contracted in the 

eastern and northeastern United States, 

intermingling in post-glacial times along 

contact zones. 

The results of recent molecular 

genetic analyses (e.g., Wilson et al. 

2000, Wilson et al. 2003, Wheeldon and 

White 2009, Wilson et al. 2009, Fain et 

al. 2010, Wheeldon et al. 2010) and 

morphometric studies (e.g., Nowak 

1995, 2000, 2002, 2003) explain some of 

the past difficulties in establishing the 

gray wolf’s range in the eastern United 

States. These studies show that the midAtlantic and southeastern United States 

historically were occupied by the red 

wolf (C. rufus), and that New England 

and portions of the upper Midwest 

(eastern and western Great Lakes 

regions) historically were occupied by 

C. lycaon; they also indicate that the 

gray wolf (C. lupus) did not occur in the 

eastern United States. 

Based on these recent studies, we 

view the historical range of the gray 

wolf as the central and western United 

States, including portions of the western 

Great Lakes region, the Great Plains, 

portions of the Rocky Mountains, the 

Intermountain West, the Pacific 

Northwest, and portions of the 

Southwest. All or parts of 29 southern 

and eastern States (Maine, 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 

Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 

Florida, Ohio (the part outside WGL 

DPS), West Virginia, Kentucky, 

Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, 

Louisiana, Texas (east of Interstate 

Highway 35), Oklahoma (east of 

Interstate Highway 35 and southeast of 

Interstate Highway 44 north of 

Oklahoma City), Arkansas, Missouri 

(southeast of Interstate Highway 44 and 

southeast of Interstate Highway 70 east 

of St. Louis), Indiana (the part outside 

WGL DPS), and Illinois (the part outside 

WGL DPS)) were not within the gray 

wolf’s historical range. 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26089 

In sum, we now recognize three wolf 

species with ranges in the conterminous 

United States: Canis lupus, Canis 

lycaon, and Canis rufus. The ranges of 

C. lupus and C. lycaon overlap in the 

western Great Lakes region, as discussed 

in Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western 

Great Lakes Region below; however, in 

the eastern United States, the historical 

range of C. lupus is considered to fall 

outside the historical ranges of C. lycaon 

and C. rufus. 

Conformance With the Act’s Definition 

of Species 

Given the assurances we provided in 

the 1978 C. lupus listing that we would 

continue to treat gray wolf subspecies as 

separate entities for conservation 

purposes (as noted in Gray Wolf Listing 

History, above), we identified a need to 

reconsider the listing in light of current 

statutory and policy standards regarding 

the Act’s definition of species. The Act 

provides for listing at various taxonomic 

and subtaxonomic levels through its 

definition of ‘‘species’’ in section 3(16): 

The term species includes any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature (16 

U.S.C. 1532(16) (italics added). As a 

matter of procedure, then, the Service 

determines whether it is most 

appropriate to list an entity as a full 

species, a subspecies, or a DPS of either 

a species or subspecies. The gray wolf 

has a Holarctic range; the current listing 

encompasses the United States-Mexico 

segment of the population and consists, 

in turn, of multiple entities. 

The specific provision for listing 

distinct population segments of 

vertebrates was enacted through the 

1978 Amendments to the Act (Pub. L. 

95–362, November 10, 1978); these 

amendments replaced the ability to list 

‘‘populations’’ with the ability to list 

‘‘distinct population segments’’ and treat 

them as species under the Act. To 

interpret and implement the 1978 DPS 

amendment, the Service and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

jointly published the Policy Regarding 

the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act (DPS policy) 

(61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), setting 

policy standards for designating 

populations as ‘‘distinct.’’ 

The March 1978 gray wolf listing 

predated the November 1978 

amendments to the Act. Although the 

1978 rule lists two C. lupus entities, i.e., 

the endangered and threatened entities 

described above, these listings were not 

predicated upon a formal DPS analysis 

and do not comport with current policy 

standards. Nonetheless, subsequent 

recovery plans and all gray wolf 

rulemakings since 1996 have focused on 

units reflective of the evident intent of 

the 1978 rule to manage and recover 

gray wolves as ‘‘separate entities’’ (43 FR 

9609), i.e., subspecies or populations. 

This proposed rule and our proposed 

National Wolf Strategy, below, 

constitute an effort to bring the 1978 

listing in line, insofar as possible, with 

the Act’s requirements and current 

policy standards. 

Structured Decision-Making for Wolves 

In 2008, the Service embarked on a 

structured decision-making process as a 

means of developing a more integrated 

and comprehensive strategy for gray 

wolf conservation in the lower 48 States 

and Mexico. The overall intent of the 

process was to identify appropriate wolf 

entities (i.e., listing units) for full status 

review, anticipating that such review 

would lead to either confirmation or 

revision of the existing gray wolf listing. 

We aimed to identify a coherent set of 

listing units based on best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

conformance with existing regulatory 

and policy requirements, and 

fundamental wolf management 

objectives. 

We first conducted several iterations 

of the process in an internal Service 

effort to develop a viable framework for 

considering the scientific and policy 

questions that drive decision-making for 

wolves. The resulting framework 

incorporated decision analysis 

principles and techniques for crafting 

alternative listing units and then 

assessing the relative performance of 

each alternative in terms of achieving 

management objectives. 

Management of wolves is shared 

among the Service, States, and Tribes. 

Thus, following our development of a 

satisfactory decision-making framework, 

representatives from several States 

involved with gray wolf conservation 

joined us to further explore alternative 

units that could qualify for future status 

review (Tribal representatives declined 

to participate). After acquainting state 

participants with the decision-making 

framework, we convened a State-Federal 

workshop in August 2010 to generate 

and assess alternative taxonomic and 

population units at various scales and in 

various configurations, including the 

1978 listing as the status quo 

alternative. 

Workshop participants also explored 

the different values that drive wolf 

decision-making; these values were 

expressed as the following fundamental 

management objectives: (1) Promote and 

sustain wolf recovery; (2) comply with 

the requirements of the Act; (3) 

minimize the regulatory burden on 

States, Tribes, and the general public; 

(4) facilitate State and Tribal 

management of wolves; (5) minimize 

wolf-human conflicts; and (6) promote 

public acceptance of wolf listing and 

recovery actions. 

Workshop outcomes provided 

important input to our continuing effort 

to formulate a comprehensive vision of 

wolf conservation. Based on further 

Service deliberations, this 

comprehensive vision has evolved into 

the proposed national wolf strategy 

discussed below. It is important to note 

that this strategy is a broad outline, the 

components of which are in various 

stages of execution. 

National Wolf Strategy 

The Service’s national wolf strategy is 

intended to: (1) Lay out a cohesive and 

coherent approach to addressing wolf 

conservation needs, including 

protection and management, in 

accordance with the Act’s statutory 

framework; (2) ensure that actions taken 

for one wolf population do not cause 

unintended consequences for other 

populations; and (3) be explicit about 

the role of historical range in the 

conservation of extant wolf populations. 

The strategy is based on three 

precepts. First, in order to qualify for 

any type of listing or delisting action, 

wolf entities must conform to the Act’s 

definition of ‘‘species,’’ whether as 

taxonomic species or subspecies or as 

distinct population segments. Second, 

the strategy promotes the continued 

representation in this country of all 

substantially unique genetic lineages 

found historically in the lower 48 

States. Third, wolf conservation under 

the Act is concerned with reducing 

extinction risks to imperiled entities; 

the strategy thus focuses on 

conservation of the four extant gray wolf 

entities identified through the 

structured decision-making process and 

being considered for section 4 actions: 

(1) The western Great Lakes population, 

(2) the northern Rocky Mountains 

(NRM) population, (3) gray wolves in 

the Pacific Northwest, and (4) the 

Southwestern population of Mexican 

wolves. 

Various reviews and listing actions 

are underway for these gray wolf 

populations. The WGL DPS is proposed 

for delisting in the proposed rule being 

published in today’s Federal Register. 

With regard to the NRM gray wolf 

population, Congress is considering 

legislation that would direct us to 

reissue our 2009 final rule (74 FR 15123, 

April 2, 2009), that delisted the NRM 

DPS in the States of Idaho and Montana, 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26090 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

and in portions of Oregon, Washington, 

and Utah. This rule retained ESA 

protections of wolves in Wyoming as 

non-essential experimental. If passed, 

we would publish a separate notice in 

the Federal Register. Negotiations 

regarding potential future post-delisting 

wolf management in Wyoming are 

ongoing. 

The biological and conservation status 

of wolves in the Pacific Northwest (we 

are considering this to be the area west 

of the NRM gray wolf population, 

including portions of Oregon, 

Washington, northern California, and 

western Nevada) is being assessed to 

determine their appropriate listing 

classification. When this review is 

completed, we will evaluate a potential 

Pacific Northwest DPS in accordance 

with our DPS policy and will reclassify 

this population as appropriate through 

an additional rulemaking process. The 

status of the Southwestern population 

(i.e., Mexican wolves within their 

historical range) is being reviewed 

pursuant to our 90-day finding on two 

listing petitions (75 FR 46894, August 4, 

2010). We anticipate that the 

Southwestern population will be 

proposed for listing as either the 

subspecies C. l. baileyi or as a DPS of 

C. lupus; in the meantime, recovery 

planning will continue to proceed for 

these wolves. 

As separate actions move forward for 

the NRM, Pacific Northwest, and 

Southwest, wolves in these regions will 

retain their current classification as 

endangered, except where delisted and 

where currently listed as non-essential 

experimental populations (see 50 CFR 

17.84(k)). We plan to move forward with 

a rulemaking to replace the remainder of 

the 1978 listing with more targeted 

regional units, as appropriate, 

concurrently with publication of the 

final rule for the WGL DPS. 

It is likely that revision of the 1978 

gray wolf listing into finer-scale 

taxonomic or population units will 

result in removal of the Act’s 

protections in areas of the historical C. 

lupus range, such as the Great Plains 

States and areas of the western States, 

that do not support extant wolf 

populations and do not play a role in 

the recovery of any of the four gray wolf 

entities. Although some of these areas 

are within the species’ historical range, 

these areas lack sufficient suitable 

habitat for wolf pack persistence. Thus, 

we believe recovery in these areas is 

both unrealistic and unnecessary. We 

note, however, that such areas would 

not necessarily be precluded from wolf 

conservation efforts under other 

authorities, e.g., Tribes, States, and 

Federal land management agencies. 

Our national wolf strategy also 

addresses the two other wolf taxa that 

fall within the range described for Canis 

lupus in the 1978 listing, C. lycaon and 

C. rufus. With regard to Canis lycaon, 

we are announcing a rangewide status 

review of this species, which occurs in 

Canada and the western Great Lakes 

region of the United States. The 

historical range of C. lycaon also 

extends into the northeastern United 

States, which the 1978 listing 

inaccurately treated as part of the range 

of C. lupus. The role of the Northeast 

region in conservation of C. lycaon will 

be considered in the rangewide review, 

which will look at the status of extant 

populations in terms of uniqueness, 

demography, and extinction risks. A 

determination as to whether to proceed 

with any C. lycaon listing action—and, 

if listing is warranted, whether or not to 

include the northeastern United States 

in the listed range—will depend on the 

results of the status review. Notification 

of our intentions with regard to C. 

lycaon will be provided in conjunction 

with publication of the final rule for the 

WGL DPS. Meanwhile, we propose to 

revise the range of the gray wolf (the 

species C. lupus) by removing all or 

parts of 29 eastern states that we now 

recognize were not part of the historical 

range of the gray wolf. New information 

indicates that these areas should not 

have been included in the original 

listing of the gray wolf. These States are 

specified under Taxonomy and 

Historical Ranges of Wolves in the 

United States, above. 

Finally, with regard to Canis rufus, we 

propose to remove the southeastern 

states included in the 1978 gray wolf 

listing from the List due to error, 

because we now recognize were not part 

of the historical range of the gray wolf. 

These states instead constitute the range 

of Canis rufus; see Taxonomy and 

Historical Ranges of Wolves in the 

United States, above. Red wolves 

currently are listed as endangered where 

found (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967); 

this listing will be retained and recovery 

efforts for red wolves will continue as 

warranted (Red Wolf Recovery and 

Species Survival Plan; Service 1990). 

Five-Year Review of Gray Wolves 

Under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, we 

have a duty to review listed species’ 

status every 5 years and determine 

whether a change in listing status is 

appropriate. We announce initiation of 

the 5-year review for the gray wolf in 

this rule and seek new information as 

requested in Public Comments above. 

Western Great Lakes Wolves 

Previous Federal Actions for WGL 

Wolves 

The eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus 

lycaon) was listed as endangered in 

Minnesota and Michigan in the first list 

of species that were protected under the 

1973 Act, published in May 1974 (USDI 

1974). On March 9, 1978, we published 

a rule (43 FR 9607) reclassifying the 

gray wolf at the species level (Canis 

lupus) as endangered throughout the 

conterminous 48 States and Mexico, 

except for the Minnesota population, 

which we classified to threatened. The 

separate subspecies listings, including 

C. l. lycaon, 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 Isle Royale National Park, 

Michigan, and Minnesota wolf 

management zones 1, 2, and 3, as 

critical habitat. We also promulgated 

special regulations under section 4(d) of 

the Act for operating a wolf 

management program in Minnesota at 

that time. The depredation control 

portion of the special regulation was 

later modified (50 FR 50793; December 

12, 1985); these special regulations are 

found in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(2). 

On April 1, 2003, we published a final 

rule revising the listing status of the 

gray wolf across most of the 

conterminous United States (68 FR 

15804). Within that rule, we identified 

three DPSs for the gray wolf (see Gray 

Wolf Listing History, above), including 

an Eastern DPS, which was reclassified 

from endangered to threatened, except 

where already classified as threatened. 

In addition, we established a second 

section 4(d) rule that applied provisions 

similar to those previously in effect in 

Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. 

The special rule was codified in 50 CFR 

17.40(o). 

U.S. District Court rulings in Oregon 

and Vermont on January 31, 2005, and 

August 19, 2005, respectively, 

invalidated the April 1, 2003, final rule. 

Consequently, the status of gray wolves 

outside of Minnesota reverted back to 

endangered status, as had been the case 

prior to the 2003 reclassification. The 

courts also invalidated the three DPSs 

identified in the April 1, 2003, rule, as 

well as the associated special 

regulations. 

On March 27, 2006, we published a 

proposal (71 FR 15266–15305) to 

identify a WGL DPS of the gray wolf, to 

remove the WGL DPS from the 

protections of the Act, to remove 

designated critical habitat for the gray 

wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and to 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26091 

remove special regulations for the gray 

wolf in Minnesota. The proposal was 

followed by a 90-day comment period, 

during which we held four public 

hearings on the proposal. 

On February 8, 2007, the Service 

issued a rule that identified and delisted 

the WGL DPS of the gray wolf (Canis 

lupus) (72 FR 6052). Three parties 

challenged this rule (Humane Society of 

the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F. 

Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)), and on 

September 29, 2008, the court ruled in 

favor of the plaintiffs and vacated the 

rule and remanded it to the Service. On 

remand, the Service was directed to 

provide an explanation as to how 

simultaneously identifying and delisting 

a DPS is consistent with the Act’s text, 

structure, policy objectives, legislative 

history, and any relevant judicial 

interpretations. 

The court’s primary question was 

whether the Service has the authority to 

identify a DPS within a larger alreadylisted entity and, in the same decision, 

determine the DPS does not warrant the 

Act’s protections even though the other 

populations of the species retain the old 

listing status. Our authority to make 

these determinations and to revise the 

list accordingly is a reasonable 

interpretation of the language of the Act, 

and our ability to do so is an important 

component of the Service’s program for 

the conservation of threatened and 

endangered species. 

Our authority to revise the existing 

listing of a species (the gray wolf in 

Minnesota and the gray wolf in the 

lower 48 States and Mexico, excluding 

Minnesota) to identify a Western Great 

Lakes DPS and determine that it is 

healthy enough that it no longer needs 

the Act’s protections is found in the 

precise language of the Act. Moreover, 

even if that authority were not clear, our 

interpretation of this authority to make 

determinations under section 4(a)(1) 

and to revise the endangered and 

threatened species list to reflect those 

determinations under section 4(c)(1) is 

reasonable and fully consistent with the 

Act’s text, structure, legislative history, 

relevant judicial interpretations, and 

policy objectives. 

We consulted with the Solicitor of the 

Department of the Interior to address the 

issue in the court’s opinion. On 

December 12, 2008, a formal opinion 

was issued by the Solicitor, ‘‘U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Authority Under 

Section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered 

Species Act to Revise Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Species to 

‘Reflect Recent Determinations’’’ (U.S. 

DOI 2008). The Service fully agrees with 

the analysis and conclusions set out in 

the Solicitor’s opinion. This proposed 

action is consistent with the opinion. 

The complete text of the Solicitor’s 

opinion can be found at http:// 

www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/. 

On December 11, 2008, we published 

a notice reinstating protections for the 

gray wolf in the western Great Lakes 

(and northern Rocky Mountains) 

pursuant to court orders (73 FR 75356). 

On April 2, 2009, we published a final 

rule identifying the western Great Lakes 

populations of gray wolves as a DPS and 

revising the list of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife by removing the 

DPS from that list (74 FR 15070). We 

did not seek additional public comment 

on the 2009 final rule. On June 15, 2009, 

five parties filed a complaint against the 

Department and the Service alleging 

that we violated the Act, the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

and the court’s remand order by 

publishing the 2009 final rule (74 FR 

15070). On July 2, 2009, pursuant to a 

settlement agreement between the 

parties, the court issued an order 

remanding and vacating the 2009 final 

rule. 

On March 1, 2000, we received a 

petition from Mr. Lawrence Krak of 

Gilman, Wisconsin, and on June 28, 

2000, we received a petition from the 

Minnesota Conservation Federation. Mr. 

Krak’s petition requested the delisting of 

gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan. The Minnesota 

Conservation Federation requested the 

delisting of gray wolves in a Western 

Great Lakes DPS. Because the data 

reviews resulting from the processing of 

these petitions would be a subset of the 

review begun by our July 13, 2000, 

proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the 

current listing of the wolf across most of 

the conterminous United States, we did 

not initiate separate reviews in response 

to those two petitions. While we 

addressed these petitions in our 

February 8, 2007, final rule (72 FR 

6052), this rule was vacated by the 

subsequent District Court ruling. While 

we view our actions on these petitions 

as final upon publication of the Federal 

Register determinations, we 

nevertheless restate our 90-day findings 

that the action requested by each of the 

petitions may be warranted, as well as 

our 12-month finding that the action 

requested by each petition is warranted. 

On March 15, 2010, we received a 

petition from the Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources requesting that the 

gray wolf in Minnesota be removed from 

the List of Endangered or Threatened 

Wildlife under the Act. Likewise, on 

April 26, 2010, we received a petition 

from the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources requesting that the 

gray wolf in Minnesota and Wisconsin 

be delisted. On April 26, 2010, we 

received a petition from the Sportsmen’s 

Alliance, representing five other 

organizations, requesting that gray 

wolves in the Great Lakes area be 

delisted. On June 17, 2010, we received 

a petition from Safari Club 

International, Safari Club International 

Foundation and the National Rifle 

Association of America requesting that 

wolves of the western Great Lakes be 

delisted. In response to those four 

petitions, on September 14, 2010, we 

published a 90-day finding determining 

that the petitions presented substantial 

information that delisting may be 

warranted and reinitiated a full status 

review. Therefore, this delisting 

proposal constitutes our 12-month 

finding that the action requested by 

each petition is warranted. 

In response to a separate petition, on 

June 10, 2010, we made a 90-day finding 

that there was no evidence of any 

breeding population of wolves to 

support the requested listing of a DPS of 

the gray wolf in New England (75 FR 

32869). 

Species Concepts 

As noted in Conformance with the 

Act’s Definition of Species above, the 

Act defines ‘‘species’’ as including any 

species or subspecies of fish or wildlife 

or plants, and any distinct vertebrate 

population segment of fish or wildlife 

that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 

1532(16)). It has not been uncommon in 

the years since the Act was passed for 

significant controversy to arise over the 

propriety of recognizing various groups 

of organisms as eligible for protection 

under the Act. Our implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 424.11) require us 

to use standard taxonomic distinctions 

(such as species and subspecies) when 

they are available, clearly defined, and 

generally accepted. In determining that 

a taxonomic entity qualifies as a species 

or subspecies we carefully evaluate the 

best available taxonomic data to 

determine whether we have sufficient 

information to conclude that a 

taxonomic entity qualifies as a species 

under the Act. 

In identifying species, there is not a 

single set of criteria, and, therefore, no 

single species concept that is accepted 

by all taxonomists. In 1942, Ernst Mayr 

identified five different species concepts 

(Mayr 1942), and many more have been 

recognized since then (Wilkins 2006; 

2003; Mayden 1997, pp. 381–384). 

Many of these species concepts can be 

associated with one of two major classes 

of concepts or approaches. The first is 

the biological species concept (BSC). 

This concept is based on reproductive 

relationships among populations. The 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26092 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ability to interbreed and realize gene 

flow between two populations is the 

indication that they belong to the same 

species. The concept is most commonly 

associated with Mayr (1963), but has 

antecedents during the development of 

evolutionary biology in the 20th 

century. The second major class of 

concepts is the phylogenetic species 

concept (PSC). Under this group of 

concepts, species are identified by their 

genealogical (lineages) or phylogenetic 

(evolutionary) relationships and 

diagnosability. The many variations of 

these concepts and others are reviewed 

by Wiley (1981), Avise (2004), and 

Coyne and Orr (2004). 

There is, likewise, no scientific 

consensus on what constitutes a 

subspecies, and some authorities 

(Wilson and Brown 1953) have 

questioned the utility of the subspecies 

level of classification. Following is a 

description of various subspecies 

criteria that have been proposed and 

applied in the taxonomic literature. 

Because some criteria are more stringent 

than others, a putative, or generally 

accepted, subspecies may meet the 

criteria and be recognized following one 

concept, but found to be invalid under 

a more stringent concept. Nowak (1995, 

p. 394) discussed the standards he used 

when he revised the subspecies of Canis 

lupus: ‘‘My investigation largely 

disregarded such questions [concerning 

use of very localized characters] and 

concentrated on general trends in 

measurable size and proportion that 

could be evaluated on a continent-wide 

or worldwide basis. Substantive 

statistical breaks in such trends, as 

discussed above, were taken as evidence 

of taxonomic division.’’ In The 

Mammals of North America, Hall (1981, 

p. viii) included the following in his 

‘‘Criteria for Species versus Subspecies.’’ 

If crossbreeding occurs in nature at a place 

or places where the geographic ranges of two 

kinds of mammals meet, the two kinds are to 

be treated as subspecies of one species. If no 

crossbreeding occurs, the two kinds are to be 

regarded as two distinct, full species. 

Mayr (1963, glossary) defined 

subspecies as, ‘‘an aggregate of local 

populations of a species inhabiting a 

geographic subdivision of the range of 

the species, and differing taxonomically 

from other populations of the species.’’ 

He further explains ‘‘differing 

taxonomically’’ as differing ‘‘by 

diagnostic morphological characters’’ 

(Mayr 1963, p. 348). Mayr (1969, p. 190) 

also describes a quantitative method for 

determining whether populations differ 

taxonomically: ‘‘A so-called 75-percent 

rule is widely adopted. According to 

this, a population is recognized as a 

valid subspecies if 75 percent of the 

individuals differ from ‘‘all’’ (97 percent) 

of the individuals of a previously 

recognized subspecies. At the point of 

intersection between the two curves 

where this is true, about 90 percent of 

population A will be different from 

about 90 percent of the individuals of 

population B (to supply a symmetrical 

solution)’’. 

Patten and Unitt (2002, p. 27) provide 

another definition of subspecies as 

‘‘diagnosable clusters of populations of 

biological species occupying distinct 

geographic ranges.’’ They do not require 

that diagnosability be absolute, but 

advocate 90 percent separation as a 

more stringent criterion than the 75- 

percent rule. 

Avise (2004, p. 362) attempted to 

incorporate phylogenetic information 

within a biological species concept in 

providing the following guidance on 

recognizing subspecies: ‘‘Within such 

units [=species], ‘‘subspecies’’ 

warranting formal recognition could 

then be conceptualized as groups of 

actually or potentially interbreeding 

populations (normally mostly allopatric) 

that are genealogically highly distinctive 

from, but reproductively compatible 

with, other such groups. Importantly, 

the empirical evidence for genealogical 

distinction must come, in principle, 

from concordant genetic partitions 

across multiple, independent, 

genetically based molecular (or 

phenotypic; Wilson and Brown 1953) 

traits.’’ 

A common feature of all of the above 

definitions is that they recognize that 

subspecies are groups of populations, 

and most recognize that subspecies can 

be variable and overlap, to some degree, 

in distinguishing characters. 

Taxonomists do not assign an 

individual to one subspecies or another; 

instead individuals are assigned a 

specific taxonomic classification based 

on the population in which they exist. 

The existence of multiple concepts of 

species and subspecies is not the only 

complicating factor in the debate 

surrounding the classification of 

organisms; it is further complicated by 

the way organisms occur in the natural 

world. Taxonomists are determined to 

categorize natural organisms into 

specific groups and identify and name 

those groups, while also striving to 

understand the evolutionary processes 

that give rise to these specific groups 

(Hey 2001, pp. 328–329). When viewed 

on the ground, a particular organism 

may appear to clearly fit into one group 

or another, but when their evolutionary 

history is viewed, these groups are 

revealed as changeable and without 

clear boundaries. In the reverse, 

individuals may appear different (that is 

be morphometrically distinct) but in fact 

be of the same taxon (that is, genetically 

similar). In many situations, it is 

difficult to determine where one species 

ends and another begins. This is 

especially true in wide-ranging species 

and in the zones where multiple forms 

(for example, where either two species 

or two subspecies) contact each other or 

meet, which is the situation with wolves 

in the WGL region. Ultimately, species 

are evolving, dynamic populations, and 

at times are difficult to categorize. 

Nevertheless, Congress directs that the 

Service classify populations as species, 

subspecies, and DPSs, despite the 

difficulty and complexity of various 

taxonomic concepts. 

Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western 

Great Lakes Region 

The taxonomic status of the wolves in 

the western Great Lakes region has long 

been debated. They have been 

considered a subspecies of gray wolf, 

Canis lupus lycaon (Goldman 1944), 

Nowak 1995, 2002, 2003); a Canis lupus 

population that has been influenced by 

interbreeding with coyotes (Lehman et 

al. 1991); members of a full species, 

Canis lycaon (or eastern wolf) that is 

separate from Canis lupus (Wilson et al. 

2000, Baker et al. 2003); possibly the 

same species as the red wolf, C. rufus 

(Wilson et al. 2000); the result of 

hybridization between C. rufus and C. 

lupus (Nowak 2002, 2003, 2009); and, 

most recently, as a mixed population of 

C. lupus, C. lycaon, and their 

intercrosses (for example, Wheeldon 

and White 2009, Fain et al. 2010, 

Wheeldon et al. 2010). These varying 

interpretations of the taxonomic status 

of western Great Lakes wolves are 

summarized, respectively, below. 

Wolves in Michigan, Wisconsin, and 

eastern Minnesota were considered by 

Goldman (1944, p. 437 and Figure 14) 

to be within the range of the subspecies 

Canis lupus lycaon. Goldman based his 

classification on variation in body size 

and proportions, and in pelage (coat) 

color. According to Goldman, this was 

the subspecies of gray wolf historically 

found across a wide range east of the 

Mississippi River in the United States 

and in southeastern Canada. Wolves 

immediately to the west of the 

Mississippi River were considered to be 

part of the subspecies Canis lupus 

nubilus. This taxonomic interpretation 

was followed by Hall and Kelson (1959, 

p. 849) and Hall (1981, p. 932). 

Nowak’s (1995, p. 396; 2003, p. 243) 

revision of the subspecies taxonomy 

reduced the range of C. l. lycaon to 

southern Ontario and Quebec and 

northern portions of New York, 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26093 

Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Nowak’s 

classification was primarily based on 

statistical analysis of measurements of 

skull features. He considered gray 

wolves that historically occupied 

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to 

be within the range of C. l. nubilus. 

Based on analysis of additional 

specimens, Nowak (2002, p. 119; 2003; 

2009, p. 238) continued to recognize 

western Great Lakes wolves as C. l. 

nubilus, but noted that historical 

specimens from the Upper Peninsula 

(UP) of Michigan were somewhat 

transitional between the two subspecies. 

Based on a study of DNA variation in 

North American wolves, Wilson et al. 

(2000, p. 2165) proposed that the 

taxonomic standing of eastern wolves be 

restored to full species as Canis lycaon. 

They found that eastern wolves were 

divergent from Canis lupus in both 

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and 

autosomal microsatellite DNA 

composition. They considered the 

geographic range of C. lycaon as 

extending west across the Great Lakes 

region to Minnesota and Manitoba. 

Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3) 

have reported on maternally inherited 

mtDNA sequence haplotypes (DNA 

sequences or groups of alleles of 

different genes on a single chromosome 

that are inherited together as a single 

unit) from historical (‘‘prerecovery’’) 

wolves from Ontario, Quebec, Michigan, 

and Wisconsin compared with the 

recent population of the area. Their 

interpretation of these results is that the 

6 unique haplotypes) identified in 15 

historical individuals indicate that the 

pre-recovery population was ‘‘an 

endemic American wolf,’’ which they 

call ‘‘the Great Lakes wolf’’ (p. 1). 

However, only the two haplotypes most 

common in the historical sample still 

occur in the modern wolf population of 

the western Great Lakes area. Leonard 

and Wayne (2007) conclude that the 

modern population does not contain the 

diversity of Great Lakes wolf haplotypes 

found in the prerecovery population 

and that the current population is 

primarily a mixture of Canis lupus and 

coyote hybrids, with minor influence 

from the endemic Great Lakes wolf (p. 

3). 

Koblmu ̈ller et al. (2009) examined 

wolves from the western Great Lakes 

region using three types of genetic 

markers: mtDNA; Y-chromosome 

haplotypes based on microsatellite DNA 

loci on the Y-chromosome, which is a 

paternally-inherited marker; and 

autosomal microsatellite DNA, which 

provides information on recent and 

ongoing interactions among populations 

rather than evolutionary lineage 

information. The historical sample from 

Minnesota was found to exhibit a third 

Great Lakes wolf mtDNA haplotype that 

is common in the modern population. 

However, the Y-chromosome haplotypes 

identified in the historical sample were 

more similar to those of western gray 

wolves, suggesting that interbreeding 

between Great Lakes wolves and 

western gray wolves had taken place 

before 1910, the year of collection. 

Koblmu ̈ller et al. (2009) conclude 

that, despite what they consider both 

ancient and recent incidences of 

interbreeding with coyotes and western 

gray wolves, Great Lakes wolves remain 

morphologically distinct and represent a 

‘‘distinct taxon’’ of gray wolf (Canis 

lupus) that is adapted to the region. 

They do not, however, conclude that 

this taxon is differentiated enough to be 

recognized as a species separate from 

gray wolves, as proposed by Wilson et 

al. (2000). 

Several recent studies conclude that 

the eastern wolf is a unique species and 

should be recognized as C. lycaon 

(Wheeldon and White 2009; Wilson et 

al. 2009; Fain et al. 2010, p. 15; 

Wheeldon et al. 2010). Wheeldon and 

White (2009, pp. 3–4) state that both the 

present-day and pre-recovery wolf 

populations in the western Great Lakes 

region are genetically similar and that 

both were derived from hybridization 

between C. lupus and the eastern wolf, 

C. lycaon. Fain et al. (2010, p. 10) 

recognize C. lycaon as a unique species 

of North American wolf, and based on 

mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes 

and autosomal microsatellite markers, 

they establish that the population of 

wolves in the western Great Lakes 

region comprise C. lupus, C. lycaon, and 

their hybrids. Contrary to Koblmu ̈ller et 

al. (2009), Fain et al. (2010, p. 14) found 

no evidence of interbreeding with 

coyotes. Furthermore, they conclude 

that the western Great Lakes States were 

included in the historical range of C. 

lycaon and that hybridization between 

the two species ‘‘predates significant 

human intervention’’ (Fain et al. 2010, 

pp. 13–14). 

Wheeldon et al. (2010, p. 2) used 

multiple genetic markers to clarify the 

taxonomic status of Canis species in the 

western Great Lakes region of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and 

western Ontario. They conclude that the 

current western Great Lakes wolf 

population is ‘‘composed of gray-eastern 

wolf hybrids that probably resulted from 

historic hybridization between the 

parental species’’ (Wheeldon et al. 2010, 

p. 10), and that the appropriate 

taxonomic designation for the western 

Great Lakes hybrid wolves is C. lupus × 

lycaon, replacing Nowak’s (2009) wolf 

subspecies designation of C. lupus 

lycaon. We note, however, that a name 

in the form of C. lupus × lycaon has no 

standing as an available species name 

under the rules of zoological 

nomenclature (ICZN 1999). 

It is clear from the studies discussed 

above that the taxonomic classification 

of wolves in the western Great Lakes 

region is one that has been, and will 

continue to be, of great debate in the 

scientific community. Most researchers, 

however, appear to agree that there is a 

unique and genetically identifiable form 

of wolf that occupies the western Great 

Lakes region, and that this form has 

hybridized with Canis lupus, whose 

origins were from elsewhere in North 

America. Researchers differ in whether 

this unique form of wolf should be 

recognized as a species (Wilson et al. 

2000; Fain et al. 2010, p. 15; Wheeldon 

et al. 2010), a subspecies (Nowak 1995), 

or a distinct taxon or ecotype but 

without applying a formal scientific 

name to that form (Koblmu ̈ller et al. 

2009). In choosing among these three 

alternatives, we find that the large 

divergence of both mtDNA and Ychromosome haplotypes between Great 

Lakes wolves and C. lupus is greater 

than that found between subspecies of 

Canis lupus and favors recognition of 

the eastern wolf as a species. Currently, 

the best available scientific information 

supports recognition of the eastern wolf, 

C. lycaon, as a species (rather than, as 

previous believed, as a subspecies of 

gray wolf), and establishes that this 

species has intercrossed with C. lupus 

in the western Great Lakes region to 

constitute a population composed of C. 

lupus, C. lycaon, and their hybrids 

(Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 1; Fain 

et al. 2010, p. 14; Mech et al. 2010; 

Wheeldon et al. 2010). 

The existence of two wolf species in 

the western Great Lakes region was not 

known or suspected in 1978, when the 

Service replaced the listings of four 

subspecies of gray wolf, including C. 

lupus lycaon, with the listing of all 

Canis lupus and Canis lupus subspecies 

in the conterminous United States and 

Mexico as endangered, except for the 

Minnesota population, which was listed 

as threatened (USFWS 1978). Since that 

time, increasingly powerful genetic 

techniques for the characterization of 

populations have been developed and 

applied to wild populations, including 

wolves. These advances have shown 

that hybridization between species is 

much more prevalent than was 

appreciated in 1978 (Schwenk et al. 

2011); thus the detection of 

hybridization in western Great Lakes 

wolves is not unique among mammalian 

species. 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26094 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Nowak’s (1995, 2002, 2003) exclusion 

of the western Great Lakes region from 

C. l. lycaon was likely influenced by his 

inclusion of both C. lupus and C. lycaon 

in his western Great Lakes sample. In 

any event, the various genetic 

investigations of western Great Lakes 

wolves clearly show a distribution of 

eastern wolf (C. lycaon) genetic markers 

throughout the region. 

We do not accept the proposal of 

Wilson et al. (2000) that C. lycaon and 

C. rufus (red wolf) are the same species. 

Their conclusion was based on red wolf 

and C. lycaon occurring on the same 

branch of a phylogenetic network 

representing mtDNA differences 

(Wilson et al. 2000, Figure 5A). This 

relationship has not been found in 

subsequent studies (Wilson et al. 2003; 

Leonard and Wayne 2008, p. 2; Fain et 

al. 2010, p. 9), which placed the red 

wolf and C. lycaon on different branches 

separated by intervening coyote 

lineages. This suggests that the red wolf 

and C. lycaon may have evolved 

independently from common ancestors 

with modern coyotes, but does not 

support uniting them as a single species. 

Genetic Composition of Wolves in the 

Western Great Lakes Region 

Estimates of the genetic composition 

of the wolves of the western Great Lakes 

region with respect to the two species 

(C. lupus and C. lycaon) are based on 

the frequencies of different paternal (Ychromosome) and maternal (mtDNA) 

markers specific to the each species in 

samples of wolves from the region. For 

mtDNA, 66 percent of sampled wolves 

had C. lycaon haplotypes (Fain et al. 

2010, p. 13; Wheeldon et al. 2010). For 

Y-chromosome haplotypes, 54 percent 

(Wheeldon et al. 2010) or 50 percent 

(Fain et al. 2010, p. 7) of sampled 

wolves had haplotypes of C. lycaon. 

Male wolves carry both paternal and 

maternal markers. Of male wolves 

sampled by Fain et al. (2010, p. 12), 41 

percent had both maternal and paternal 

haplotypes of C. lycaon, and 13 percent 

had both maternal and paternal 

haplotypes of C. lupus. Based on a larger 

sample that also included some wolves 

from western Ontario, Wheeldon et al. 

(2010) reported 42 percent of the 

sampled male wolves had both maternal 

and paternal haplotypes of C. lycaon 

and 21 percent had both maternal and 

paternal haplotypes of C. lupus. 

Maternal and paternal haplotypes were 

mixed with respect to the two species 

for the remaining wolves in both 

studies. 

Although it is clear that C. lycaon and 

C. lupus have hybridized in the western 

Great Lakes region, same-species 

combinations of paternal and maternal 

markers in male wolves are more 

common than expected by random 

mating (Wheeldon et al. 2010). This 

suggests that there is some constraint on 

complete hybridization between the two 

species and that complete blending of 

the two components of the population is 

not inevitable. The limited number of 

historical specimens from the western 

Great Lakes region that have been 

genetically characterized all have 

mtDNA indicative of C. lycaon (Leonard 

and Wayne 2008, pp. 2–3; Wheeldon 

and White 2009, p. 1), but four of these 

from the early 20th century also had C. 

lupus Y-chromosome haplotypes, which 

indicates that hybridization had 

occurred by that time. The opportunity 

for hybridization between C. lycaon, 

which belongs to a North American 

lineage, and C. lupus, which evolved in 

Eurasia, has existed since C. lupus 

entered North America about 500,000 

years ago (Kurte ́n and Anderson 1980), 

yet a predominantly C. lycaon 

population of wolves still persists in the 

western Great Lakes region. 

Wolf-Coyote Relationships 

For a discussion on interpretations of 

wolf-coyote relationships in the western 

Great Lakes, see the discussion under 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence in this proposed rule. 

Procedural Aspects of Proposal 

Applying to the Gray Wolf (C. lupus) 

When the Service revised the 

endangered species list in 1978 to 

include the species Canis lupus in the 

lower 48 States and Mexico, regulatory 

protections were applied to all gray 

wolves in the lower 48 States, including 

all subspecies of gray wolves, which 

were subsumed at that time into C. 

lupus. That rule classified the 

Minnesota gray wolf population as a 

threatened ‘‘species’’ and gray wolves 

elsewhere in the lower 48 States and 

Mexico as another ‘‘species’’ with 

endangered status. The best scientific 

information available supports the 

existence of distinct taxa and 

populations within the C. lupus listing 

and changes our understanding of North 

American wolf taxonomy. With regard 

to the WGL wolf population, current 

scientific data indicate that Canis 

lycaon, which was understood in 1978 

to be a subspecies of C. lupus, should 

be recognized as a full species, and that 

C. lycaon and C. lupus both occur, and 

to some extent, interbreed in the 

western Great Lakes area (see Taxonomy 

of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes 

Region). 

The existence of this new information 

does not by itself change the regulatory 

status of the gray wolf (C. lupus) under 

the Act—such changes must be made 

through rulemaking. This proposed rule 

recognizes the taxonomic changes and 

the improved status of the WGL gray 

wolf populations and proposes those 

appropriate and necessary 

administrative changes for the gray wolf 

in the WGL and portions of the eastern 

United States. 

Based on our current understanding 

of wolf systematics, we recognize that 

not all individual wolves in the WGL 

region are in fact, gray wolves, Canis 

lupus. Within this rule we are proposing 

changes to the listing for C. lupus and 

are initiating a status review for C. 

lycaon. These two actions combined 

will address all wolves in the WGL 

region. 

The procedural aspects of this 

proposed rule (e.g., the revision of the 

1978 listing of the group of gray wolves 

in Minnesota as a ‘‘species’’ to a DPS and 

the delisting of that DPS) refer to the 

gray wolf (C. lupus), because that is the 

named entity currently on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

Our proposed action here is to establish 

the existence of a WGL distinct 

population segment of C. lupus and to 

determine that the DPS is neither 

endangered nor threatened, despite its 

proximity to a closely related species, C. 

lycaon—a species whose status we will 

evaluate for possible protection under 

the Act in the near future. 

Biology and Ecology of Wolves in the 

Western Great Lakes 

Gray wolves are the largest wild 

members of the Canidae, or dog family, 

with adults ranging from 18 to 80 

kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 pounds (lb)) 

depending upon sex and subspecies 

(Mech 1974). The average weight of 

male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 kg (77 

lb) and ranges from 26 to 46 kg (57 to 

102 lb), while females average 28 kg (62 

lb) and range from 21 to 34 kg (46 to 75 

lb) (Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WI DNR) 1999). Wolves’ fur 

color is frequently a grizzled gray, but 

it can vary from pure white to coal 

black. Wolves may appear similar to 

coyotes (Canis latrans) and some 

domestic dog breeds (such as the 

German shepherd or Siberian husky) (C. 

lupus familiaris). Wolves’ longer legs, 

larger feet, wider head and snout, and 

straight tail distinguish them from both 

coyotes and dogs. 

Wolves primarily are predators of 

medium and large mammals. Wild prey 

species in North America include whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and 

mule deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces 

alces), elk (Cervus elaphus), woodland 

caribou (Rangifer caribou) and barren 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26095 

ground caribou (R. arcticus), bison 

(Bison bison), muskox (Ovibos 

moschatus), bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis) and Dall sheep (O. dalli), 

mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), 

beaver (Castor canadensis), snowshoe 

hare (Lepus americanus), and muskrat 

(Ondatra zibethicus), with small 

mammals, birds, and large invertebrates 

sometimes being taken (Chavez and 

Gese 2005, Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI 

DNR 1999, Huntzinger et al. 2005). In 

the WGL DPS, during the last 25 years, 

wolves have also killed domestic 

animals including horses (Equus 

caballus), cattle (Bos taurus), sheep 

(Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus), llamas 

(Lama glama), pigs (Sus scrofa), geese 

(Anser sp.), ducks (Anas sp.), turkeys 

(Meleagris gallopavo), chickens (Gallus 

sp.), guinea fowl (Numida meleagris), 

pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), dogs, 

cats (Felis catus), and captive whitetailed deer (Paul 2004, 2005; Wydeven 

1998; Wydeven et al. 2001; Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 1999, 2000, 2001, 

2005). 

Wolves are social animals, normally 

living in packs of 2 to 12 wolves. Winter 

pack size in Michigan’s Upper 

Peninsula (UP) averaged from 2.7 to 4.6 

wolves during the 1995 through 2005 

period and ranged from 2 to 14 wolves 

per pack (Huntzinger et al. 2005). Pack 

size in Wisconsin is similar, averaging 

3.8 to 4.1 wolves per pack, and ranging 

from 2 to 11 wolves in winter 2004–05 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005). In 

Minnesota the average pack size found 

in the 1988–89, 1997–98, and 2003–04 

winter surveys was higher—5.55, 5.4, 

and 5.3 wolves per pack, respectively 

(Erb and Benson 2004). 

Packs are primarily family groups 

consisting of a breeding pair, their pups 

from the current year, offspring from 

one or two previous years, and 

occasionally an unrelated wolf. Packs 

typically occupy, and defend from other 

packs and individual wolves, a territory 

of 20 to 214 square (sq) miles (mi) (50 

to 550 sq kilometers (km)). Midwest 

wolf packs tend to occupy territories on 

the lower end of this size range. 

Michigan Upper Peninsula territories 

averaged 103 sq mi (267 sq km in 2000– 

01 (Drummer et al. 2002), Wisconsin 

territories 37 sq mi (96 sq km) in 2004– 

05 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005), 

and Minnesota territory size averaged 39 

sq mi (102 sq km) in 2003–04 (Erb and 

Benson 2004). Normally, only the topranking (‘‘alpha’’) male and female in 

each pack breed and produce pups. 

Litters are born from early April into 

May; they range from 1 to 11 pups, but 

generally include 4 to 6 pups (Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources (MI 

DNR) 1997; USFWS 1992; USFWS et al. 

2001). Normally a pack has a single 

litter annually, but the production of 2 

or 3 litters in one year has been 

routinely documented in Yellowstone 

National Park (USFWS et al. 2002; 

Smith et al. 2005). 

Yearling wolves frequently disperse 

from their natal packs, although some 

remain with their natal pack. Adult 

wolves and pups older than 5 months 

also may disperse but at much lower 

frequencies (Fuller 1989). Dispersers 

may range over large areas as lone 

animals after leaving their natal pack or 

they may locate suitable unoccupied 

habitat and a member of the opposite 

sex and begin their own pack. These 

dispersal movements allow a wolf 

population to quickly expand and 

colonize areas of suitable habitat that 

are nearby or even those that are 

isolated by a broad area of unsuitable 

habitat. Additional details on 

extraterritorial movements are found in 

Delineating the Boundaries of the 

Proposed WGL Gray Wolf DPS, below. 

Recovery of Western Great Lakes 

Wolves 

Recovery Criteria 

Recovery plans are not regulatory 

documents and are instead intended to 

provide guidance to the Service, States, 

and other partners on methods of 

minimizing threats to listed species and 

achieving recovery. These documents 

include, among other elements required 

under section 4(f) of the Act, criteria for 

determining when a species can be 

delisted. There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species; in 

fact, recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, strictly adhere to 

the guidance provided in a recovery 

plan. 

We use recovery criteria in concert 

with evidence that threats have been 

minimized sufficiently and populations 

have achieved long-term viability to 

judge when a species can be reclassified 

from endangered to threatened or 

delisted. Recovery plans, including 

recovery criteria, are subject to change 

based upon new information and are 

revised accordingly and when 

practicable. In a similar sense, 

implementation of planned actions is 

subject to changing information and 

availability of resources. We have taken 

these considerations into account in the 

following discussion. 

The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter 

Recovery Plan) and the 1992 Revised 

Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber 

Wolf (hereafter Revised Recovery Plan) 

contain the same two recovery criteria. 

The first recovery criterion states that 

the survival of the wolf in Minnesota 

must be assured. We, and the Eastern 

Timber Wolf Recovery Team (Peterson 

in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b), have 

concluded that this recovery criterion 

remains valid. It addresses a need for 

reasonable assurances that future state, 

Tribal, and Federal wolf management 

and protection will maintain a viable 

recovered population of wolves within 

the borders of Minnesota for the 

foreseeable future. 

The Recovery Plan for the Eastern 

Timber Wolf was based on the best 

available information on wolf taxonomy 

at the time of its original publication 

and subsequent revision. As discussed 

above in Taxonomy of Wolves in the 

Western Great Lakes Region, since the 

publication of those plans, several 

studies have produced conflicting 

results regarding the taxonomic identity 

of the wolf that historically occupied 

the eastern States. Currently, the Service 

subscribes to the view that what was 

formerly recognized as the subspecies C. 

lupus lycaon should be recognized as a 

unique species, C. lycaon. Regardless of 

its taxonomic identity, however, this 

recovery program has always focused on 

recovering the wolf population that 

survived in, and has expanded outward 

from, northeastern Minnesota. Thus, the 

Plans guide our analysis of recovery of 

the wolves in the western Great Lakes 

area. 

Although the recovery criteria 

identified in the Recovery Plan predate 

the scientific field of conservation 

biology, the conservation principles of 

representation (conserving the genetic 

diversity of a taxon), resilience (the 

ability to withstand demographic and 

environmental variation), and 

redundancy (sufficient populations to 

provide a margin of safety) were 

incorporated into these criteria. 

Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf 

population is vital in terms of 

representation and resilience, because 

the remaining genetic diversity of 

wolves in the eastern United States 

(other than red wolves) was carried by 

the several hundred wolves that 

survived in Minnesota into the early 

1970s. The Recovery Team insisted that 

the remnant Minnesota wolf population 

be maintained and protected to achieve 

wolf recovery in the eastern United 

States. The successful growth of the 

remnant Minnesota population has 

maintained and maximized the 

representation of that genetic diversity 

among wolves in the WGL. Although 

the Revised Recovery Plan did not 

establish a specific numerical criterion 

for the Minnesota wolf population, it 

did identify, for planning purposes 

only, a population goal of 1,251–1,400 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26096 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

animals for that Minnesota population 

(USFWS 1992, p. 28). A population of 

this size would increase the likelihood 

of maintaining its genetic diversity over 

the long term. This large Minnesota wolf 

population also provides resiliency to 

reduce the adverse impacts of 

unpredictable demographic and 

environmental events. Furthermore, the 

Revised Recovery Plan specifies a wolf 

population that is spread across about 

40 percent of Minnesota (Zones 1 

through 4) (USFWS 1992, p. 28), adding 

a geographic component to the 

resiliency of the Minnesota wolf 

population. 

The second recovery criterion in the 

Recovery Plan states that at least one 

viable wolf population should be 

reestablished within the historical range 

of the eastern timber wolf outside of 

Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan 

(USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26). The 

reestablished population enhances both 

the resiliency and redundancy of the 

WGL metapopulation. 

The Recovery Plan provides two 

options for reestablishing this second 

population. If it is an isolated 

population, that is, located more than 

100 mi (160 km) from the Minnesota 

wolf population, the second population 

should consist of at least 200 wolves for 

at least 5 years, based upon late-winter 

population estimates, to be considered 

viable. Late-winter estimates are made 

at a time when most winter mortality 

has already occurred and before the 

birth of pups, thus, the count is made 

at the annual low point of the 

population. Alternatively, if the second 

population is located within 100 mi 

(160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf 

population (for example, the Minnesota 

wolf population), it should be 

maintained at a minimum of 100 wolves 

for at least 5 years, based on late-winter 

population estimates, to be considered 

viable. A nearby second population 

would be considered viable at a smaller 

size because it would be geographically 

close enough to exchange wolves with 

the Minnesota population (that is, they 

would function as a metapopulation), 

thereby bolstering the smaller second 

population both genetically and 

numerically. 

The original Recovery Plan did not 

specify where in the eastern United 

States the second population should be 

re-established. Therefore, the second 

population could have been established 

anywhere within the triangular 

Minnesota–Maine–Florida area covered 

by the Recovery Plan and the Revised 

Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale 

(Michigan) or within Minnesota. The 

Revised Recovery Plan identified 

potential gray wolf reestablishment 

areas in northern Wisconsin, the UP of 

Michigan, the Adirondack Forest 

Preserve of New York, a small area in 

eastern Maine, and a larger area of 

northwestern Maine and adjacent 

northern New Hampshire (USFWS 

1992, pp. 56–58). Neither the 1978 nor 

the 1992 recovery criteria suggest that 

the restoration of the gray wolf 

throughout all or most of what was 

thought to be its historical range in the 

eastern United States, or to all of these 

potential re-establishment areas, is 

necessary to achieve recovery under the 

Act. 

In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf 

Recovery Team clarified the application 

of the recovery criterion for the second 

population to the wolf population that 

had developed in northern Wisconsin 

and the adjacent UP of Michigan. This 

second population is less than 100 mi 

(160 km) from the Minnesota wolf 

population. The Recovery Team 

recommended that the numerical 

recovery criterion for the Wisconsin– 

Michigan population be considered met 

when consecutive late-winter wolf 

surveys document that the population 

equals or exceeds 100 wolves (excluding 

Isle Royale wolves) for the 5 consecutive 

years between the first and last surveys 

(Peterson in litt. 1998). 

Recovery Trends for Wolves in the 

Western Great Lakes Region 

Minnesota Recovery 

During the pre-1965 period of wolf 

bounties and legal public trapping, 

wolves persisted in the remote 

northeastern portion of Minnesota but 

were eliminated from the rest of the 

State. Estimated numbers of Minnesota 

wolves before their listing under the Act 

in 1974 include 450 to 700 wolves in 

1950–53 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 43, based 

on data in Stenlund 1955, p. 19), 350 to 

700 wolves in 1963 (Cahalane 1964, p. 

10), 750 wolves in 1970 (Leirfallom 

1970, p. 11), 736 to 950 wolves in 1971– 

72 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 44), and 500 to 

1,000 wolves in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 

1975, p. 85). Although these estimates 

were based on different methodologies 

and are not directly comparable, each 

puts the pre-listing abundance of wolves 

in Minnesota at 1,000 or less. This was 

the only significant wolf population in 

the United States outside Alaska during 

those time periods. 

After the gray wolf was listed as 

endangered under the Act in 1974, the 

Minnesota population estimates 

increased (see table 1 below). Mech 

estimated the population to be 1,000 to 

1,200 wolves in 1976 (USFWS 1978, pp. 

4, 50–52), and Berg and Kuehn (1982, p. 

11) estimated that there were 1,235 

wolves in 138 packs in the winter of 

1978–79. In 1988–89, the Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources (MN 

DNR) repeated the 1978–79 survey and 

also used a second method to estimate 

wolf numbers in Minnesota. The 

resulting independent estimates were 

1,500 and 1,750 wolves in at least 233 

packs; the lower number was derived by 

a method comparable to the 1978–79 

survey (Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 50–51). 

During the winter of 1997–98, the MN 

DNR repeated a statewide wolf 

population and distribution survey, 

using methods similar to those of the 

two previous surveys. Field staff of 

Federal, State, Tribal, and county land 

management agencies and wood 

products companies were queried to 

identify occupied wolf range in 

Minnesota. Data from 5 concurrent radio 

telemetry studies tracking 36 packs, 

representative of the entire Minnesota 

wolf range, were used to determine 

average pack size and territory area. 

Those figures were then used to 

calculate a statewide estimate of wolf 

and pack numbers in the occupied 

range, with single (non-pack) wolves 

factored into the estimate (Berg and 

Benson 1999, pp. 1–2). 

TABLE 1—MINIMUM WINTER WOLF POPULATIONS IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN (EXCLUDING ISLE ROYALE) 

FROM 1976 THROUGH 2010. (NOTE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL YEARS BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE ESTIMATES. MINNESOTA DOES NOT CONDUCT ANNUAL SURVEYS.) 

Year 

Number of wolves 

Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan Wisconsin and 

Michigan total 

1976 ................................................................................................................. 1,000–1,200 ........................ ........................ ........................

1978–79 ........................................................................................................... 1,235 ........................ ........................ ........................

1988–89 ........................................................................................................... 1,500–1,750 31 3 34 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26097 

TABLE 1—MINIMUM WINTER WOLF POPULATIONS IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN (EXCLUDING ISLE ROYALE) 

FROM 1976 THROUGH 2010. (NOTE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL YEARS BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE ESTIMATES. MINNESOTA DOES NOT CONDUCT ANNUAL SURVEYS.)—Continued 

Year 

Number of wolves 

Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan Wisconsin and 

Michigan total 

1989–90 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 34 10 44 

1990–91 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 40 17 57 

1991–92 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 45 21 66 

1992–93 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 40 30 70 

1993–94 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 57 57 114 

1994–95 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 83 80 163 

1995–96 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 99 116 215 

1996–97 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 148 113 261 

1997–98 ........................................................................................................... 2,445 180 139 319 

1998–99 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 205 169 374 

1999–2000 ....................................................................................................... ........................ 248 216 464 

2000–01 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 257 249 506 

2001–02 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 327 278 604 

2002–03 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 335 321 656 

2003–04 ........................................................................................................... 3,020 373 360 733 

2004–05 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 435 405 840 

2005–06 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 467 434 899 

2006–07 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 546 509 1,055 

2007–08 ........................................................................................................... 2,921 549 520 1,069 

2008–09 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 637 577 1,214 

2009–10 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 690 557 1,247 

The 1997–98 survey concluded that 

approximately 2,445 wolves existed in 

about 385 packs in Minnesota during 

that winter period (90 percent 

confidence interval from 1,995 to 2,905 

wolves) (Berg and Benson 1999, p. 4). 

This figure indicated the continued 

growth of the Minnesota wolf 

population at an average rate of about 

3.7 percent annually from 1970 through 

1997–98. Between 1979 and 1989 the 

annual growth rate was approximately 3 

percent, and it increased to between 4 

and 5 percent in the next decade (Berg 

and Benson 1999, p. 5; Fuller et al. 

1992, p. 51). As of the 1998 survey, the 

number of Minnesota wolves had 

reached approximately twice the 

number specified in the recovery 

planning goal for Minnesota (USFWS 

1992, p. 28). 

Minnesota DNR conducted another 

survey of the State’s wolf population 

and range during the winter of 2003–04, 

again using methodology similar to the 

previous surveys. That survey 

concluded that an estimated 3,020 

wolves in 485 packs occurred in 

Minnesota (90 percent confidence 

interval for this estimate is 2,301 to 

3,708 wolves) (Erb and Benson 2004, 

pp. 7, 9). The MN DNR conducted its 

most recent survey of wolf population 

and range during the winter of 2007–08. 

That survey concluded that an 

estimated 2,921 wolves in 503 packs 

occurred in Minnesota (90 percent 

confidence interval for this estimate is 

2,192 to 3,525 wolves). The results of 

the past three surveys suggest that the 

wolf population has been numerically 

stable over the past 10 or more years 

(Erb 2008, p. 6). 

As wolves increased in abundance in 

Minnesota, they also expanded their 

distribution. During 1948–53, the 

primary wolf range was estimated at 

11,954 sq mi (31,080 sq km) (Stenlund 

1955, p. 19). A 1970 questionnaire 

survey in Minnesota resulted in an 

estimated wolf range of 14,769 sq mi 

(38,400 sq km) (calculated by Fuller et 

al. 1992, p. 43, from Leirfallom 1970). 

Fuller et al. (1992, p. 44), using data 

from Berg and Kuehn (1982), estimated 

that Minnesota primary wolf range 

encompassed 14,038 sq mi (36,500 sq 

km) during the winter of 1978–79. By 

1982–83, pairs or breeding packs of 

wolves were estimated to occupy an 

area of 22,000 sq mi (57,050 sq km) in 

northern Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988, 

p. 86). That study also identified an 

additional 15,577 sq mi (40,500 sq km) 

of peripheral range, where habitat 

appeared suitable but no wolves or only 

lone wolves existed. The 1988–89 study 

produced an estimate of 23,165 sq mi 

(60,200 sq km) as the contiguous wolf 

range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller 

et al. 1992, pp. 48–49; Berg and Benson 

1999, p. 3, 5), an increase of 65 percent 

over the primary range calculated for 

1978–79. 

The 1997–98 study concluded that the 

contiguous wolf range had expanded to 

33,971 sq mi (88,325 sq km), a 47 

percent increase in 9 years (Berg and 

Benson 1999, p. 5). By that time the 

Minnesota wolf population was using 

most of the available primary and 

peripheral range identified by Mech et 

al. (1988, p. 86). The wolf population in 

Minnesota had increased in abundance 

and distribution to the point that its 

contiguous range covered approximately 

40 percent of the State during 1997–98. 

In contrast, the 2003–04 survey failed to 

show a continuing expansion of wolf 

range in Minnesota, and any actual 

increase in wolf numbers since 1997–98 

was attributed to increased wolf density 

within a stabilized range (Erb and 

Benson 2004, p. 7). The results of the 

2007–08 survey also indicated that wolf 

range in Minnesota remained 

‘‘essentially unchanged’’ since 2004 (Erb 

2008, not paginated). 

Although the Minnesota DNR does 

not conduct a formal wolf population 

survey annually, it includes the species 

in its annual carnivore track survey. 

This survey, standardized and 

operational since 1994, provides an 

annual index of abundance for several 

species of large carnivores by counting 

their tracks along 20-mile (32-km) long 

standardized survey routes in northern 

Minnesota. In 2009, wolves were 

detected on 71 percent of the 58 routes 

surveyed, and the resulting indices of 

abundance and distribution were not 

appreciably different from recent years 

(Erb 2009, not paginated). 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26098 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Summary for Minnesota 

The Minnesota wolf population has 

increased from an estimated 1,000 

individuals in 1976 to nearly 3,000 

today and the estimated wolf range in 

the State has expanded by 

approximately 225 percent (from 

approximately 15,000 sq mi (24,100 sq 

km) to approximately 34,000 sq mi 

(54,700 sq km)) since 1970. Over the 

past 10–12 years, the population size 

and range have remained stable, as most 

of the primary and peripheral habitat 

has been occupied. Based on the current 

abundance and distribution of the 

Minnesota wolf population, we believe 

its continued survival is ensured, and it 

achieves the first recovery criterion of 

the Revised Recovery Plan. 

Wisconsin Recovery 

Wolves were considered to have been 

extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No 

formal attempts were made to monitor 

the State’s wolf population from 1960 

through 1978. Although individual 

wolves and an occasional wolf pair were 

reported from 1960 through 1975, (Thiel 

1978, Thiel 1993), there was no 

documentation of wolf reproduction 

occurring in Wisconsin, and the wolves 

that were reported may have been 

dispersing animals from Minnesota. 

Wolves are believed to have 

reestablished breeding packs in 

Wisconsin in the winter of 1975–76. 

The Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WI DNR) began wolf 

population monitoring in 1979–80, 

estimating a statewide population of 25 

wolves at that time (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2000, pp. 151, 159; 

Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 93–97). This 

population remained relatively stable 

for several years, and then declined to 

approximately 15 to 19 wolves in the 

mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the 

Wisconsin wolf population began an 

increase that has continued into 2010, 

when 690 wolves were counted 

(Wydeven et al. 2010, Figure 3). 

Since 1979, WI DNR has intensively 

surveyed its wolf population on an 

annual basis using a combination of 

aerial, ground, and satellite radio 

telemetry complemented by snow 

tracking and wolf sign surveys 

(Wydeven et al. 2006a, pp. 4–5; 

Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 90–91). 

Wolves are trapped from May through 

September and fitted with radio collars, 

with a goal of having at least one radio 

collared wolf in approximately half of 

the wolf packs in Wisconsin. Aerial 

locations are obtained from each 

functioning radio collar about once per 

week, and pack territories are estimated 

and mapped from the movements of the 

individuals who exhibit localized 

patterns. From December through 

March, the pilots make special efforts to 

visually locate and count the individual 

wolves in each radio-tracked pack. 

Snow tracking is used to supplement 

the information gained from aerial 

sightings and to provide pack size 

estimates for packs lacking a radiocollared wolf. Tracking is done by 

assigning survey blocks to trained 

trackers, who then drive snow-covered 

roads in their blocks and follow all wolf 

tracks they encounter. Snowmobiles are 

used to locate wolf tracks in more 

remote areas with few roads. The results 

of the aerial and ground surveys are 

carefully compared to properly separate 

packs and to avoid over-counting 

(Wydeven et al. 2006a, pp. 4–5). The 

estimated number of wolves in each 

pack is based on the aerial and ground 

observations made of the individual 

wolves in each pack over the winter. 

Because the monitoring methods 

focus on wolf packs, lone wolves are 

likely undercounted in Wisconsin. As a 

result, the annual population estimates 

are probably slight underestimates of 

the actual wolf population within the 

State during the late-winter period. 

Fuller (1989, p. 19) noted that lone 

wolves are estimated to compose from 2 

to 29 percent of the total population in 

the area. Wisconsin DNR surveys have 

estimated 2–15 percent of the winter 

population as loners (Wydeven et al. 

2009c, p. 96). These surveys, however, 

are focused on heavily forested portions 

of northern and central Wisconsin; 

therefore, dispersing wolves traveling 

other portions of the State are less likely 

to be detected, and often such wolves 

are only documented after vehicle 

collisions or accidental shootings. 

Broader use of trail cameras by members 

of the public is improving the WI DNR’s 

ability to detect lone wolves across the 

State. 

As previously stated, population 

estimates are made at the low point of 

the annual wolf population cycle. Thus, 

Wisconsin wolf population estimates 

are conservative in two respects. They 

undercount lone wolves, and the count 

is made at the annual low point of the 

population. This methodology is 

consistent with the recovery criteria 

established in the Revised Recovery 

Plan, which established numerical 

criteria to be measured with data 

obtained by late-winter surveys. Based 

on these considerations, an estimated 

690 to 733 wolves in 181 packs, 

including 35 wolves on Native 

American reservations, were in 

Wisconsin in early 2010, representing 

an 8 percent increase from 2009 

(Wydeven et al. 2010, pp. 12–13). 

In the winter of 1994–95, wolves were 

first documented in Jackson County, 

Wisconsin, well to the south of the area 

occupied by other Wisconsin wolf packs 

in the northern part of the State (Thiel 

et al. 2009, pp. 109–110). The number 

of wolves in this central Wisconsin area 

has dramatically increased since that 

time. During the winter of 2009–10, 

there were 100–106 wolves in 25 packs 

in the central forest wolf range (Zone 2 

in the Wisconsin Wolf Management 

Plan; Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 5) and an 

additional 46 to 48 wolves in 12 or 13 

packs in the marginal habitat in Zone 3, 

located between Zone 1 (northern forest 

wolf range) and Zones 2 and 4 

(Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 5). 

During the winter of 2004–05, 11 to 

13 wolves were believed to be primarily 

occupying Native American reservation 

lands in Wisconsin (Wydeven in litt. 

2005); this increased to 16 to 17 in 

2005–06, 17 to 19 in 2007–08 (Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 2008, Summary), 

approximately 27 in 2008–2009 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, p. 1), 

and approximately 35 in 2009–10 

(Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 1). The 2009– 

10 survey consisted of 3 packs totaling 

10–11 wolves on the Bad River 

Chippewa Reservation and a pack of 2 

wolves on the Lac Courtes Oreilles 

Chippewa Reservation, both in 

northwestern Wisconsin. There also 

were two packs of five wolves each on 

the Lac du Flambeau Reservation in 

north-central Wisconsin. A pack of four 

wolves and three pairs occurred on the 

Menominee Reservation and a threewolf pack occurred on the Stockbridge 

Reservation, both in northeastern 

Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. 2010, Table 

6). A pack of four to five wolves spent 

time on portions of the Red Cliff 

Chippewa Reservation along the Lake 

Superior shoreline. Wolf packs also 

used scattered lands of the St. Croix 

Chippewa in northwest Wisconsin, the 

Ho Chunk Nation in central Wisconsin, 

and Potawatomi in northeast Wisconsin. 

The Tribal land of the Ho-Chunk, St. 

Croix Chippewa, and Potawatomi are 

composed mostly of scattered parcels of 

land, and are not likely to provide 

significant amounts of wolf habitat. 

About 90 percent of packs in northern 

Wisconsin Zone 1, and northern 

portions of Zone 3 are located in ceded 

territory where Chippewa Bands have 

retained hunting and gathering rights. 

In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin 

alone surpassed the 1992 Revised 

Recovery Plan criterion for a second 

population within 100 miles of the 

Minnesota population (100 wolves for a 

minimum of 5 consecutive years 

(USFWS 1992, p. 4)). Furthermore, in 

2004, Wisconsin wolf numbers 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26099 

exceeded the 1992 recovery criterion of 

200 animals for 6 successive late-winter 

surveys for an isolated wolf population 

(USFWS 1992, p. 4). Wisconsin 

population estimates for 1985 to 2010 

increased from 15 to 690 wolves (see 

table 1 above) and from 4 to 181 packs 

(Wydeven et al. 2010, figure 3). This 

represents an annual population 

increase of 21 percent through 2000, 

and an average annual increase of 6 

percent for the most recent 6 years. The 

slower rates of increase since 2000 are 

an indication that the State’s wolf 

population growth and geographic 

expansion are beginning to level off. 

Michigan Recovery 

Except for Isle Royale, wolves were 

extirpated from Michigan as a 

reproducing species long before they 

were listed as endangered under the Act 

in 1974. Prior to 1989, the last known 

breeding population of wild Michigan 

wolves outside Isle Royale occurred in 

the mid-1950s. However, as wolves 

began to reoccupy northern Wisconsin, 

the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources (MI DNR) began noting single 

wolves at various locations in the UP of 

Michigan. Wolf recovery in Michigan 

began with the documentation of three 

wolves traveling together and making 

territorial marks in the central UP 

during the fall of 1988; and the 

subsequent birth of pups in this territory 

during spring 1989 (Beyer et al. 2009, 

p. 73). Since that time, wolf packs have 

spread throughout the UP, with 

immigration occurring from Wisconsin 

on the west and possibly from Ontario 

on the east. Wolves now are found in 

every county of the UP, with the 

possible exception of Keweenaw County 

(Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; Roell 2009, 

pers. comm.). 

The MI DNR annually monitors the 

wolf population in the UP by 

conducting a winter survey. Roads and 

trails are searched intensively and 

extensively for wolf tracks and other 

wolf sign using trucks and snowmobiles 

(Potvin et al. 2005). Complete surveys 

conducted from 1999 to 2006 provided 

an opportunity to evaluate multiple 

sampling approaches (MI DNR 2008). 

Based on these evaluations, it was 

determined that a geographically 

stratified sampling protocol produced 

unbiased, precise estimates of wolf 

abundance (Potvin et al. 2005; 

Drummer, unpublished data). The 

sampling protocol implemented in 2007 

allows trackers to spend more time in 

smaller areas (MI DNR 2008). 

The UP is divided into 21 survey 

units from which a stratified random 

sample is drawn, covering roughly 50 

percent of the UP every year (MI DNR 

2008). Pack locations are derived from 

previous surveys, citizen reports, and 

extensive ground and aerial tracking of 

radio-collared wolves. During the winter 

of 2009–10, 557 wolves in 109 packs 

were resident in the UP (MI DNR in litt. 

2010, Table 1). Surveys along the border 

of adjacent survey units are coordinated 

to avoid double counting of wolves and 

packs occupying those border areas. In 

areas with a high density of wolves, 

ground surveys by four to six surveyors 

with concurrent aerial tracking are used 

to accurately delineate territories of 

adjacent packs and count their members 

(Beyer et al. 2004, pp. 2–3; Huntzinger 

et al. 2005, pp. 3–6; Potvin et al. 2005, 

p. 1661). As with Wisconsin, the 

Michigan surveys likely miss lone 

wolves, thus underestimating the actual 

population. 

Based on annual surveys in late 

winter, estimates of wolves in the UP 

increased from 57 wolves in 1994 to 557 

in late winter 2009–10 (see table 1 

above). Over the last 10 years, the 

annualized rate of increase has been 

about 12 percent (MI DNR in litt. 2010, 

table 1). This rate has varied from year 

to year, but there appear to be two 

distinct phases of population growth, 

with relatively rapid growth (25.8 

percent average) from 1995 through 

2000 and slower growth (10.1 percent 

average) from 2001 through 2010. In 

2005, the number of wolves in the 

Michigan population alone surpassed 

the recovery criterion for an isolated 

wolf population of 200 animals for 6 

successive late-winter surveys, as 

specified in the Revised Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26). 

To date, no wolf packs are known to 

be primarily using Tribal-owned lands 

in Michigan (Roell 2011, pers. comm.). 

Native American Tribes in the UP of 

Michigan own small, scattered parcels 

of land relative to the size of wolf pack 

territories. Thus, no one Tribal property 

would likely support a wolf pack. 

However, as wolves occur in all 

counties in the UP and are wideranging, Tribal land is likely used 

periodically by wolves. 

In October 2004, a coyote trapper 

mistakenly captured and killed a wolf in 

Presque Isle County in the northern 

Lower Peninsula (LP) of Michigan. This 

was the first verification of a wolf in the 

northern LP in at least 65 years (Roell 

et al. 2010, p. 4). This wolf had been 

trapped and radio-collared by the MI 

DNR the previous year (2003) while it 

was a member of an eastern UP pack. 

Since 2004, Michigan has surveyed the 

northern LP to determine whether 

wolves had successfully colonized the 

area. From 2005 through 2007, the 

survey had two components: A 

prioritized area search and a targeted 

area search based on citizen reports of 

wolves or wolf sign. USDA–Wildlife 

Services, Little Traverse Bay Band of 

Odawa Indians, and Central Michigan 

University worked cooperatively on the 

surveys. Nine units ranging in size from 

200–400 sq mi (322–644 sq km) were 

surveyed; however, no wolf sign was 

found (Roell et al. 2010, p. 4). Beginning 

in 2008, a targeted search approach was 

used. The MI DNR issued a press release 

asking citizens to report any wolves or 

wolf sign; again, no wolves were 

detected in winters of 2008–10 (Roell et 

al. 2009, p. 5; Roell 2010, pers. comm.). 

In the summer of 2009, video images 

of single wolves were recorded in two 

of the three northern LP counties 

nearest to the UP (Roell et al. 2010, p. 

4). The videos, taken in Emmet County 

in May 19, 2009, and Presque Isle 

County in July 27, 2009, may have been 

of the same animal (Roell 2009, pers. 

comm.). In 2010, USDA Wildlife 

Services and MI DNR staff confirmed a 

single breeding pair with three pups in 

Cheboygan County in the northern LP 

(MI DNR 2010). This is the first time a 

wolf pack has been verified in the LP 

since the early 1900s. In 2008, the DNR 

recognized the likelihood that small 

numbers of wolves would eventually 

move into the northern LP and form 

persistent packs (Potvin 2003, pp. 29– 

30; Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1242; 

Beyer et al. 2006, p. 35), and revised its 

Wolf Management Plan in part to 

incorporate provisions for wolf 

management in the northern LP (MI 

DNR 2008a, p. 46). 

The wolf population of Isle Royale 

National Park, Michigan, is not 

considered to be an important factor in 

the recovery of wolves in the WGL. The 

Park population is small and isolated 

and lacks genetic uniqueness (Wayne et 

al. 1991, pp. 47–49). In addition, this 

island population probably has not had 

any contact with mainland wolf 

populations since its founding pair 

crossed the Lake Superior ice in the late 

1940s (Peterson et al. 1998, p. 828). For 

genetic reasons and constraints on 

expansion due to the island’s small size, 

this wolf population does not contribute 

significantly towards meeting numerical 

recovery criteria; however, long-term 

research on this wolf population has 

added a great deal to our knowledge of 

the species. The wolf population on Isle 

Royale has ranged from 12 to 50 wolves 

since 1959, and was 19 wolves in the 

winter of 2009–2010 (Vucetich and 

Peterson 2010, p. 5). 

Summary for Wisconsin and Michigan 

The two-State wolf population, 

excluding Isle Royale wolves, has 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26100 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

exceeded 100 wolves since late-winter 

1993–94 and has exceeded 200 wolves 

since late-winter 1995–96. Therefore, 

the combined wolf population for 

Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded 

the second recovery criterion of the 

1992 Revised Recovery Plan for a 

nonisolated wolf population, since 

1999. Furthermore, the two-State 

population has exceeded the recovery 

criterion for an isolated second 

population since 2001. 

Other Areas In and Near the Proposed 

Western Great Lakes DPS 

No surveys have been conducted to 

document the number of wolves present 

in North Dakota or South Dakota, but an 

increasing number of wolves has 

apparently been detected in the eastern 

portions of these States. The eastern 

boundaries of North Dakota and South 

Dakota are approximately 19 and 81 mi 

(30 and 130 km), respectively, from 

occupied habitat in Minnesota. 

Biologists who are familiar with wolves 

in these States, however, generally agree 

that the wolves found there are 

primarily lone dispersers, although 

there were reports of pups being seen in 

the Turtle Mountains of North Dakota, 

in 1994 (Collins in litt. 1998). 

Other records include an adult male 

shot near Devil’s Lake, North Dakota in 

2002, another adult male shot in 

Richland County in extreme 

southeastern North Dakota in 2003 (Fain 

in litt. 2006), and a vehicle-killed adult 

male found near Sturgis, South Dakota, 

in 2006 (Larson in litt. 2006). In contrast 

to the other South Dakota wolves of the 

last 25 years, the animal found near 

Sturgis was genetically identified as 

having come from the Greater 

Yellowstone area (Fain in litt. 2006). 

Most recently, a wolf was shot in 

Roberts County, South Dakota in 

January 2009 (reportedly running with 

two or three other wolves) (Prieksat in 

litt. 2009), and another wolf was found 

dead in a foothold trap that was set as 

part of an ongoing USDA Wildlife 

Service’s coyote control operation in 

southeastern Eddy County, North 

Dakota (Bicknell in litt. 2009). See 

Delineating the Boundaries of the 

Proposed WGL Gray Wolf DPS in this 

proposed rule for a detailed discussion 

of movement of wolves. 

Wolf dispersal is expected to continue 

as wolves travel away from the more 

saturated habitats in the primary range 

into peripheral areas where wolves are 

extremely sparse or absent. Unless they 

return to the primary range and join or 

start a pack there, they are unlikely to 

contribute to long-term maintenance of 

WGL wolf populations. 

Although it is possible for these 

dispersers to encounter and mate with 

a mature wolf outside the primary 

range, the lack of large expanses of 

unfragmented habitat make it unlikely 

that wolf packs will persist in these 

peripheral areas; lack of contiguous 

habitat is expected to seriously impede 

further expansion. The only exception is 

the northern LP of Michigan, where 

several studies indicate that a persistent 

wolf population may develop (Gehring 

and Potter 2005, p. 1242; Potvin 2003, 

pp. 29–30), albeit dependent on 

occasional to frequent immigration of 

UP wolves. Despite the constraints on 

further expansion described here, 

however, current wolf populations in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP of 

Michigan have already greatly exceeded 

the recovery levels defined in the 1992 

Revised Recovery Plan, and 

maintenance of these numbers is not 

contingent on recruitment of wolves 

from areas outside the primary range 

that has been established for the WGL. 

Summary of Wolf Recovery in the 

Western Great Lakes Region 

Wolves in the proposed WGL DPS 

greatly exceed the recovery criteria 

(USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26) for (1) a 

secure wolf population in Minnesota, 

and (2) a second population outside 

Minnesota and Isle Royale consisting of 

100 wolves for 5 successive years. Based 

on the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf 

Recovery Team in 1992 and reaffirmed 

in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997, 

in litt. 1998), the proposed DPS contains 

sufficient wolf numbers and distribution 

to ensure their long-term survival 

within the DPS. 

The maintenance and expansion of 

the Minnesota wolf population has 

maximized the preservation of the 

genetic diversity that remained in the 

proposed WGL DPS when its wolves 

were first protected in 1974. 

Furthermore, the Wisconsin–Michigan 

wolf population has exceeded the 

numerical recovery criterion even for a 

completely isolated second population. 

Therefore, even in the unlikely event 

that this two-State population was to 

become totally isolated and wolf 

immigration from Minnesota and 

Ontario completely ceased, it would 

still remain a viable wolf population for 

the foreseeable future, as defined by the 

Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, 

pp. 25–26). Finally, each of the wolf 

populations in Wisconsin and Michigan 

has exceeded 200 animals for 11 and 10 

years, respectively, so if either were 

somehow to become isolated, they 

would remain viable, and each State has 

committed to manage its wolf 

population at or above viable 

population levels. The wolf’s numeric 

and distributional recovery criteria in 

the WGL have been met. 

Have the Wolves of the Western Great 

Lakes Region Been Restored? 

Leonard and Wayne (2008, p. 3) have 

stated that Great Lakes wolves have not 

been restored based on absence of 

certain historical mtDNA haplotypes 

from the current population, an 

estimated historical population size far 

greater than the current population size, 

and the admixture of coyote and 

western wolf haplotypes in the current 

population. 

The spatial representativeness of both 

the historical and recent samples 

reported by Leonard and Wayne (2008) 

has been questioned by Mech (2009). 

For example, 16 recent but no historical 

samples from Minnesota were included 

in the study. Leonard and Wayne (2009) 

responded that they did not believe that 

genetic differences were likely to be 

pronounced at the geographic scale 

discussed by Mech and Paul (2008) and 

Mech (2009). 

The current population of wolves in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is 

derived from expansion of the remnant 

population in northeastern Minnesota 

(Fain et al. 2010, p. 12), which was 

likely to have included both C. lupus 

and C. lycaon (Mech and Frenzel 1971; 

Mech 2010, p. 135), and in the case of 

UP Michigan, with possible 

contributions from C. lycaon from 

southern Ontario (Fain et al. 2010, p. 

12). 

Subsequent studies with larger 

samples of the current wolf population 

find, despite acknowledged influence of 

western wolves, the current population 

is generally representative of the 

historical population (Fain et al. 2010, 

p. 14; Wheeldon et al. 2010). 

Koblmu ̈ller et al. (2009, pp. 10–11) 

found ‘‘comparatively slight’’ 

differentiation at autosomal 

microsatellite DNA loci between 

historical and current Great Lakes 

wolves. Wheeldon and White (2009, p. 

4) present microsatellite DNA evidence 

that the hybridization processes noted 

by Leonard and Wayne (2008) were 

taking place over a century ago, so that 

the current population is comparable to 

the historical population with respect to 

admixture. Hybridization between 

eastern wolves and western wolves in 

the western Great Lakes region occurred 

prior to significant human effects on 

population size or habitat (Fain et al. 

2010, p. 14). According to Fain et al. 

(2010, p. 14), the current population of 

wolves in the western Great Lakes 

‘‘represents an ancient component of the 

northeast ecosystem and have been 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26101 

established throughout the region for 

thousands of years.’’ 

The loss of mtDNA haplotypes found 

in historical but not the current western 

Great Lakes wolf population reported by 

Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3) and 

the loss of allelic diversity (Fain et al. 

2010, p. 11), indicate that a genetic 

bottleneck occurred when wolves were 

nearly extirpated from the western Great 

Lakes region and the period of slow 

recovery that immediately followed. 

Despite these ‘‘founder effects’’ on the 

genetic composition of the western 

Great Lakes population, various 

measures of genetic diversity remain 

comparable to other wolf populations 

(Koblmu ̈ller et al. 2009; Fain et al. 2010, 

p. 12; Wheeldon et al. 2010), at least 

partially owing to contributions from 

western wolves (C. lupus). 

Wolves in the WGL region display a 

healthy level of heterozygosity (Fain et 

al. 2010, p. 12), and show no evidence 

of genetic bottlenecks (Koblmuller et al. 

2009, p. 1). Schwartz and Vucetich 

(2009, p. 2) have stated that ‘‘By all 

accounts, the return of wolves to the 

Great Lakes region has been successful 

* * * they are doing superbly—both in 

terms of population viability and 

ecological function.’’ Cronin and Mech 

(2009, p. 2) state, ‘‘We suggest that 

wolves in the [W]GL region can simply 

be called a wolf population with mixed 

ancestry.’’ They further state that, ‘‘It is 

generally acknowledged that the Great 

Lakes wolf population is fit, with 

abundant genetic variation’’ (Cronin and 

Mech 2009, p. 2). 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment 

Policy Overview 

Pursuant to the Act, we consider 

whether information is sufficient to 

indicate that listing, reclassifying, or 

delisting any species, subspecies, or, for 

vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may 

be warranted. To interpret and 

implement the DPS provision of the Act 

and congressional guidance, the Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) published a policy 

regarding the identification of distinct 

vertebrate population segments under 

the Act (Policy Regarding the 

Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act, 61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996) (hereafter DPS 

Policy). Under the DPS policy, two 

factors are considered in a decision 

regarding the potential identification of 

a DPS: (1) Discreteness of the 

population segment in relation to the 

remainder of the taxon, and (2) the 

significance of the population segment 

to the taxon to which it belongs. If a 

population meets both tests, it can be 

identified as a DPS. Then a third factor, 

the DPS’s conservation status, is 

evaluated in relation to the Act’s 

standards for listing, delisting, or 

reclassification, meaning that we 

undertake an analysis to determine 

whether the DPS is endangered or 

threatened or does not meet the criteria 

for listing. All three steps are necessary 

components of a complete DPS analysis. 

Past Practice and History of Using DPSs 

As of February 1, 2011, of the 392 

native vertebrate listings, 85 are listed as 

less than an entire taxonomic species or 

subspecies (henceforth referred to in 

this discussion as populations) under 

one of several authorities, including the 

‘‘distinct population segment’’ language 

in the Act’s definition of species 

(section 3(16)). Thirty-three of these 85 

populations, which span 52 different 

taxa, predate the 1996 DPS Policy; as 

such, the final listing determinations for 

these populations did not include 

formal policy-based analyses or 

expressly designate the listed entity as 

a DPS. In several instances, however, 

the Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) have 

established a DPS and revised the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

in a single action, as shown in the 

following examples. 

In February 1985, the Service delisted 

the brown pelican (Pelecanus 

occidentalis) in the southeastern United 

States and continued to identify it as 

endangered throughout the remainder of 

its range (50 FR 4938). In June 1994, 

NMFS revised the entry for the gray 

whale (Eschrichtius robustus) to remove 

the eastern North Pacific population 

from the List while retaining the 

western North Pacific population as 

endangered (59 FR 31094). In July 2003, 

the Service established two DPSs of the 

Columbian white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)—the 

Douglas County DPS and the Columbia 

River DPS—and delisted only the 

Douglas County DPS, while listing the 

Columbia River DPS (68 FR 43647). In 

March 2007, the Service established a 

DPS of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone 

Area and surrounding area within the 

existing grizzly bear listing in the lower 

48 States, and delisted this DPS (72 FR 

14865). Also in March 2007, the Service 

identified the American crocodile 

(Crocodylus acutus) in Florida as a DPS 

within the existing endangered listing of 

the American crocodile in the United 

States and reclassified the Florida DPS 

from endangered to threatened (71 FR 

13027). Revising and delisting the WGL 

DPS of wolves is consistent with the 

Service’s past practice and does not 

represent a change in agency position. 

Proposed Western Great Lakes Distinct 

Population Segment 

In 1978, based on what was at that 

time the ‘‘best available biological data,’’ 

the Service stated that there were two 

‘‘species’’ of gray wolves in the 

conterminous United States: ‘‘For 

purposes of this rulemaking, the gray 

wolf (Canis lupus) group in Mexico and 

the 48 conterminous States of the 

United States, other than Minnesota, is 

being considered as one ‘‘species,’’ and 

the gray wolf group in Minnesota is 

being considered as another ‘‘species.’’ 

(43 FR 9607, 9610, March 9, 1978). The 

Service then assigned a different status 

under the Act to each of those two 

‘‘species,’’ finding the Minnesota gray 

wolf ‘‘species’’ to be threatened, while 

the other gray wolf ‘‘species’’ (the 48 

conterminous States, except Minnesota, 

and in Mexico) to be endangered. The 

1978 rule referred to the Minnesota 

listing as the listing of a ‘‘species’’ when, 

clearly, based on the information 

available at that time, the Minnesota 

wolves did not taxonomically constitute 

a separate species of wolf. Therefore, the 

1978 listing either effectively 

established a Minnesota DPS or listed 

an entity in a portion of its broader 

range. 

The DPS Policy (61 FR 4725, February 

7, 1996) expressly provides for 

reexamining pre-policy DPS listings: 

‘‘Any DPS of a vertebrate taxon that was 

listed prior to implementation of this 

policy will be reevaluated on a case-bycase basis as recommendations are made 

to change the listing status for that 

distinct population segment. The 

appropriate application of the policy 

will also be considered in the 5-year 

reviews of the status of listed species 

required by section 4(c)(2) of the Act.’’ 

Based on this provision, we are, within 

this proposed rule, (1) recognizing that 

a Minnesota DPS was established in 

1978, (2) reevaluating that DPS listing, 

and (3) proposing to revise that DPS to 

meet the criteria in the DPS policy and 

to reflect the ‘‘best available biological 

data.’’ 

A gray wolf DPS that includes only 

Minnesota does not meet the criteria in 

the DPS policy because it is not discrete 

‘‘* * * in relation to the remainder of 

the species to which it belongs’’ (61 FR 

4725, February 7, 1996). The Minnesota 

wolf population has expanded beyond 

State boundaries and is connected to the 

wolf population in Wisconsin and 

Michigan, as evidenced by frequent 

movements of wolves among the States 

(Van Deelen 2009, p. 140; Treves at al. 

2009, pp. 192–195) and genetic analyses 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26102 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

that demonstrate the Wisconsin and 

Michigan wolves are mostly from the 

same genetic mix as Minnesota wolves 

(Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 4; Fain 

et al. 2010). Therefore, we are proposing 

to revise the boundaries of the 

Minnesota DPS to meet the criteria in 

the DPS policy as discussed under the 

Distinct Population Segment Analysis, 

below. 

Geographical Area of the Proposed 

Western Great Lakes DPS 

The geographical area of the proposed 

WGL DPS is shown in figure 1, below, 

and is described as all of Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan; the portion of 

North Dakota north and east of the 

Missouri River upstream to Lake 

Sakakawea and east of the centerline of 

Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the 

Canadian border; the portion of South 

Dakota north and east of the Missouri 

River; the portions of Iowa, Illinois, and 

Indiana north of the centerline of 

Interstate Highway 80; and the portion 

of Ohio north of the centerline of 

Interstate Highway 80 and west of the 

Maumee River at Toledo. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

Distinct Population Segment Analysis 

Analysis for Discreteness 

Under the 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR 

4722), a population segment of a 

vertebrate taxon may be considered 

discrete if it satisfies either of the 

following conditions: (1) it is markedly 

separated from other populations of the 

same taxon as a consequence of 

physical, physiological, ecological, or 

behavioral factors (quantitative 

measures of genetic or morphological 

discontinuity may provide evidence of 

this separation); or (2) it is delimited by 

international governmental boundaries 

within which differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms exist that are significant in 

light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

Markedly Separated from Other 

Populations of the Same Taxon—The 

western boundaries of the proposed 

WGL DPS are approximately 400 mi 

(644 km) from the nearest known gray 

wolf packs in Wyoming and Montana. 

The distance between those western 

packs and the nearest packs within the 

proposed WGL DPS is nearly 600 mi 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05MY11.124</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26103 

(966 km). The area between Minnesota 

packs and northern Rocky Mountain 

(NRM) packs largely consists of 

unsuitable habitat, with only scattered 

islands of possibly suitable habitat, such 

as the Black Hills of eastern Wyoming 

and western South Dakota. There are no 

known populations of gray wolves to 

the south or east of the proposed WGL 

DPS within the United States. 

As discussed in the previous section, 

wolves are known to disperse over vast 

distances, but straight line documented 

dispersals of 400 mi (644 km) or more 

are very rare. Although we cannot rule 

out the possibility of a WGL wolf 

traveling 600 mi (966 km) or more and 

joining or establishing a pack in the 

northern Rockies, such a movement has 

not been documented and is expected to 

happen very infrequently, if at all. 

Similar movements from the NRM wolf 

population into the proposed WGL DPS 

are unknown and are expected to 

happen infrequently. The 2006 Sturgis 

(South Dakota) wolf is the closest that 

an NRM wolf has come to entering the 

proposed WGL DPS (Fain in litt. 2006); 

however, the Sturgis wolf would still 

have had to travel over 300 mi (500 km) 

before encountering the nearest wolf 

pack in the proposed WGL DPS. As the 

discreteness criterion requires that the 

DPS be ‘‘markedly separated’’ from other 

populations of the taxon rather than 

requiring complete isolation, this high 

degree of physical separation between 

the WGL DPS and the northern Rocky 

Mountains satisfies the discreteness 

criterion. 

Delimited by International Boundaries 

with Significant Management 

Differences—The DPS policy allows us 

to use international borders to delineate 

the boundaries of a DPS if there are 

differences in control of exploitation, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms between the countries. The 

border between the United States and 

Canada has been used as the northern 

boundary of the listed entity since gray 

wolves were reclassified in the lower 48 

States and Mexico in 1978. There 

remain significant cross-border 

differences in exploitation, 

management, conservation status, and 

regulatory mechanisms. About 52,000 to 

60,000 wolves occur in Canada, where 

suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani 

2003, p. 322). Because of this 

abundance, wolves in Canada are not 

protected by Federal laws and are only 

minimally protected in most Canadian 

provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546). 

In the United States, unlike Canada, 

Federal protection and intensive 

management has been necessary to 

recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983). 

In general, Canadian gray wolf 

populations are sufficiently large and 

healthy so that population regulation, 

rather than protection and close 

monitoring, is the management focus. 

There are an estimated 4,000 wolves in 

Manitoba (Manitoba Conservation 

undated). Hunting is allowed nearly 

province-wide, including in those 

provincial hunting zones adjoining 

northwestern Minnesota, with last 

year’s season running from August 31, 

2009, through March 31, 2010 

(Manitoba Conservation 2009a). 

Trapping wolves is allowed provincewide, except in and immediately around 

Riding Mountain National Park 

(southwestern Manitoba), with last 

year’s season running from October 14, 

2008, through February 28 or March 31, 

2009 (varies with trapping zone) 

(Manitoba Conservation 2009b). 

The Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources estimates there are 8,850 

wolves in the province, based on prey 

composition and abundance, 

topography, and climate and wolf 

numbers in most parts of the province 

are believed to be stable or increasing 

since about 1993 (Ontario MNR 2005a, 

pp. 7–9). In 2005, Ontario limited 

hunting and trapping of wolves by 

closing the season from April 1 through 

September 14 in central and northern 

Ontario (Ontario MNR 2005b). In 

southern Ontario, the portion of the 

province that is adjacent to the 

proposed WGL DPS, wolf hunting and 

trapping is permitted year round 

(Ontario MNR 2005c). If delisted, 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

would carefully monitor and manage 

wolves to retain populations at or above 

the recovery goal (see Factor D). 

Therefore, even though biologically the 

WGL wolf population is simply a wellconnected southern extension of wolves 

in Canada, we will continue to use the 

United States-Canada border to mark the 

northern boundary of the DPS due to the 

difference in control of exploitation, 

conservation status, and regulatory 

mechanisms between the two countries. 

Conclusion—We find, based on our 

analysis of the best available scientific 

information, that the proposed WGL 

DPS is markedly separated from other 

United States populations of gray 

wolves and difference in control of 

exploitation, conservation status, and 

regulatory mechanisms justifies 

discreteness between United States and 

Canadian wolf populations. Therefore, 

the proposed WGL DPS meets the 

criterion for discreteness under the DPS 

policy. 

Analysis for Significance 

If we determine that a population 

segment is discrete, we next consider 

available scientific evidence of its 

significance to the taxon to which it 

belongs. Our DPS policy states that this 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to, the following: (1) Persistence 

of the discrete population segment in an 

ecological setting unusual or unique for 

the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the 

discrete population segment would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the taxon; (3) evidence that the 

discrete population segment represents 

the only surviving natural occurrence of 

a taxon that may be more abundant 

elsewhere as an introduced population 

outside its historic range; and/or (4) 

evidence that the discrete population 

segment differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. Factor 2 applies to the 

proposed WGL DPS and is included in 

our analysis for significance. Factors 1, 

3, and 4 do not apply to the proposed 

WGL DPS and thus are not included in 

our analysis for significance. 

Significant Gap in the Range of the 

Taxon—Wolves once lived throughout 

most of North America. Wolves have 

been extirpated from most of the 

southern portions of their historical 

North American range. The successful 

restoration of a viable wolf 

metapopulation to large parts of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

has filled a significant gap in the 

holarctic range of gray wolves in the 

United States, and it provides an 

important extension of the range of gray 

wolves in North America. The loss of 

the WGL wolf population would, 

therefore, represent a significant gap in 

the species’ holarctic range in that the 

WGL wolf population is the only wolf 

population in the conterminous States 

east of the Rocky Mountains, except for 

the red wolves (a different species) 

being restored along the Atlantic Coast, 

and currently holds about 40 percent of 

North American gray wolves known to 

occur south of Canada. 

Finding—We find, based on our 

analysis of the best available scientific 

information, that the proposed WGL 

DPS is significant to the taxon to which 

it belongs because its loss would result 

in a significant gap in the range of the 

taxon. Therefore, the proposed WGL 

DPS meets the criterion for significance 

under the DPS policy. 

Discrete Vertebrate Population Segment 

Conclusion 

We propose, based on our review of 

the best available scientific data, that 

the WGL DPS is discrete from other gray 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26104 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

wolf populations as a result of physical 

separation from other gray wolf 

populations in the United States and the 

international border with Canada. The 

DPS is significant to the taxon to which 

it belongs because it contains a wolf 

metapopulation that fills a large gap in 

the historical range of the taxon in the 

conterminous States. Therefore, we have 

determined that this population 

segment of wolves satisfies the 

discreteness and significance criteria 

required for a DPS. The evaluation of 

the appropriate conservation status for 

the proposed WGL DPS is found below. 

Delineating the Boundaries of the 

Proposed WGL Gray Wolf DPS 

In contrast to a species or a 

subspecies, a DPS is a biological 

population that is delineated by a 

boundary that is based on something 

other than established taxonomic 

distinctions. Therefore, the starting 

point for delineating a DPS is the 

biological population or 

metapopulation, and a geographical 

delineation of the DPS must reasonably 

represent the population or 

metapopulation and its biological 

characteristics and recovery needs. 

To delineate the boundary of the 

proposed WGL DPS, we considered the 

current distribution of wolves in the 

Midwest and the characteristic 

movements of those wolves and of 

wolves elsewhere. We examined the 

best available scientific data on longdistance movements, including longdistance movements followed by return 

movements to the vicinity of the natal 

pack. We concluded that wolf behavior 

and the nature of wolf populations 

require that we include within the area 

of the DPS some subset of known longdistance movement locations. However, 

as explained below, wolf biology and 

common sense argue against including 

all known or potential long-distance 

movements within the DPS’s 

boundaries. 

The analysis detailed below resulted 

in the proposed boundaries of the WGL 

DPS that are shown in figure 1. This 

DPS has been delineated to include the 

core recovered wolf population plus a 

wolf movement zone around the core 

wolf populations. This geographic 

delineation is not intended to include 

all areas to which wolves have moved 

from the Great Lakes population. Rather, 

it includes the area currently occupied 

by wolf packs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan; the nearby areas in these 

States in which wolf packs may become 

established in the foreseeable future; 

and a surrounding area into which 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

wolves occasionally move but where 

persistent packs are not expected to be 

established because suitable habitat is 

rare and exists only as small patches. 

The area surrounding the core wolf 

populations includes the locations of 

most known dispersers from the core 

populations, especially the shorter and 

medium-distance movements from 

which wolves are most likely to return 

to the core areas and contribute to the 

wolf population. Therefore, the DPS 

encompasses the current range of the 

population, which is considered to be 

viable, including the primary range and 

the peripheral range. 

The WGL areas that are regularly 

occupied by wolf packs are well 

documented in Minnesota (Erb and 

Benson 2004, p. 12, fig. 3; Erb and Don 

Carlos 2009, pp. 57–60), Wisconsin 

(Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33, fig. 1; 

Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 93–98), and 

the UP of Michigan (Huntzinger et al. 

2005, pp. 25–27, figs. 4–6; Beyer et al. 

2009, pp. 73–75). Wolves have 

successfully colonized most, perhaps 

all, suitable habitat in Minnesota. 

Minnesota data from the winter of 

2007–08 indicate that wolf numbers and 

density have stabilized since 1997–98, 

and there was no expansion of occupied 

range in the State (Erb 2008, pp. 5–7). 

Wisconsin wolves now occupy most 

habitat areas believed to have a high 

probability of wolf occurrence except 

for some areas of northeastern 

Wisconsin, and the State’s wolf 

population continues to annually 

increase in numbers and, to a lesser 

degree, in area (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2009, p. 2). The UP of 

Michigan has wolf packs throughout the 

peninsula. In the last 22 years, the wolf 

population in the UP has grown every 

year except 1997 and 2010 (Roell 2010, 

pers. comm.). Over the past 5 years, the 

average annual growth has been about 7 

percent. While the population trend 

continues to increase, the rate of 

increase has slowed, consistent with 

any population expanding into and then 

filling available habitat. The population 

may continue to grow or remain steady; 

however, a small or even negative 

growth rate may occur any year and 

should be considered a natural 

fluctuation seen in any wildlife 

population. 

When delineating the proposed WGL 

DPS, we had to consider the high degree 

of mobility shown by wolves. The 

dispersal of wolves from their natal 

packs and territories is a normal and 

important behavioral attribute of the 

species that facilitates the formation of 

new packs, the occupancy of vacant 

territories, and the expansion of 

occupied range by the ‘‘colonization’’ of 

vacant habitat. Data on wolf dispersal 

rates from numerous North American 

studies (summarized in Fuller et al. 

2003, p. 179, Table. 6.6; Boyd and 

Pletscher 1999, p. 1102, Table 6) show 

dispersal rates of 13 to 48 percent of the 

individuals in a pack. Sometimes the 

movements are temporary, and the wolf 

returns to a location in or near its natal 

territory. In some cases, a wolf may 

continue its movement for scores or 

even hundreds of miles until it locates 

suitable habitat, where it may establish 

a territory or join an existing pack. In 

other cases, a wolf is found dead at a 

distance from its original territory, 

leaving unanswered the questions of 

how far it would have gone and whether 

it eventually would have returned to its 

natal area or population. 

Minnesota—The current record for a 

documented movement by a wolf in 

North America is held by a Minnesota 

wolf that moved a minimum (that is, the 

straight-line distance from known 

starting point to most distant point) of 

at least 550 mi (886 km) northwest into 

Saskatchewan (Fritts 1983, pp. 166– 

167). Nineteen other primarily 

Minnesota movements summarized by 

Mech (in litt. 2005) averaged 154 mi 

(248 km). Their minimum distance of 

travel ranged from 32 to 532 mi (53–886 

km) with the minimum dispersal 

distance shown by known returning 

wolves ranging from 54 mi (90 km) to 

307 mi (494 km). 

Wisconsin—In 2004, a wolf tagged in 

Michigan was killed by a vehicle in 

Rusk County in northwestern 

Wisconsin, 295 mi (475 km) west of his 

original capture location in the eastern 

UP (Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 4). A 

north-central Wisconsin yearling female 

wolf traveled a similar distance (298 mi, 

480 km) to the Rainy Lake region of 

Ontario during 1988–89 (Wydeven et al. 

1995, p. 149). 

Michigan—Drummer et al. (2002, pp. 

14–15) reported 10 long-distance 

dispersal events involving UP wolves. 

One of these wolves moved to northcentral Missouri and another to 

southeastern Wisconsin, both beyond 

the core wolf areas in the WGL. The 

average straight-line distance traveled 

by those two wolves was 377 mi (608 

km), while the average straight-line 

distance for all 10 of these wolves was 

232 mi (373 km). Their straight-line 

distances ranged from 41 to 468 mi (66 

to 753 km). 

Illinois and Indiana—In December 

2002, a Marshall County (Illinois) wolf 

likely dispersed from the Wisconsin 

wolf population, nearly 200 mi (322 km) 

to the north (Great Lakes Directory 

2003). The Randolph County (Indiana) 

wolf had traveled a minimum distance 

of at least 428 mi (689 km) to get around 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26105 

Lake Michigan from its central 

Wisconsin birthplace; it likely traveled 

much farther than that unless it went 

through the city or suburbs of Chicago 

(Wydeven et al. 2004, pp. 10–11; Treves 

et al. 2009, p. 194). The Pike County 

(Illinois) wolf that was shot in late 2005 

was about 300 mi (180 km) from the 

nearest wolf packs in central Wisconsin. 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and 

Nebraska—Licht and Fritts (1994, p. 77) 

tabulated seven wolves found dead in 

North Dakota and South Dakota from 

1981 through 1992 that are believed to 

have originated from Minnesota, based 

on skull morphometrics. Although none 

of these wolves were marked or radiotracked, making it impossible to 

determine the point of initiation of their 

journey, a minimum travel distance for 

the seven can be determined from the 

nearest wolf breeding range in 

Minnesota. For the seven, the average 

distance to the nearest wolf breeding 

range was 160 mi (257 km) and ranged 

from 29 to 329 mi (46 to 530 km). One 

of these seven wolves moved west of the 

Missouri River before it died. 

Genetic analysis of a wolf killed in 

Harding County, in extreme 

northwestern South Dakota, in 2001 

indicated that it originated from the 

Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf 

populations (Fain in litt. 2006). The 

straight-line travel distance to the 

nearest Minnesota wolf pack is nearly 

400 mi (644 km). 

The wolf from the Greater 

Yellowstone area that was killed by a 

vehicle on Interstate 90 near Sturgis, 

South Dakota, in March of 2006 traveled 

a minimum straight-line distance of 

about 270 mi (435 km) from the nearest 

known Greater Yellowstone pack before 

it died (USFWS et al. 2006, in USFWS 

Program Report, Figure 1). 

A large canid was shot by a Boyd 

County (Nebraska) rancher in late 1994 

or early 1995, likely after crossing the 

frozen Missouri River from South 

Dakota (Anschutz in litt. 2006, Jobman 

in litt. 1995). It was determined to be a 

wolf that originated from the Great 

Lakes wolf populations (Fain in litt. 

2006), whose nearest pack would have 

been about 300 mi (480 km) away. A 

wolf illegally killed near Spalding, 

Nebraska, in December of 2002 also 

originated from the MinnesotaWisconsin-Michigan wolf population, as 

determined by genetic analysis 

(Anschutz in litt. 2003, Fain in litt. 

2006). The nearest Minnesota wolf pack 

is nearly 350 mi (563 km) from this 

location. 

Other notable extra-territorial 

movements—The extra-territorial 

movements of several wolves were 

radio-tracked in sufficient detail to 

provide insight into their actual travel 

routes and total travel distances for each 

trek, rather than only documenting 

straight-line distance from beginning to 

end-point. Merrill and Mech (2000, pp. 

429–431) reported on four such 

Minnesota wolves with documented 

travel distances ranging from 305 to 

2,640 mi (490 to 4,251 km) and an 

average travel route length of 988 mi 

(1590 km). Wydeven (1994, pp. 20–22) 

described a Wisconsin wolf that moved 

from northwestern Wisconsin to the 

northern suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota, 

for 2 weeks (apparently not seen or 

reported to authorities by the local 

residents), then moved back to northcentral Wisconsin. The total travel 

distance was 278 mi (447km) from her 

natal pack into Minnesota and on to the 

north-central Wisconsin location where 

she settled down. 

While investigating the origins of 

Scandinavian wolf populations, Linnell 

et al. (2005, p. 387) compiled wolf 

dispersal data from 21 published 

studies, including many cited separately 

here. Twenty-two of 298 compiled 

dispersals (7.4 percent) were over 300 

km (186 mi). Eleven dispersals (3.7 

percent) were over 500 km (311 mi). 

Because of the likelihood that many 

long-distance dispersers are never 

reported, they conclude that the 

proportion of long-distance dispersers is 

probably severely underestimated. 

From these extra-territorial movement 

records, we conclude that wolf 

movements of over 200 mi (320 km) 

straight-line distance have been 

documented on numerous occasions, 

while shorter distance movements are 

more frequent. Movements of 300 mi 

(480 km) straight-line distance or more 

are less common, but include one 

Minnesota wolf that journeyed a 

straight-line distance of 300 mi (480 km) 

and a known minimum-travel distance 

of 2,640 mi (4,251 km) before it reversed 

direction, as determined by its satellitetracked collar. This wolf ultimately 

returned to a spot only 24 mi (40 km) 

from its natal territory (Merrill and 

Mech 2000, p. 430). Although much 

longer movements have been 

documented, including some by 

midwestern wolves, return movements 

to the vicinity of natal territories have 

not been documented for extraterritorial movements beyond 300 mi 

(480 km). 

Based on these extra-territorial 

movement data, we conclude that 

affiliation with the midwestern wolf 

population is diminished and 

essentially lost when dispersal takes a 

Midwest wolf a distance of 250 to 300 

mi (400 to 480 km) beyond the outer 

edge of the areas that are continuously 

occupied by wolf packs. Although some 

WGL wolves will move beyond this 

distance, available data indicate that 

longer distance dispersers are unlikely 

to return to their natal population. 

Therefore, they have lost their 

functional connection with, and 

potential conservation value to, the 

WGL wolf population. 

Wolves moving substantial distances 

outward from the core areas of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

will encounter landscape features that 

are at least partial barriers to further 

wolf movement and that may, if crossed, 

impede attempts of wolves to return 

toward the WGL core areas. If such 

partial barriers are in a location that has 

separate utility in delineating the 

biological extent of a wolf population, 

they can and should be used to 

delineate the DPS boundary. Such 

landscape features are the Missouri 

River in North Dakota and downstream 

to Omaha, Nebraska, and Interstate 

Highway 80 from Omaha eastward 

through Illinois, Indiana, and into Ohio, 

ending where this highway crosses the 

Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio. We do 

not believe these are absolute barriers to 

wolf movement. There is evidence that 

several Minnesota-origin wolves have 

crossed the Missouri River (Licht and 

Fritts 1994, pp. 75 & 77, Fig. 1 and Table 

1; Anschutz in litt. 2003, 2006) and 

some Midwest wolves have crossed 

interstate highways (Merrill and Mech 

2000, p. 430). There is also evidence 

that some wolves are hesitant to cross 

highways (Whittington et al. 2004, pp. 

7, 9; Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 5; but see 

Blanco et al. 2005, pp. 315–316, 319– 

320 and Kohn et al. 2000, p. 22). 

Interstate highways and smaller roads 

are a known mortality factor for wolves 

and, therefore, pose a partial barrier to 

wolf movements (Blanco et al. 2005, p. 

320). The death of a NRM wolf near 

Sturgis in western South Dakota (Fain in 

litt. 2006) suggests that the area of the 

Dakotas west of the Missouri River may 

be traversed by a small number of 

wolves coming from both the NRM and 

WGL wolf populations, as well as 

wolves from Canada (Licht and Fritts 

1994, pp. 75–77). Wolves in this area 

cannot be assumed to belong to the 

WGL wolf population, supporting our 

belief that the boundary should not be 

designed to include the locations of all 

known dispersers. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for listing 

species, reclassifying species, or 

removing species from listed status. 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26106 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as 

including any species or subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the 

‘‘species’’ is identified, we then evaluate 

whether that species may be endangered 

or threatened because of one or more of 

the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider 

these same five factors in delisting a 

species. We may delist a species 

according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

indicate that the species is neither 

endangered nor threatened because (1) 

the species is extinct, (2) the species has 

recovered and is no longer endangered 

or threatened, or (3) the original 

scientific data used at the time the 

species was classified were in error. 

A recovered species is one that no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of 

threatened or endangered. The analysis 

for a delisting due to recovery must be 

based on the five factors outlined in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. This analysis 

must include an evaluation of threats 

that existed at the time of listing, those 

that currently exist, and those that could 

potentially affect the species once the 

protections of the Act are removed. 

In the context of the Act, the term 

‘‘threatened species’’ means any species 

or subspecies or, for vertebrates, Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) that is likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

term ‘‘endangered species’’ means any 

species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act does not define the 

term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ For the 

purpose of this proposal, we define the 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be the extent to 

which, given the amount and substance 

of available data, we can anticipate 

events or effects, or reliably extrapolate 

threat trends that relate to the status of 

the WGL DPS. For the proposed WGL 

DPS, the foreseeable future differs for 

each factor potentially affecting the 

DPS. 

It took a considerable length of time 

for public attitudes and regulations to 

result in a social climate that promoted 

and allowed for wolf recovery in the 

proposed WGL DPS. The length of time 

over which this shift occurred, and the 

ensuing stability in those attitudes, 

gives us confidence that this social 

climate will persist. Also, the States 

have had a solid history of cooperating 

and assisting in wolf recovery and have 

made a commitment, through legislative 

actions, to continue these activities. We 

believe this commitment will continue. 

When evaluating the available 

information, with respect to foreseeable 

future, we take into account reduced 

confidence as we forecast further into 

the future. As explained previously, our 

analysis of the factors affecting the WGL 

DPS refer to the gray wolf (C. lupus), 

because that is the named entity 

currently on the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (see Procedural 

Aspects of Proposal Applying to the 

Gray Wolf above). 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

A common misconception is that 

wolves inhabit only remote pristine 

forests or mountainous areas, where 

human developments and other 

activities have produced negligible 

change to the natural landscape. Their 

extirpation south of Canada and Alaska, 

except for the heavily forested portions 

of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced 

this popular belief. However, the 

primary reason wolves survived in those 

areas was not because of habitat 

conditions, but, rather, because remote 

areas were sufficiently free of the 

human persecution that elsewhere 

killed wolves faster than the species 

could reproduce (Mech 1995a, p. 271). 

In the western Great Lakes region, 

wolves in the densely forested 

northeastern corner of Minnesota have 

expanded into the more agricultural 

portions of central and northwestern 

Minnesota, northern and central 

Wisconsin, and the entire UP of 

Michigan. Habitats currently being used 

by wolves span the broad range from the 

mixed hardwood-coniferous forest 

wilderness area of northern Minnesota, 

through sparsely settled, but similar 

habitats in Michigan’s UP and northern 

Wisconsin, and into more intensively 

cultivated and livestock-producing 

portions of central and northwestern 

Minnesota and central Wisconsin. 

Wolf research and the expansion of 

wolf range over the last three decades 

have shown that wolves can 

successfully occupy a wide range of 

habitats, and they are not dependent on 

wilderness areas for their survival. In 

the past, for instance, wolf populations 

occupied nearly every type of habitat 

north of mid-Mexico that contained 

large ungulate prey species, including 

bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, 

moose, and woodland caribou; thus, 

wolves historically occupied the entire 

Midwest. Inadequate prey density or 

high levels of human-caused mortality 

appear to be the only factors that limit 

wolf distribution (Mech 1995a, p 271; 

1995b, p. 544). 

Suitable Habitat Within the Proposed 

Western Great Lakes DPS 

Various researchers have investigated 

habitat suitability for wolves in the 

central and eastern portions of the 

United States. In recent years, most of 

these efforts have focused on using a 

combination of human density, density 

of agricultural lands, deer density or 

deer biomass, and road density, or have 

used road density alone to identify areas 

where wolf populations are likely to 

persist or become established 

(Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 284–285; 

1997, pp. 23–27; 1998, pp. 1–8, 1999; 

pp. 39–43; Harrison and Chapin 1997, p. 

3; 1998, p. 769–770; Wydeven et al. 

2001a, pp. 110–113; Erb and Benson 

2004, p. 2; Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1661– 

1668; Mladenoff et al. 2009, pp. 132– 

135). 

To a large extent, road density has 

been adopted as the best predictor of 

habitat suitability in the Midwest due to 

the connection between roads and 

human-related wolf mortality. Several 

studies demonstrated that wolves 

generally did not maintain breeding 

packs in areas with a road density 

greater than about 0.9 to 1.1 linear miles 

per sq mi (0.6 to 0.7 km per sq km) 

(Thiel 1985, pp. 404–406; Jensen et al. 

1986, pp. 364–366; Mech et al. 1988, pp. 

85–87; Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 48–51). 

Work by Mladenoff and associates 

indicated that colonizing wolves in 

Wisconsin preferred areas where road 

densities were less than 0.7 mi per sq mi 

(0.45 km per sq km) (Mladenoff et al. 

1995, p. 289). However, recent work in 

the UP of Michigan indicates that, in 

some areas with low road densities, low 

deer density appears to limit wolf 

occupancy (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 

1667–1668) and may prevent 

recolonization of portions of the UP. In 

Minnesota, a combination of road 

density and human density is used by 

MN DNR to model suitable habitat. 

Areas with a human density up to 8 

people per sq km are suitable if they 

also have a road density less than 0.5 

km per sq km. Areas with a human 

density of less than 4 people per sq km 

are suitable if they have road densities 

up to 0.7 km per sq km (Erb and Benson 

2004, Table 1). 

Road density is a useful parameter 

because it is easily measured and 

mapped, and because it correlates 

directly and indirectly with various 

forms of other human-related wolf 

mortality factors. A rural area with more 

roads generally has a greater human 

density, more vehicular traffic, greater 

access by hunters and trappers, more 

farms and residences, and more 

domestic animals. As a result, there is 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26107 

a greater likelihood that wolves in such 

an area will encounter humans, 

domestic animals, and various human 

activities. These encounters may result 

in wolves being hit by motor vehicles, 

being controlled by government agents 

after becoming involved in depredations 

on domestic animals, being shot 

intentionally by unauthorized 

individuals, being trapped or shot 

accidentally, or contracting diseases 

from domestic dogs (Mech et al. 1988, 

pp. 86–87; Mech and Goyal 1993, p. 

332; Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 282, 

291). Based on mortality data from 

radio-collared Wisconsin wolves from 

1979 to 1999, natural causes of death 

predominate (57 percent of mortalities) 

in areas with road densities below 1.35 

mi per sq mi (0.84 km per sq km), but 

human-related factors produced 71 

percent of the wolf deaths in areas with 

higher road densities (Wydeven et al. 

2001a, pp. 112–113). 

Some researchers have used a road 

density of 1 mi per sq mi (0.6 km per 

sq km) of land area as an upper 

threshold for suitable wolf habitat. 

However, the common practice in more 

recent studies is to use road density to 

predict probabilities of persistent wolf 

pack presence in an area. Areas with 

road densities less than 0.7 mi per sq mi 

(0.45 km per sq km) are estimated to 

have a greater than 50 percent 

probability of wolf pack colonization 

and persistent presence, and areas 

where road density exceeded 1 mi per 

sq mi (0.6 km per sq km) have less than 

a 10 percent probability of occupancy 

(Mladenoff et al. 1995. pp. 288–289; 

Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, p. 5; 

Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 40–41). 

Wisconsin researchers view areas with 

greater than 50 percent probability as 

‘‘primary wolf habitat,’’ areas with 10 to 

50 percent probability as ’’’secondary 

wolf habitat,’’ and areas with less than 

10 percent probability as unsuitable 

habitat (WI DNR 1997, pp. 47–48). 

The territories of packs that do occur 

in areas of high road density, and hence 

with low expected probabilities of 

occupancy, are generally near broad 

areas of more suitable habitat that are 

likely serving as a source of wolves, 

thereby assisting in maintaining wolf 

presence in the higher road density and, 

therefore, less-suitable areas (Mech 

1989, pp. 387–388; Wydeven et al. 

2001a, p. 112). The predictive ability of 

this model was questioned (Mech 

2006a, 2006b) and responded to 

(Mladenoff et al. 2006), and an updated 

analysis of Wisconsin pack locations 

and habitat has been completed 

(Mladenoff et al. 2009). This new model 

maintains that road density is still an 

important indicator of suitable wolf 

habitat; however, lack of agricultural 

land is also a strong predictor of habitat 

wolves occupy. 

It appears that essentially all suitable 

habitat in Minnesota is now occupied, 

range expansion has slowed or possibly 

ceased, and the wolf population within 

the State has stabilized (Erb and Benson 

2004, p. 7; Erb and Don Carlos 2009, pp. 

57, 60). This suitable habitat closely 

matches the areas designated as Wolf 

Management Zones 1 through 4 in the 

Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. 

72), which are identical in area to 

Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A 

(see Figure 2, below; MN DNR 2001, 

Appendix III). 

Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves 

and wolf packs show that wolves have 

now recolonized the areas predicted by 

habitat models to have high and 

moderate probability of occupancy 

(primary and secondary wolf habitat). 

The late-winter 2008–09 Wisconsin wolf 

survey identified packs occurring 

throughout the central Wisconsin forest 

area (Wolf Management Zone 2, Figure 

3) and across the northern forest zone 

(Zone 1, Figure 3), with highest pack 

densities in the northwest and northcentral forest; pack densities are lower, 

but increasing, in the northeastern 

corner of the State (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2009, Figure 1). 

Michigan wolf surveys in winter 

2009–10 continue to show wolf pairs or 

packs (defined by Michigan DNR as two 

or more wolves traveling together) in 

every UP county except Keweenaw 

County (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; 

Roell 2011, pers. comm.), which 

probably lacks a suitable ungulate prey 

base during winter months (Potvin et al. 

2005, p. 1665). 

Habitat suitability studies in the 

Upper Midwest indicate that the only 

large areas of suitable or potentially 

suitable habitat areas that are currently 

unoccupied by wolves are located in the 

northern LP of Michigan (Mladenoff et 

al. 1997, p. 23; Mladenoff et al. 1999, p. 

39; Potvin 2003, pp. 44–45; Gehring and 

Potter 2005, p. 1239). One published 

Michigan study (Gehring and Potter 

2005, p. 1239) estimates that these areas 

could host 46 to 89 wolves; a graduate 

thesis estimates that 110–480 wolves 

could exist in the northern LP (Potvin 

2003, p. 39). The northern LP is 

separated from the UP by the Straits of 

Mackinac, whose 4-mile (6.4-km) width 

freezes during mid- and late-winter in 

some years. In recent years there have 

been several documented occurrences of 

wolves in the northern LP, but until 

2010, there had been no indication of 

persistence beyond several months. 

Prior to those occurrences, the last 

recorded wolf in the LP was in 1910. 

In the first instance a radio-collared 

female wolf from the eastern UP was 

trapped and killed by a coyote trapper 

in Presque Isle County in late October 

2004. In late November 2004, tracks 

from two wolves were verified in the 

same northern LP county. Follow-up 

winter surveys by the DNR in early 2005 

failed to find additional wolf tracks in 

the northern LP (Huntzinger et al. 2005, 

p. 7); additional surveys conducted in 

2006–10 also failed to find evidence of 

continued northern LP wolf presence 

(Roell et al. 2009, p. 5; Roell 2010, pers. 

comm.). A video of a single wolf was 

taken near Mackinac City in Cheboygan 

County in May 2009, and another trailcamera video-recorded a wolf in 

Presque Isle County in July 2009. These 

two sightings may have been the same 

animal (Roell 2009, pers. comm.). In 

2010, USDA Wildlife Services and MI 

DNR staff confirmed a single breeding 

pair with pups in Cheboygan County in 

the northern LP (MI DNR 2010). 

These northern LP patches of 

potentially suitable habitat contain a 

great deal of private land, are small in 

comparison to the occupied habitat on 

the UP and in Minnesota and 

Wisconsin, and are intermixed with 

agricultural and higher road density 

areas (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1240). 

Therefore, continuing wolf immigration 

from the UP may be necessary to 

maintain a future northern LP 

population. The Gehring and Potter 

study (2005, p. 1239) predicted 850 sq 

mi (2,198 sq km) of suitable habitat 

(areas with greater than a 50 percent 

probability of wolf occupancy) in the 

northern LP. Potvin (2003, p. 21), using 

deer density in addition to road density, 

believes there are about 3,090 sq mi 

(8,000 sq km) of suitable habitat in the 

northern LP. Gehring and Potter (2005, 

p. 1239) exclude from their calculations 

those northern LP low-road-density 

patches that are less than 19 sq mi (50 

sq km), while Potvin (2003, pp. 10–15) 

does not limit habitat patch size in his 

calculations. Both of these area 

estimates are well below the minimum 

area described in the Revised Recovery 

Plan, which states that 10,000 sq mi 

(25,600 sq km) of contiguous suitable 

habitat is needed for a viable isolated 

gray wolf population, and half that area 

(5,000 sq mi or 12,800 sq km) is needed 

to maintain a viable wolf population 

that is subject to wolf immigration from 

a nearby population (USFWS 1992, pp. 

25–26). 

Based on the above-described studies 

and the guidance of the 1992 Revised 

Recovery Plan, the Service has 

concluded that suitable habitat for 

wolves in the proposed WGL DPS can 

be determined by considering four 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26108 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

factors: Road density, human density, 

prey base, and size. An adequate prey 

base is an absolute requirement, but in 

much of the proposed WGL DPS the 

white-tailed deer density is well above 

adequate levels, causing the other 

factors to become the determinants of 

suitable habitat. Prey base is primarily 

of concern in the UP where severe 

winter conditions cause deer to move 

away from some lakeshore areas, 

making otherwise suitable areas locally 

and seasonally unsuitable. Road density 

and human density frequently are 

highly correlated; therefore, road 

density is the best single predictor of 

habitat suitability. However, areas with 

higher road density may still be suitable 

if the human density is very low, so a 

consideration of both factors is 

sometimes useful (Erb and Benson 2004, 

p. 2). 

Finally, although the territory of 

individual wolf packs can be relatively 

small, packs are not likely to persist as 

a viable population if they occupy a 

small isolated island of otherwise 

unsuitable habitat. The 1992 Revised 

Recovery Plan indicates that a wolf 

population needs to occupy at least 

10,000 contiguous sq mi (25,600 sq km) 

to be considered viable if it is isolated 

from other wolf populations, and must 

occupy at least half that area if it is not 

isolated from another self-sustaining 

population (USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26). 

Based on the information discussed 

above, we conclude that Minnesota 

Wolf Management Zone A (Federal Wolf 

Management Zones 1–4, Figure 2), 

Wisconsin Wolf Zones 1 and 2 (Figure 

3), and the UP of Michigan contain a 

sufficient amount of suitable wolf 

habitat. The other areas within the DPS 

are unsuitable habitat, or are potentially 

habitat that is too small or too 

fragmented to be suitable for 

maintaining a viable wolf population. 

Wolf Populations on Federal Lands 

National forests, and the prey species 

found in their various habitats, have 

been important to wolf conservation and 

recovery in the core areas of the 

proposed WGL DPS. There are five 

national forests in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan (Superior, 

Chippewa, Chequamegon-Nicolet, 

Ottawa, and Hiawatha National Forests) 

with wolf packs that exclusively or 

partially reside on them. Their wolf 

populations range from approximately 

484 on the Superior National Forest in 

northeastern Minnesota, to an estimated 

182 on the UP’s Ottawa National Forest, 

164 on the Chequamegon–Nicolet 

National Forest in northeastern 

Wisconsin, and another estimated 49 on 

the Hiawatha National Forest in the 

eastern UP (Delphey 2009, pers. comm.; 

Eklund 2009, pers. comm.; Roell 2011, 

pers. comm., Wydeven 2011, pers. 

comm.). 

Voyageurs National Park, along 

Minnesota’s northern border, has a land 

base of nearly 340 sq mi (882 sq km). 

As of the last survey in 2008, there were 

31 to 46 wolves within 7 to 9 packs that 

exclusively or partially reside within 

the park, and at least 5 packs are located 

wholly inside the Park boundaries 

(Ethier et al. 2008, p. 5). The 2008 

estimates fall within the range of wolf 

estimates for the Park from the 1990s 

(Gogan et al. 2004) and early 2000s (Fox 

et al. 2001, pp. 6–7). 

Within the boundaries of the 

proposed WGL DPS, we currently 

manage seven units within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System with significant 

wolf activity. Primary among these are 

Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), Tamarac NWR, and Rice Lake 

NWR in Minnesota; Seney NWR in the 

UP of Michigan; and Necedah NWR in 

central Wisconsin. Agassiz NWR has 

had as many as 20 wolves in 2 to 3 

packs in recent years. Although in 1999 

mange and illegal shootings reduced 

them to a single pack of five wolves and 

a separate lone wolf, since 2001, two 

packs with a total of 10 to 12 wolves 

have been using the Refuge. About 60 

percent of the packs’ territories are 

located on the Refuge or on an adjacent 

State-owned wildlife management area 

(Huschle in litt. 2005). 

Data collected by Agassiz NWR staff 

during winter wolf sign surveys 

conducted in cooperation with the MN 

DNR during both the winters of 2007– 

08 and 2008–09 support the above wolf 

totals. Winter track data from 2007–08 

suggest that one pack on Agassiz had a 

minimum size of five and one had a 

minimum size of six. The following 

winter’s survey information suggested a 

minimum pack size of five for both 

packs (Knutson 2009, pers. comm.). 

Two packs of wolves that currently 

include about eight and five members, 

respectively, use Tamarac NWR and the 

territory of a third occurs partly on the 

Refuge (Brininger 2009, pers. comm.). 

The size of the one pack using Rice Lake 

NWR, in Minnesota, has been reported 

at six to nine in previous years; in 2009 

a maximum of three wolves were 

confirmed on the Refuge (McDowell 

2009, pers. comm.), although total pack 

size may be greater. 

Other single or paired wolves pass 

through the Refuge frequently (Stefanski 

2004, pers. comm.; McDowell in litt. 

2005). Seney NWR has three packs, 

representing 8–10 wolves, which 

partially reside on the Refuge (Roell 

2010, pers. comm.). In 2010, two packs 

of six wolves each and at least one loner 

were detected on Necedah NWR 

(Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 41). Over the 

past 10 years, Sherburne and Crane 

Meadows NWR Complex in central 

Minnesota have had intermittent, but 

reliable, observations and signs of 

individual wolves each year. To date, no 

established packs have been 

documented on either of those Refuges. 

The closest established packs are within 

15 mi (24 km) of Crane Meadows NWR 

at Camp Ripley Military Installation and 

30 mi (48 km) north of Sherburne NWR 

at Mille Lacs State Wildlife Management 

Area (Berkley 2009, pers. comm.). 

Suitable Habitat Ownership and 

Protection 

In Minnesota, public lands, including 

national forests, a national park, 

national wildlife refuges, tax-forfeit 

lands (managed mostly by counties), 

State forests, State wildlife management 

areas, and State parks, encompass 

approximately 42 percent of current 

wolf range. American Indians and 

Tribes own 3 percent, an additional 

1,535 sq mi (2,470 sq km), in 

Minnesota’s wolf range (see Erb and 

Benson 2004, Table 1). In its 2001 

Minnesota Wolf Management Plan, MN 

DNR states that it ‘‘will continue to 

identify and manage currently occupied 

and potential wolf habitat areas to 

benefit wolves and their prey on public 

and private land, in cooperation with 

landowners and other management 

agencies’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). MN 

DNR will monitor deer and moose 

habitat and, when necessary and 

appropriate, improve habitat for these 

species. MN DNR maintains that several 

large public land units of State parks 

and State forests along the Wisconsin 

border will likely ensure that the 

connection between the two States’ wolf 

populations will remain open to wolf 

movements. Nevertheless, MN DNR 

stated that it would cooperate with 

Wisconsin DNR to incorporate the 

effects of future development ‘‘into longterm viability analyses of wolf 

populations and dispersal in the 

interstate area’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 27). 

The MN DNR Divisions of Forestry 

and Wildlife directly administer 

approximately 5,330 sq mi (13,805 sq 

km) of land in Minnesota’s wolf range. 

The DNR has set goals of enlarging and 

protecting its forested land base by, in 

part, ‘‘minimizing the loss and 

fragmentation of private forest lands’’ 

(MN DNR 2000, p. 20) and by 

connecting forest habitats with natural 

corridors (MN DNR 2000, p. 21). It plans 

to achieve these goals and objectives via 

several strategies, including the 

development of (Ecological) Subsection 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26109 

Forest Resource Management Plans 

(SFRMP) and to expand its focus on 

corridor management and planning. 

In 2005, the Forest Stewardship 

Council (FSC) certified that 4.84 million 

acres (1.96 million hectares) of Stateadministered forest land are ‘‘well 

managed’’ (FSC 2005); the Sustainable 

Forestry Initiative (SFI) also certified 

that MN DNR was managing these lands 

to meet its standards. For the FSC 

certification, independent certifiers 

assessed forest management against 

FSC’s Lakes States Regional Standard, 

which includes a requirement to 

maximize habitat connectivity to the 

extent possible at the landscape level 

(FSC 2005, p. 22). 

Efforts to maximize habitat 

connectivity in the range of wolves 

would complement measures the MN 

DNR described in its State wolf plan 

(MN DNR 2001, pp. 26–27). If the 

Service ultimately delists the DPS as 

proposed, the Service will review 

certification evaluation reports issued 

by FSC to assess MN DNR’s ongoing 

efforts in this area as part of its postdelisting monitoring. 

Counties manage approximately 3,860 

sq mi (9,997 sq km) of tax forfeit land 

in Minnesota’s wolf range (MN DNR 

unpublished data). We are aware of no 

specific measures that any county in 

Minnesota takes to conserve wolves. If 

most of the tax-forfeit lands are 

maintained for use as timber lands or 

natural areas, however, and if regional 

prey levels are maintained, management 

specifically for wolves on these lands 

will not be necessary. MN DNR manages 

ungulate populations ‘‘on a regional 

basis to ensure sustainable harvests for 

hunters, sufficient numbers for aesthetic 

and nonconsumptive use, and to 

minimize damage to natural 

communities and conflicts with humans 

such as depredation of agricultural 

crops’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 17). Moreover, 

although counties may sell tax-forfeit 

lands subject to Minnesota State law, 

they generally manage these lands to 

ensure that they will retain their 

productivity as forests into the future. 

For example, Crow Wing County’s 

mission for its forest lands includes the 

commitment to ‘‘sustain a healthy, 

diverse, and productive forest for future 

generations to come.’’ In addition, at 

least four counties in Minnesota’s wolf 

range—Beltrami, Carlton, Koochiching, 

and St. Louis—are certified by SFI, and 

four others (Aitkin, Cass, Itasca, and 

Lake) have been certified by FSC. About 

ten private companies with industrial 

forest lands in Minnesota’s wolf range 

have also been certified by FSC. 

There are no legal or regulatory 

requirements for the protection of wolf 

habitat, per se, on private lands in 

Minnesota. Land management activities 

such as timber harvest and prescribed 

burning carried out by public agencies 

and by private land owners in 

Minnesota’s wolf range incidentally and 

significantly improves habitat for deer, 

the primary prey for wolves in the State. 

The impact of these measures is 

apparent from the continuing high deer 

densities in Minnesota’s wolf range. The 

State’s second largest deer harvest 

occurred in 2006, and approximately 

one-half of the Minnesota deer harvest 

is in the Forest Zone, which 

encompasses most of the occupied wolf 

range in the State (MN DNR 2009, Table 

1). 

Given the extensive public ownership 

and management of land within 

Minnesota’s wolf range, as well as the 

beneficial habitat management expected 

from Tribal lands, we believe suitable 

habitat, and especially an adequate wild 

prey base, will remain available to the 

State’s wolf population for the 

foreseeable future. Management of 

private lands for timber production will 

provide additional habitat suitable for 

wolves and white-tailed deer. 

Similarly, current lands in northern 

and central Wisconsin that are judged to 

be primary and secondary wolf habitat 

are well protected from significant 

adverse development and habitat 

degradation due to public ownership or 

protective management that preserves 

the habitat and wolf prey base. Primary 

habitat (that is, areas with greater than 

50 percent probability of wolf pack 

occupancy; Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. 

47–48) totals 5,812 sq mi (15,053 sq 

km). The 1999 Wisconsin wolf plan 

listed land ownership of primary and 

secondary wolf habitat (Wydeven et al. 

1999, p. 48). In 2006, Sickley (2006, 

pers. comm.) provided an update of the 

data with more accurate land ownership 

data. That data show that about 55 

percent of primary habitat was in public 

land including, Federal, State, or county 

ownership, and 7 percent was on Tribal 

land. County lands, mostly county 

forests, comprised 29 percent of the 

primary habitat, and Federal lands 

mostly the Chequamegon–Nicolet 

National Forest, included another 17 

percent. 

Most Tribal land (7 percent of primary 

habitat), while not public land, will 

likely remain as suitable deer and wolf 

habitat for the foreseeable future. State 

forest ownership protects 10 percent. 

Private industrial forest lands 

comprised another 10 percent of the 

primary habitat, although some of these 

lands have been subdivided for second 

or vacation home sites, reducing this 

acreage in recent years. The remaining 

29 percent is in other forms of private 

ownership and is vulnerable to loss 

from the primary habitat category to an 

unknown extent (Sickley in litt. 2006, 

unpublished data updating Table C2 of 

WI DNR 1999, p. 48). 

Areas judged to be secondary wolf 

habitat by WI DNR (10 to 50 percent 

probability of occupancy by wolf packs; 

Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. 47–48) were 

somewhat more developed or 

fragmented habitats and were less well 

protected overall, because only 43 

percent were in public ownership and 5 

percent were in Native American 

reservations. Public land that 

maintained secure habitat included 

county (17 percent) and national (18 

percent) forests ownership protecting 

the largest segments, and State land 

protected 7 percent. Private industrial 

forest ownership provided protection to 

5 percent, and the remaining 47 percent 

was in other forms of private ownership 

(Sickley in litt. 2006). 

County forest lands represent the 

single largest category of primary wolf 

habitat in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Statute 

28.11 guides the administration of 

county forests, and directs management 

for production of forest products 

together with recreational opportunities, 

wildlife, watershed protection, and 

stabilization of stream flow. This Statute 

also provides a significant disincentive 

to conversion for other uses. Any 

proposed withdrawal of county forest 

lands for other uses must meet a 

standard of a higher and better use for 

the citizens of Wisconsin, and be 

approved by two-thirds of the County 

Board. As a result of this requirement, 

withdrawals are infrequent, and the 

county forest land base is actually 

increasing. 

This analysis shows that nearly threequarters of the primary habitat in 

Wisconsin receives substantial 

protection due to ownership or 

management for sustainable timber 

production. Over half of the secondary 

habitat is similarly protected. Portions 

of the primary habitat in northeastern 

Wisconsin remained sparsely populated 

with wolf packs until recently, but are 

filling in lately (Wydeven et al. 2010, 

Fig. 2, p. 66), although still allowing for 

some continuing wolf population 

expansion. In general, we believe this 

degree of habitat protection is more than 

adequate to support a viable wolf 

population in Wisconsin for the 

foreseeable future. 

In the UP of Michigan, State and 

Federal ownership comprises 2.0 and 

2.1 million acres respectively, 

representing 19.3 percent and 20.1 

percent of the land surface of the UP. 

The Federal ownership is composed of 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

87 percent national forest, 8 percent 

national park, and 5 percent national 

wildlife refuge. The management of 

these three categories of Federal land is 

discussed elsewhere, but clearly will 

benefit wolves and their prey. 

State lands on the UP are 94 percent 

State forest land, 6 percent State park, 

and less than 1 percent in fishing and 

boating access areas and State game 

areas. Part 525, Sustainable Forestry on 

State Forestlands, of the Michigan 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as 

amended, directs State forestland 

management in Michigan. It requires the 

MI DNR to manage the State forests in 

a manner consistent with sustainable 

forestry, to prepare and implement a 

management plan, and to seek and 

maintain a third party certification that 

the lands are managed in a sustainable 

fashion (MI DNR 2005c, p. 1). 

Much of the private land on the UP 

is managed or protected in a manner 

that will maintain forest cover and 

provide suitable habitat for wolves and 

white-tailed deer. Nearly 1.9 million 

acres (0.8 million hectares) of large-tract 

industrial forest lands and another 1.9 

million acres (0.8 million hectares) of 

smaller private forest land are enrolled 

in the Commercial Forest Act (CFA). 

These 3.7 million acres (1.5 million 

hectares) are managed for long-term 

sustainable timber production under 

forest management plans written by 

certified foresters; in return, the 

landowners benefit from a reduction in 

property taxes. In addition, nearly 

37,000 acres on the UP are owned by 

The Nature Conservancy, and continue 

to be managed to restore and preserve 

native plant and animal communities. 

Therefore, these private land 

management practices currently are 

preserving an additional 36 percent of 

the UP as suitable habitat for wolves 

and their prey species. 

In total, 39 percent of the UP is 

Federally and State-owned land whose 

management will benefit wolf 

conservation for the foreseeable future, 

and another 36 percent is private forest 

land that is being managed, largely 

under the incentives of the CFA, in a 

way that provides suitable habitat and 

prey for wolf populations. Therefore, a 

minimum of nearly three-quarters of the 

UP should continue to be suitable for 

wolf conservation, and we do not 

envision UP habitat loss or degradation 

as a problem for wolf population 

viability in the foreseeable future. 

Hearne et al. (2003), determined that 

a viable wolf population (one having 

less than 10 percent chance of 

extinction over 100 years), should 

consist of at least 175 to 225 wolves (p. 

170), and they modeled various likely 

scenarios of habitat conditions in the UP 

of Michigan and northern Wisconsin 

through the year 2020 to determine 

whether future conditions would 

support a wolf population of that size. 

Most scenarios of future habitat 

conditions resulted in viable wolf 

populations in each State through 2020. 

When the model analyzed the future 

conditions in the two States combined, 

all scenarios produced a viable wolf 

population through 2020. Their 

scenarios included increases in human 

population density, changes in land 

ownership that may result in decreased 

habitat suitability, and increased road 

density (pp. 101–151). 

The large areas of unsuitable habitat 

in the eastern Dakotas; the northern 

portions of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and 

Ohio; and the southern areas of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; as 

well as the relatively small areas of 

unoccupied potentially suitable habitat, 

will not contribute to the viability of 

wolves in the proposed WGL DPS. 

Therefore, we have determined that the 

existing and likely future threats to 

wolves outside the currently occupied 

areas, and especially to wolves outside 

of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP, 

do not rise to the level that they threaten 

the long-term viability of wolf 

populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and the UP of Michigan. 

In summary, wolves currently occupy 

the vast majority of the suitable habitat 

in the proposed WGL DPS, and that 

habitat is adequately protected for the 

foreseeable future. Unoccupied areas 

that have the characteristics of suitable 

habitat exist in small and fragmented 

parcels and are not likely to develop 

viable wolf populations. Threats to 

those habitat areas will not adversely 

impact the recovered wolf 

metapopulation in the DPS. 

Prey 

Wolf density is heavily dependent on 

prey availability (for example, expressed 

as ungulate biomass, Fuller et al. 2003, 

pp. 170–171), but prey availability is not 

likely to threaten wolves in the 

proposed WGL DPS. Conservation of 

primary wolf prey in the proposed WGL 

DPS, white-tailed deer and moose, is 

clearly a high priority for State 

conservation agencies. As Minnesota 

DNR points out in its wolf management 

plan (MN DNR 2001, p. 25), it manages 

ungulates to ensure a harvestable 

surplus for hunters, nonconsumptive 

users, and to minimize conflicts with 

humans. To ensure a harvestable 

surplus for hunters, MN DNR must 

account for all sources of natural 

mortality, including loss to wolves, and 

adjust hunter harvest levels when 

necessary. For example, after severe 

winters in the 1990’s, MN DNR 

modified hunter harvest levels to allow 

for the recovery of the local deer 

population (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). In 

addition to regulation of human harvest 

of deer and moose, MN DNR also plans 

to continue to monitor and improve 

habitat for these species. 

Land management carried out by 

other public agencies and by private 

land owners in Minnesota’s wolf range, 

including timber harvest and prescribed 

fire, incidentally and significantly 

improves habitat for deer, the primary 

prey for wolves in the State. The success 

of these measures is apparent from the 

continuing high deer densities in the 

Forest Zone of Minnesota, and the fact 

that the State’s five largest deer harvests 

have occurred in the last 6 years, with 

a deer harvest averaging 241,000 deer 

over the last 5 years. Approximately 

one-half of the Minnesota deer harvest 

is in the Forest Zone, which 

encompasses most of the occupied wolf 

range in the State (Cornicelli 2008, pp. 

208–209). There is no indication that 

harvest of deer and moose or 

management of their habitat will 

significantly depress abundance of these 

species in Minnesota’s core wolf range. 

Therefore, lack of prey availability is not 

likely to pose a threat to wolves in the 

foreseeable future in the State. 

The deer populations in Wisconsin 

and the UP of Michigan declined 

somewhat from historically high levels 

in recent years. Wisconsin’s preseason 

deer population has exceeded 1 million 

animals since 1984 (WI DNR undated a; 

Rolley 2007, p. 6; Rolley 2008, p. 6), and 

hunter harvest has exceeded 400,000 

deer in 10 of the last 12 years (WI DNR 

2010, p.57). Across northern Wisconsin 

wolf range (Zone 1), winter deer density 

in northern deer management units 

averaged from 22–30 deer per sq mi 

(8.5–11.6 deer per sq km) between 

2001–07, but declined to 17–18 deer per 

sq mi (6.6–6.9 deer per sq km) in 2009 

and 2010. In Central Forest wolf range 

(Zone 2), winter deer density in deer 

management units averaged 29–50 deer 

per sq mi (11.2–19.3 deer per sq km) 

from 2001 to 2007, and was 35 deer per 

sq mi (13.5 deer per sq km) in 2009, and 

26 deer per sq mi (10.0 deer per sq km) 

in 2010 (WI DNR data). 

Michigan’s 2009 October forecast for 

the deer population was approximately 

1.8 million deer, with about 312,800 

residing in the UP; the 2010 estimates 

projected a slightly higher UP deer 

population (Doepker 2010, pers. comm.; 

Rudolph 2010, pers. comm.). Because of 

severe winter conditions (persistent, 

deep snow) in the UP, deer populations 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26111 

can change dramatically from year to 

year. Recently (2010) the MI DNR 

finalized a new deer management plan, 

to address ecological, social, and 

regulatory shifts. An objective of this 

plan is to manage deer at the 

appropriate scale, considering impacts 

of deer on the landscape and on other 

species, in addition to population size 

(MI DNR 2010, p. 20). Additionally, the 

Michigan wolf management plan 

addresses maintaining a sustainable 

population of wolf prey (MI DNR 2008, 

p. 36). Short of a major, and unlikely, 

shift in deer management and harvest 

strategies, there will be no shortage of 

prey for Wisconsin and Michigan 

wolves for the foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor A 

The wolf population in the proposed 

WGL DPS currently occupies all the 

suitable habitat area identified for 

recovery in the Midwest in the 1978 

Recovery Plan and 1992 Revised 

Recovery Plan and most of the 

potentially suitable habitat in the WGL 

DPS. Viable wolf populations are 

unlikely to develop and persist in 

unsuitable habitat and the small 

fragmented areas of suitable habitat 

away from these core areas. Although 

they may have been historical habitat, 

many of these areas are no longer 

suitable for wolves and they have not 

been considered necessary for the 

recovery of the proposed DPS. 

The wolf population in the proposed 

WGL DPS exceeds its numerical, 

temporal, and distributional goals for 

recovery. The amount of habitat likely 

to support a delisted wolf population is 

considered to be adequate for 

maintaining the WGL population at or 

above recovery levels for the foreseeable 

future. Because much important wolf 

habitat in the DPS is in public 

ownership, the States will likely 

continue to manage for high ungulate 

populations, and the States, Tribes, and 

Federal land management agencies will 

adequately regulate human-caused 

mortality of wolves and wolf prey. This 

will allow these States to easily support 

a recovered and viable wolf 

metapopulation into the foreseeable 

future. We conclude that wolves within 

this proposed DPS are not in danger of 

extinction now, or likely to be in danger 

of extinction in the foreseeable future, 

as a result of destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Threats to wolves resulting from uses 

for scientific or educational purposes 

are not likely to increase substantially 

following delisting of the proposed 

WGL DPS, and any increased use for 

these purposes will be regulated and 

monitored by the States and Tribes in 

the core recovery areas. Since their 

listing under the Act, no wolves have 

been legally killed or removed from the 

wild in any of the nine States included 

in the proposed WGL DPS for either 

commercial or recreational purposes. 

Some wolves may have been illegally 

killed for commercial use of the pelts 

and other parts, but illegal commercial 

trafficking in wolf pelts or parts and 

illegal capture of wolves for commercial 

breeding purposes happens rarely. State 

wolf management plans for Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan help ensure 

that wolves will not be killed for 

commercial or recreational purposes for 

many years following the proposed 

Federal delisting, so these forms of 

mortality will not likely emerge as new 

threats upon delisting. See Factor D for 

a detailed discussion of State wolf 

management plans, and for applicable 

regulations in States without wolf 

management plans. 

We do not expect the use of wolves 

for scientific purposes to increase in 

proportion to total wolf numbers in the 

proposed WGL DPS after delisting. 

While listed, the intentional or 

incidental killing, or capture and 

permanent confinement, of endangered 

or threatened wolves for scientific 

purposes has only legally occurred 

under permits or subpermits issued by 

the Service (under section 10(a)(1)(A)) 

or by a State agency operating under a 

cooperative agreement with the Service 

pursuant to section 6 of the Act (50 CFR 

17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b)). Although 

exact figures are not available, 

throughout the conterminous 48 States, 

such permanent removals of wolves 

from the wild have been very limited 

and probably comprise an average of not 

more than two animals per year since 

the species was first listed as 

endangered. In the proposed WGL DPS, 

these animals were either taken from the 

Minnesota wolf population during longterm research activities (about 15 

wolves) or were accidental takings as a 

result of research activities in Wisconsin 

(5 to 6 mortalities and 1 long-term 

confinement) and in Michigan (4 

mortalities) (Berg in litt. 1998; Mech in 

litt. 1998; Roell in litt. 2004; Roell in 

litt. 2005a; Roell 2011, pers. comm.; 

Wydeven 2009, pers. comm.). 

The Minnesota DNR plans to 

encourage the study of wolves with 

radio-telemetry after delisting, with an 

emphasis on areas where they expect 

wolf–human conflicts and where wolves 

are expanding their range (MN DNR 

2001, p. 19). Similarly, Wisconsin and 

Michigan DNRs plan to continue to trap 

wolves for radio-collaring, examination, 

and health monitoring for the 

foreseeable future (WI DNR 1999, pp. 

19–21; MI DNR 2008a, pp. 31–32; WI 

DNR 2006a, p. 14). The continued 

handling of wild wolves for research, 

including the administration of drugs, 

may result in some accidental deaths of 

wolves. We believe that capture and 

radio-telemetry-related injuries or 

mortalities will not increase 

significantly above the level observed to 

date in proportion to wolf abundance; 

adverse effects to wolves associated 

with such activities have been minimal 

and would not constitute a threat to 

wolves in the proposed WGL DPS. 

No wolves have been legally removed 

from the wild for educational purposes 

in recent years. Wolves that have been 

used for such purposes are the captivereared offspring of wolves that were 

already in captivity for other reasons, 

and this is not likely to change as a 

result of Federal delisting. We do not 

expect taking for educational purposes 

to constitute any threat to Midwest wolf 

populations in the proposed DPS for the 

foreseeable future. 

See Factor E for a discussion of 

Taking of Wolves by Native Americans 

for Certain Purposes. See the 

Depredation Control Programs sections 

under Factor D for discussion of other 

past, current, and potential future forms 

of intentional and accidental take by 

humans, including depredation control, 

public safety, and under public harvest. 

While public harvest may include 

recreational harvest, it is likely that 

public harvest will also serve as a 

management tool, so it is discussed in 

Factor D. 

Summary of Factor B 

Taking wolves for scientific or 

educational purposes in the other States 

in the proposed WGL DPS may not be 

regulated or closely monitored in the 

future, but the threat to wolves in those 

States will not be significant to the longterm viability of the wolf population in 

the proposed WGL DPS. The potential 

limited commercial and recreational 

harvest that may occur in the DPS will 

be regulated by State and/or Tribal 

conservation agencies and is discussed 

under Factor D. Therefore, we conclude 

that overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes will not be a threat sufficient 

to cause wolves in the proposed WGL 

DPS to be in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of the range within the proposed 

WGL DPS. 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26112 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

C. Disease or Predation. 

Disease 

Many diseases and parasites have 

been reported for the wolf, and several 

of them have had significant impacts 

during the recovery of the species in the 

48 conterminous States (Brand et al. 

1995, p. 419; WI DNR 1999, p. 61). If not 

monitored and controlled by States, 

these diseases and parasites, and 

perhaps others, may threaten wolf 

populations in the future. Thus, to avoid 

a future decline caused by diseases or 

parasites, States and their partners will 

have to diligently monitor the 

prevalence of these pathogens in order 

to effectively respond to significant 

outbreaks. 

Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a 

relatively new disease that infects 

wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, coyotes, 

skunks, and raccoons. Recognized in the 

United States in 1977 in domestic dogs, 

it appeared in Minnesota wolves (based 

upon retrospective serologic evidence) 

live-trapped as early as 1977 (Mech et 

al. 1986, p. 105). Minnesota wolves, 

however, may have been exposed to the 

virus as early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal 

1995, p. 568). Serologic evidence of wolf 

exposure to CPV peaked at 95 percent 

for a group of Minnesota wolves livetrapped in 1989 (Mech and Goyal 1993, 

p. 331). In a captive colony of 

Minnesota wolves, pup and yearling 

mortality from CPV was 92 percent of 

the animals that showed indications of 

active CPV infections in 1983 (Mech 

and Fritts 1987, p. 6), demonstrating the 

substantial impacts this disease can 

have on young wolves. It is believed 

that the population impacts of CPV 

occur via diarrhea-induced dehydration 

leading to abnormally high pup 

mortality (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). CPV has 

been detected in nearly every wolf 

population in North America including 

Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 443) and 

exposure in wolves is now believed to 

be almost universal. 

There is no evidence that CPV has 

caused a population decline or has had 

a significant impact on the recovery of 

the Minnesota wolf population. Mech 

and Goyal (1995, p. 566, Table 1, p. 568, 

Fig. 3), however, found that high CPV 

prevalence in the wolves of the Superior 

National Forest in Minnesota occurred 

during the same years in which wolf 

pup numbers were low. Because the 

wolf population did not decline during 

the study period, they concluded that 

CPV-caused pup mortality was 

compensatory, that is, it replaced deaths 

that would have occurred from other 

causes, especially starvation of pups. 

They theorized that CPV prevalence 

affects the amount of population 

increase and that a wolf population will 

decline when 76 percent of the adult 

wolves consistently test positive for 

CPV exposure. Their data indicate that 

CPV prevalence in adult wolves in their 

study area increased by an annual 

average of 4 percent during 1979–93 and 

was at least 80 percent during the last 

5 years of their study (Mech and Goyal 

1995, pp. 566, 568). 

Additional data gathered since 1995 

suggests that CPV reduced pup survival 

both in the Superior National Forest and 

statewide, between 1984 and 2004; 

however, statewide there is some 

evidence of a slight increase in pup 

survival since about 1995. These 

conclusions are based on an inverse 

relationship between pup numbers in 

summer captures and seroprevalence of 

CPV antibodies in summer-captured 

adult wolves (Mech et al. 2008, pp. 827– 

830). 

In a more recent study, Mech and 

Goyal (2010) looked more specifically at 

CPV influence on the Superior National 

Forest population by evaluating five 7- 

year periods to determine when CPV 

had its greatest effects. They found the 

strongest effect on wolf pup survival 

was from 1981 to 1993, and that after 

that time, little effect was seen despite 

the continued seroprevalence of CPV 

antibodies (Mech and Goyal 2010, pp. 

6–7). They conclude that after CPV 

became endemic in the population, the 

population developed immunity and 

was able to withstand severe effects 

from the disease (Mech and Goyal 2010, 

p. 7). The observed population effects in 

the Superior National Forest population 

are consistent with results for studies in 

smaller, isolated populations in 

Wisconsin and on Isle Royale, Michigan 

(Wydeven et al. 1995; Peterson et al. 

1998), but indicate that CPV also had 

only a temporary population effect in a 

larger population. 

The WI DNR and the WI DNR Wildlife 

Health, in conjunction with the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Wildlife 

Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, 

(formerly the National Wildlife Health 

Laboratory) have an extensive dataset on 

the incidence of wolf diseases, 

beginning in 1981. Canine parvovirus 

exposure was evident in 5 of 6 wolves 

tested in 1981, and probably stalled 

wolf population growth in Wisconsin 

during the early and mid-1980s when 

numbers there declined or were static; 

at that time 75 percent of 32 wolves 

tested positive for CPV. During the 

following years of population increase 

(1988–96), only 35 percent of the 63 

wolves tested positive for CPV (WI DNR 

1999, p. 62). More recent exposure rates 

for CPV continue to be high in 

Wisconsin wolves, with annual rates 

ranging from 60 to 100 percent among 

wild wolves handled from 2001 through 

mid-2006. Part of the reason for high 

exposure percentages is likely an 

increased emphasis in sampling pups 

and Central Forest wolves starting in 

2001, so comparisons of post- and pre2001 data are of limited value. 

CPV appears not to be a significant 

cause of mortality, as only a single wolf 

(male pup) is known to have died from 

CPV during this period (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2002, p. 8 Table 4; 2003a, 

pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 

Table 5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4; 2006, 

pp. 23–25 Table 4; 2009, Table 2; 

Wydeven et al. 2007, pp. 12–14; 2008, 

pp. 19–21). While the difficulty of 

discovering CPV-killed pups must be 

considered, and it is possible that CPVcaused pup mortality is being 

underestimated, the continuing increase 

of the Wisconsin wolf population 

indicates that CPV mortality is no longer 

impeding wolf population growth in the 

State. It may be that many Wisconsin 

wolves have developed some degree of 

resistance to CPV, and this disease is no 

longer a significant threat in the State. 

Similar to Wisconsin wolves, 

serological testing of Michigan wolves 

captured from 1992 through 2001 (most 

recent available data) shows that the 

majority of UP wolves have been 

exposed to CPV. Fifty-six percent of 16 

wolves captured from 1992 to 1999 and 

83 percent of 23 wolves captured in 

2001 showed antibody titers at levels 

established as indicative of previous 

CPV exposure that may provide 

protection from future infection from 

CPV (Beheler in litt. undated, in litt. 

2004). There are no data showing any 

CPV-caused wolf mortality or 

population impacts to the wolf 

population on the UP, but few wolf 

pups are handled in the UP (Hammill in 

litt. 2002, Beyer in litt. 2006a), so low 

levels of CPV-caused pup mortality may 

go undetected there. Mortality data are 

primarily collected from collared 

wolves, which until 2004 received CPV 

inoculations. Therefore, mortality data 

for the UP should be interpreted 

cautiously. 

Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite 

(Sarcoptes scabiei) infection of the skin. 

The irritation caused by the feeding and 

burrowing mites results in scratching 

and then severe fur loss, which in turn 

can lead to mortality from exposure 

during severe winter weather. The mites 

are spread from wolf to wolf by direct 

body contact or by common use of 

‘‘rubs’’ by infested and uninfested 

animals. Thus, mange is frequently 

passed from infested females to their 

young pups, and from older pack 

members to their pack mates. In a longVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3

emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26113 

term Alberta, Canada, wolf study, higher 

wolf densities were correlated with 

increased incidence of mange, and pup 

survival decreased as the incidence of 

mange increased (Brand et al. 1995, p. 

428). 

From 1991 to 1996, 27 percent of livetrapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited 

symptoms of mange. During the winter 

of 1992–93, 58 percent showed 

symptoms, and a concurrent decline in 

the Wisconsin wolf population was 

attributed to mange-induced mortality 

(WI DNR 1999, p. 61). Seven Wisconsin 

wolves died from mange from 1993 

through October 15, 1998, and severe 

fur loss affected five other wolves that 

died from other causes. During that 

period, mange was the third largest 

cause of death in Wisconsin wolves, 

behind trauma (usually vehicle 

collisions) and shooting (Thomas in litt. 

1998). Largely as a result of mange, pup 

survival was only 16 percent in 1993, 

compared to a normal 30 percent 

survival rate from birth to one year of 

age (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). 

Mange continues to occur on wolves 

in Wisconsin. From 2003 through 2007, 

25 percent of live-trapped wolves 

showed signs of mange, but that 

declined to 11 percent of wolves 

handled in 2009 and 2010. Mortality 

data from closely monitored radiocollared wolves provides a relatively 

unbiased estimate of mortality factors, 

especially those linked to disease or 

illegal actions, because nearly all 

carcasses are located within a few days 

of deaths. Diseased wolves suffering 

from hypothermia or nearing death 

generally crawl into dense cover and 

may go undiscovered if they are not 

radio-tracked (Wydeven et al. 2001b, p. 

14). Data from those closely monitored 

radio-collared wolves show that mange 

mortality ranged from 22 percent of 

deaths in 2006 and 12 percent in 2007 

to 21 percent of deaths in 2008 

(Wydeven in litt. 2009), 15 percent in 

2009 (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 13), and 

6 percent in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 2011, 

p. 2). 

Mange mortality does appear to be 

stabilizing or perhaps declining in 

Wisconsin. Not all mangy wolves 

succumb; other observations showed 

that some mangy wolves are able to 

survive the winter (Wydeven et al. 

2001b, p. 14). Mange has been detected 

in Wisconsin wolves every year since 

1991 when 45 to 52 wolves occurred in 

the State, and may have slowed the 

growth of the wolf population in the 

early 1990s (Wydeven et al. 2009c), but 

despite its constant presence as an 

occasional mortality factor, the wolf 

population grew to its present (2010) 

level of 690 or more wolves. 

The survival of pups during their first 

winter is believed to be strongly affected 

by mange. The highest to date wolf 

mortality (30 percent of radio-collared 

wolves; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 

2004a, p. 12) from mange in Wisconsin 

in 2003 may have had more severe 

effects on pup survival than in previous 

years. The prevalence of the disease 

may have contributed to the relatively 

small population increase in 2003 (2.4 

percent in 2003 as compared to the 

average 18 percent to that point since 

1985). However, mange has not caused 

a decline in the State’s wolf population, 

and even though the rate of population 

increase has slowed in recent years, the 

wolf population continues to increase 

despite the continued prevalence of 

mange in Wisconsin wolves. Although 

mange mortality may not be the primary 

limiting factor for wolf population 

growth in the State, the impacts of 

mange in Wisconsin need to be closely 

monitored, as identified and addressed 

in the Wisconsin wolf management plan 

(WI DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006a, p. 14). 

Disease monitoring in Wisconsin has 

identified a second form of mange in the 

wild wolf population—demodectic 

mange (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 

2008, p. 8). Demodectic mange mites are 

relatively common in domestic dogs, 

where symptoms are often minor. The 

WI DNR is closely monitoring wolf pups 

and examining all dead wolves to 

determine if this becomes a significant 

new cause of wolf mortality. 

Seven Michigan wolves died from 

mange during 1993–97, making it 

responsible for 21 percent of all 

mortalities, and all disease-caused 

deaths, during that period (MI DNR 

1997, p. 39). During bioyears (mid-April 

to mid-April) 1999–2009, mangeinduced hypothermia killed 18 radiocollared Michigan wolves, representing 

15 percent of the total mortality during 

those years. Since 2004, 11 radiocollared wolves are known to have died 

from mange in the State (Roell 2010, 

pers. comm.). Before 2004, MI DNR 

treated all captured wolves with 

Ivermectin if they showed signs of 

mange. In addition, MI DNR vaccinated 

all captured wolves against CPV and 

canine distemper virus (CDV). These 

inoculations were discontinued in 2004 

to provide more natural biotic 

conditions and to provide biologists 

with an unbiased estimate of diseasecaused mortality rates in the population 

(Roell in litt. 2005b). 

Wisconsin wolves similarly had been 

treated with Ivermectin and vaccinated 

for CPV and CDV when captured, but 

the practice was stopped in 1995 to 

allow the wolf population to experience 

more natural biotic conditions. Since 

that time, Ivermectin has been 

administered only to captured wolves 

with severe cases of mange. In the 

future, Ivermectin and vaccines will be 

used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves, 

but will be used to counter significant 

disease outbreaks (Wydeven in litt. 

1998). 

Among Minnesota wolves, mange 

may always have been present at low 

levels and may currently infect less than 

10 percent of the State’s wolves. Of the 

407 wolves trapped by Wildlife Services 

during 2006–08 in response to 

depredation complaints, 52 (13 percent) 

exhibited signs of mange (Hart 2009, 

pers. comm.); the proportion of wolves 

with signs of mange decreased from 17 

percent in 2006 to 10 percent in 2008. 

During the previous 3-year period 

(2003–05), the proportion of trapped 

wolves with signs of mange was also 

about 13 percent, suggesting that mange 

has not increased in prevalence among 

wolves in Minnesota since 2003. The 

incidence of mange among wolves 

targeted by Wildlife Services is likely 

not representative of the prevalence of 

the disease in the statewide wolf 

population; wolves targeted for 

depredation control appear to be more 

likely to carry the disease (Hart 2009, 

pers. comm.). 

In a separate study, mortality data 

from 12 years (1994–05) of monitoring 

radio-collared wolves in 7 to 9 packs in 

north-central Minnesota show that 11 

percent died from mange (DelGiudice in 

litt. 2005). However, the sample size (17 

total mortalities, 2 from mange in 1998 

and 2004) is far too small to deduce 

trends in mange mortality over time. 

Furthermore, these data are from mange 

mortalities, while the Wildlife Services’ 

data are based on mange symptoms, not 

mortalities. 

It is hypothesized that the current 

incidence of mange is more widespread 

than it would have otherwise been, 

because the WGL wolf range has 

experienced a series of mild winters 

beginning with the winter of 1997–98 

(Van Deelen 2005, Fig. 2). Mangeinduced mortality is chiefly a result of 

winter hypothermia, thus the less severe 

winters resulted in higher survival of 

mangy wolves, and increased spread of 

mange to additional wolves during the 

following spring and summer. The high 

wolf population, and especially higher 

wolf density on the landscape, may also 

be contributing to the increasing 

occurrence of mange in the WGL wolf 

population. 

Lyme disease, caused by the 

spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi, is 

another relatively recently recognized 

disease, first documented in New 

England in 1975, although it may have 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26114 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

occurred in Wisconsin as early as 1969. 

It is spread by ticks that pass the 

infection to their hosts when feeding. 

Host species include humans, horses, 

dogs, white-tailed deer, white-footed 

mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes, and 

wolves. The prevalence of Lyme disease 

exposure in Wisconsin wolves averaged 

70 percent of live-trapped animals in 

1988–91, dropped to 37 percent during 

1992–97 and was back up to 56 percent 

(32 of 57 tested) in 2002–04 (Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23–24 

Table 7; 2005, pp. 23–24 Table 7). 

Clinical symptoms have not been 

reported in wolves, but infected dogs 

can experience debilitating conditions, 

and abortion and fetal mortality have 

been reported in infected humans and 

horses. It is possible that individual 

wolves may be debilitated by Lyme 

disease, perhaps contributing to their 

mortality; however, Lyme disease is not 

believed to be a significant factor 

affecting wolf populations (Kreeger 

2003, p. 212). 

The dog louse (Trichodectes canis) 

has been detected in wolves in Ontario, 

Saskatchewan, Alaska, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin (Mech et al 1985, pp. 404– 

405; Kreeger 2003, p. 208; Paul in litt. 

2005). Dogs are probably the source of 

the initial infections, and subsequently 

wild canids transfer lice by direct 

contact with other wolves, particularly 

between females and pups. Severe 

infestations result in irritated and raw 

skin, substantial hair loss, particularly 

in the groin. However, in contrast to 

mange, lice infestations generally result 

in loss of guard hairs but not the 

insulating under fur, thus, hypothermia 

is less likely to occur and much less 

likely to be fatal (Brand et al. 1995, p. 

426). Even though observed in nearly 4 

percent in a sample of 391 Minnesota 

wolves in 2003–05 (Paul in litt. 2005), 

dog lice infestations have not been 

confirmed as a cause of wolf mortality, 

and are not expected to have a 

significant impact even at a local scale. 

Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an 

acute disease of carnivores that has been 

known in Europe since the sixteenth 

century and is now infecting dogs 

worldwide (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). CDV 

generally infects dog pups when they 

are only a few months old, so mortality 

in wild wolf populations might be 

difficult to detect (Brand et al 1995, pp. 

420–421). CDV mortality among wild 

wolves has been documented only in 

two littermate pups in Manitoba 

(Carbyn 1982, pp. 111–112), in two 

Alaskan yearling wolves (Peterson et al. 

1984, p. 31), and in two Wisconsin 

wolves (an adult in 1985 and a pup in 

2002 (Thomas in litt. 2006; Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 2003b, p. 20). Carbyn 

(1982, pp. 113–116) concluded that CDV 

was a contributor to a 50 percent 

decline of the wolf population in Riding 

Mountain National Park (Manitoba, 

Canada) in the mid-1970s. Serological 

evidence indicates that exposure to CDV 

is high among some Midwest wolves— 

29 percent in northern Wisconsin 

wolves and 79 percent in central 

Wisconsin wolves in 2002–04 (Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23–24 

Table 7; 2005, pp. 23–24 Table 7). 

However, the continued strong 

recruitment in Wisconsin and elsewhere 

in North American wolf populations 

indicates that distemper is not likely a 

significant cause of mortality (Brand et 

al. 1995, p. 421). 

Other diseases and parasites, 

including rabies, canine heartworm, 

blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, 

granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis, 

leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, 

hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine 

hepatitis have been documented in wild 

wolves, but their impacts on future wild 

wolf populations are not likely to be 

significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419– 

429; Hassett in litt. 2003; Johnson 1995, 

pp. 431, 436–438; Mech and Kurtz 1999, 

pp. 305–306; Thomas in litt. 1998, 

Thomas in litt. 2006, WI DNR 1999, p. 

61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–214). 

Continuing wolf range expansion, 

however, likely will provide new 

avenues for exposure to several of these 

diseases, especially canine heartworm, 

raccoon rabies, and bovine tuberculosis 

(Thomas in litt. 2000, in litt. 2006), 

further emphasizing the need for disease 

monitoring programs. 

In addition, the possibility of new 

diseases developing and existing 

diseases, such as chronic wasting 

disease (CWD), West Nile Virus (WNV) 

and canine influenza (Crawford et al. 

2005, 482–485), moving across species 

barriers or spreading from domestic 

dogs to wolves must all be taken into 

account, and monitoring programs will 

need to address such threats. Currently 

there is no evidence that CWD can 

directly affect canids (Thomas in litt. 

2006). Wisconsin wolves have been 

tested for WNV at necropsy since the 

first spread of the virus across the State: 

To date, all results have been negative. 

Although experimental infection of dogs 

produced no ill effects, WNV is reported 

to have killed two captive wolf pups, so 

young wolves may be at some risk 

(Thomas in litt. 2006). 

In aggregate, diseases and parasites 

were the cause of 21 percent of the 

diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared 

wolves in Michigan from 1999 through 

2004 (Beyer 2005, unpublished data) 

and 27 percent of the diagnosed 

mortalities of radio-collared wolves in 

Wisconsin from October 1979 through 

December 2009 (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 

45). In recent years (2006–10), disease 

has been the cause of death for 14 

percent (10 of 70 dead wolves) of the 

diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared 

wolves in Wisconsin and 3 to 7 percent 

of all wolves (radio-collared and not 

collared) found dead in the State (72 to 

94 wolves). During that time period, 

disease was the cause of death of 12 

percent (5 of 43) of the diagnosed 

mortalities of radio-collared wolves in 

Michigan, and of 3 percent (6 of 199) of 

the total known wolf mortalities in 

Minnesota. 

Many of the diseases and parasites are 

known to be spread by wolf-to-wolf 

contact. Therefore, the incidence of 

mange, CPV, CDV, and canine 

heartworm may increase as wolf 

densities increase in the more recently 

colonized areas (Thomas in litt. 2006). 

Because wolf densities generally are 

relatively stable following the first few 

years of colonization, wolf-to-wolf 

contacts will not likely lead to a 

continuing increase in disease 

prevalence in areas that have been 

occupied for several years or more and 

are largely saturated with wolf packs 

(Mech in litt. 1998). 

Disease and parasite impacts may 

increase because several wolf diseases 

and parasites are carried and spread by 

domestic dogs. This transfer of 

pathogens from domestic dogs to wild 

wolves may increase as wolves continue 

to colonize non-wilderness areas (Mech 

in litt. 1998). Heartworm, CPV, and 

rabies are the main concerns (Thomas in 

litt. 1998) but dogs may become 

significant vectors for other diseases 

with potentially serious impacts on 

wolves in the future (Crawford et al. 

2005, pp. 482–485). However, to date 

wolf populations in Wisconsin and 

Michigan have continued their 

expansion into areas with increased 

contacts with dogs and have shown no 

adverse pathogen impacts since the 

mid-1980s impacts from CPV. 

Disease and parasite impacts are a 

recognized concern of the Minnesota, 

Michigan, and Wisconsin DNRs. The 

Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and 

Management Plan states that necropsies 

will be conducted on all dead wolves, 

and that all live wolves that are handled 

will be examined, with blood, skin, and 

fecal samples taken to provide disease 

information. The Michigan Plan states 

that the Michigan DNR will continue to 

monitor the prevalence and impact of 

disease on wolf health following Federal 

delisting (MI DNR 2008, pp. 32, 40–42). 

Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf 

Management Plan states that as long as 

the wolf is State-listed as a threatened 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26115 

or endangered species, the WI DNR will 

conduct necropsies of dead wolves and 

test a sample of live-captured wolves for 

diseases and parasites, with a goal of 

screening 10 percent of the State wolf 

population for diseases annually. 

However, the plan anticipates that since 

State delisting (which occurred on 

March 24, 2004), disease monitoring 

will be scaled back because the 

percentage of the wolf population that is 

live-trapped each year will decline. 

Disease monitoring of captured wolves 

currently is focusing on diseases known 

to be causing noteworthy mortality, 

such as mange, and other diseases for 

which data are judged to be sparse, such 

as Lyme disease and ehrlichiosis 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2006, p. 8). 

The State will continue to test for 

disease and parasite loads through 

periodic necropsy and scat analyses. 

The 2006 update to the 1999 plan also 

recommends that all wolves livetrapped for other studies should have 

their health monitored and reported to 

the WI DNR wildlife health specialists 

(WI DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006c, p. 14). 

Furthermore, the 2006 update identifies 

a need for ‘‘continued health monitoring 

to document significant disease events 

that may impact the wolf population 

and to identify new diseases in the 

population * * *.’’ (WI DNR 2006a, p. 

24). 

The Minnesota Wolf Management 

Plan states that MN DNR ‘‘will 

collaborate with other investigators and 

continue monitoring disease incidence, 

where necessary, by examination of 

wolf carcasses obtained through 

depredation control programs, and also 

through blood or tissue physiology work 

conducted by the MN DNR and the U.S. 

Geological Survey. The DNR will also 

keep records of documented and 

suspected incidence of sarcoptic mange 

(MN DNR 2001, p. 32).’’ In addition, it 

will initiate ‘‘(R)egular collection of 

pertinent tissues of live captured or 

dead wolves’’ and periodically assess 

wolf health ‘‘when circumstances 

indicate that diseases or parasites may 

be adversely affecting portions of the 

wolf population (MN DNR 2001, p. 19).’’ 

Unlike Michigan and Wisconsin, 

Minnesota has not established 

minimum goals for the proportion of its 

wolves that will be assessed for disease 

nor does it plan to treat any wolves, 

although it does not rule out these 

measures. Minnesota’s less intensive 

approach to disease monitoring and 

management seems warranted in light of 

its much greater abundance of wolves 

than in the other two States. 

In areas within the proposed WGL 

DPS, but outside Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan, we lack data on the 

incidence of diseases or parasites in 

transient wolves. However, the 

boundary of the proposed WGL DPS is 

laid out in a manner such that the vast 

majority of, and perhaps all, wolves that 

will occur in the DPS in the foreseeable 

future will have originated from the 

Minnesota–Wisconsin–Michigan wolf 

metapopulation. Therefore, they will be 

carrying the ‘‘normal’’ complement of 

Midwest wolf parasites, diseases, and 

disease resistance with them. For this 

reason, any new pairs, packs, or 

populations that develop within the 

DPS are likely to experience the same 

low to moderate adverse impacts from 

pathogens that have been occurring in 

the core recovery areas. 

The most likely exceptions to this 

generalization would arise from 

exposure to sources of novel diseases or 

more virulent forms that are being 

spread by other canid species that might 

be encountered by wolves dispersing 

into currently unoccupied areas of the 

DPS. To increase the likelihood of 

detecting such novel or more virulent 

diseases and thereby reduce the risk that 

they might pose to the core metapopulation after delisting, we will 

encourage these States and Tribes to 

provide wolf carcasses or suitable 

tissue, as appropriate, to the USGS 

Madison Wildlife Health Center or the 

Service’s National Wildlife Forensics 

Laboratory for necropsy. This practice 

should provide an early indication of 

new or increasing pathogen threats 

before they reach the core 

metapopulation or impact future 

transient wolves to those areas. 

Disease Summary 

We believe that several diseases have 

had noticeable impacts on wolf 

population growth in the Great Lakes 

region in the past. These impacts have 

been both direct, resulting in mortality 

of individual wolves, and indirect, by 

reducing longevity and fecundity of 

individuals or entire packs or 

populations. Canine parvovirus stalled 

wolf population growth in Wisconsin in 

the early and mid-1980s and has been 

implicated in the decline in the mid1980s of the isolated Isle Royale wolf 

population in Michigan, and in 

attenuating wolf population growth in 

Minnesota (Mech in litt. 2006). 

Sarcoptic mange has affected wolf 

recovery in Michigan’s UP and in 

Wisconsin over the last 12 years, and it 

is recognized as a continuing issue. 

Despite these and other diseases and 

parasites, the overall trend for wolf 

populations in the proposed WGL DPS 

continues to be upward. Wolf 

management plans for Minnesota, 

Michigan, and Wisconsin include 

disease monitoring components that we 

expect will identify future disease and 

parasite problems in time to allow 

corrective action to avoid a significant 

decline in overall population viability. 

We conclude that diseases and parasites 

will not prevent continued population 

growth or the maintenance of viable 

wolf populations in the DPS. Delisting 

of wolves in the proposed WGL DPS 

will not significantly change the 

incidence or impacts of disease and 

parasites on these wolves. Furthermore, 

we conclude that diseases and parasites 

will not be threats sufficient to cause 

wolves in the proposed WGL DPS to be 

likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of the range within the proposed 

WGL DPS. 

Natural Predation 

No wild animals habitually prey on 

wolves. Large prey such as deer, elk, or 

moose (Mech and Nelson 1989, pp. 207– 

208; Smith et al. 2001, p. 3), or other 

predators, such as mountain lions (Felis 

concolor) or grizzly bears (Ursus arctos 

horribilis) where they are extant 

(USFWS 2005, p. 3), occasionally kill 

wolves, but this has only been rarely 

documented. This very small 

component of wolf mortality will not 

increase with delisting. 

Wolves frequently are killed by other 

wolves, most commonly when packs 

encounter and attack a dispersing wolf 

as an intruder or when two packs 

encounter each other along a territorial 

boundary (Mech 1994, p. 201). This 

form of mortality is likely to increase as 

more of the available wolf habitat 

becomes saturated with wolf pack 

territories, as is the case in northeastern 

Minnesota, but such a trend is not yet 

evident from Wisconsin or Michigan 

data. From October 1979 through June 

1998, 7 (12 percent) of the mortalities of 

radio-collared Wisconsin wolves 

resulted from wolves killing wolves, 

and 8 of 73 (11 percent) mortalities were 

from this cause during 2000–05 

(Wydeven 1998, p. 16 Table 4; Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 2001, p. 8 Table 5; 

2002, pp. 8–9 Table 4; 2003a, pp. 11– 

12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table 5, 

2005, p. 21 Table 5). 

Among radio-collared wolves dying 

from known causes between October 

1979 and December 2009, overall rate of 

intraspecific strife was similar at 17 of 

151 mortalities or 11 percent (Wydeven 

et al. 2010, p. 45). Gogan et al. (2004, 

p. 7) studied 31 radio-collared wolves in 

northern Minnesota from 1987 to 1991 

and found that 4 (13 percent) were 

killed by other wolves, representing 29 

percent of the total mortality of radiocollared wolves. Intra-specific strife 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26116 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

caused 50 percent of mortality within 

Voyageurs National Park and 20 percent 

of the mortality of wolves adjacent to 

the Park (Gogan et al. 2004, p. 22). The 

DelGiudice data (in litt. 2005) show a 17 

percent mortality rate from other wolves 

in another study area in north-central 

Minnesota from 1994 to 2005. This 

behavior is normal in healthy wolf 

populations and is an expected outcome 

of dispersal conflicts and territorial 

defense, as well as occasional intra-pack 

strife. This form of mortality is 

something with which the species has 

evolved and it should not pose a threat 

to wolf populations in the proposed 

WGL DPS if this DPS is delisted. 

Human Predation 

Because our concern about human 

predation is its overall effect on wolf 

mortality, the following discussion 

addresses the major human causes of 

wolf mortality, including illegal killing, 

depredation control, and vehicle 

collisions. 

Humans have functioned as highly 

effective predators of the wolf in North 

America for several hundred years. 

European settlers in the Midwest 

attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely 

in earlier times, and the U.S. Congress 

passed a wolf bounty that covered the 

Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties 

on wolves subsequently became the 

norm for States across the species’ 

range. In Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty 

became the ninth law passed by the 

First Michigan Legislature; this bounty 

remained in place until 1960. A 

Wisconsin bounty was instituted in 

1865 and was repealed about the time 

wolves were extirpated from the State in 

1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf 

bounty until 1965. 

Subsequent to the gray wolf’s listing 

as a Federally endangered species, the 

Act and State endangered species 

statutes prohibited the killing of wolves 

except under very limited 

circumstances, such as in defense of 

human life, for scientific or 

conservation purposes, or under special 

regulations intended to reduce wolf 

depredations of livestock or other 

domestic animals. The resultant 

reduction in human-caused wolf 

mortality is the main cause of the wolf’s 

reestablishment in large parts of its 

historical range. It is clear, however, 

that illegal killing of wolves has 

continued in the form of intentional 

mortality and incidental deaths. 

Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a 

number of reasons. Some of these 

killings are accidental (for example, 

wolves are hit by vehicles, mistaken for 

coyotes and shot, or caught in traps set 

for other animals); some of these 

accidental killings are reported to State, 

Tribal, and Federal authorities. It is 

likely that most illegal killings, 

however, are intentional and are never 

reported to government authorities. 

Because they generally occur in remote 

locations and the evidence is easily 

concealed, we lack reliable estimates of 

annual rates of intentional illegal 

killings. 

In Wisconsin, all forms of humancaused mortality accounted for 56 

percent of the diagnosed deaths of 

radio-collared wolves from October 

1979 through December 2009 (Wydeven 

et al. 2010, p. 45). Thirty-four percent of 

the diagnosed mortalities, and 62 

percent of the human-caused 

mortalities, were from illegal killing 

(mainly shootings). Another 9 percent of 

all the diagnosed mortalities (15 percent 

of the human-caused mortalities) 

resulted from vehicle collisions. (These 

percentages and those in the following 

paragraphs exclude seven radio-collared 

Wisconsin wolves that were killed in 

depredation control actions by USDA– 

APHIS—Wildlife Services. The wolf 

depredation control programs in the 

Midwest are discussed separately under 

Depredation Control, below.) Data from 

2006 through 2010 (68 diagnosed 

mortalities of radio-collared wolves) 

show the mortality percentages for 

disease to be slightly lower and illegal 

kills to be similar, with 14 percent of the 

mortalities resulting from mange or 

disease and 35 percent from being 

illegally killed. The mortality 

percentage for vehicle collisions during 

this time period remained constant (13 

percent) (Wydeven et al. 2007, p. 10; 

and Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, 

Summary). Most recently for 2010, 

mortality data from actively monitored 

wolves show that of wolves that died, 

38 percent were killed illegally (all 

shootings); 12 percent were euthanized 

for human safety concerns; 6 percent of 

the deaths were disease related; 6 

percent died from apparent old age, 6 

percent from intraspecific strife, and 12 

percent from vehicle collisions; and the 

causes for 19 percent of the deaths were 

unknown (Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 2). 

During the periods that wolves were 

Federally delisted (from March 2007 

through September 2008 and from April 

through early July 2009), 92 wolves 

were killed for depredation control, 

including 8 legally shot by private 

landowners (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 

2008, p. 8; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 6; 

Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 13). 

As the Wisconsin population has 

increased in numbers and range, vehicle 

collisions have increased as a 

percentage of radio-collared wolf 

mortalities. During the October 1979 

through June 1992 period, only 1 of 27 

(4 percent) known mortalities was from 

that cause; but from July 1992 through 

June 1998, 5 of the 26 (19 percent) 

known mortalities resulted from vehicle 

collisions (Wydeven 1998, p. 6). From 

2002 through 2004, 7 of 45 (16 percent) 

known mortalities were from that cause 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, pp. 

11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table 

5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4); and from 

2005 through 2009, 126 of 459 (27 

percent) known mortalities were from 

that cause (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 

2005, p. 20; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 

2006, p. 20; Wydeven et al. 2007a, p. 7; 

Wydeven et al. 2007b, p. 10; Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 2008, p. 7; Wydeven et 

al. 2009a, pp. 19–21; Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2009, Table 3; Wydeven et 

al. 2010, Table 7). 

A comparison over time for diagnosed 

mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin 

wolves shows that 18 of 57 (32 percent) 

were illegally killed from October 1979 

through 1998, while 12 of 42 (29 

percent) were illegally killed from 2002 

through 2004 and 24 of 72 (33 percent) 

were illegally killed from 2005 to March 

2007 (WI DNR 1999, p. 63; Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, pp. 11–12 

Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2005. 

pp. 19–20 Table 4; Wydeven et al. 

2006a, p. 6; 2006b, p. 8; 2007, pp. 6–7; 

2008a, p. 10). In 2006, prior to the 

Federal delisting the following year, 17 

of 72 wolves found dead in the state 

were killed illegally. Among nine radiocollared wolves that had died in 2006, 

six (67 percent) were illegally killed. In 

2007, after Federal delisting, 10 of 90 

dead wolves found in the State were 

illegally killed, and 3 (19 percent) of the 

radio-collared wolves found dead were 

illegally killed. In 2008, 14 of 94 dead 

wolves found in Wisconsin were 

illegally killed, and 4 (28 percent) of 14 

radio-collared wolves found dead were 

illegal kills. In 2009, when wolves were 

again Federally listed for most of the 

year, 20 of the 72 dead wolves found in 

Wisconsin were illegally killed, and 8 

(62 percent) of 13 radio-collared wolves 

found dead were illegal kills. In 2010, 

when wolves continued to be Federally 

listed, 14 of 72 dead wolves were 

illegally killed, and 6 (38 percent) of 16 

radio-collared wolves were illegally 

killed. 

Thus the number of known illegally 

killed wolves declined slightly from 17 

in 2006, to 10 in 2007 and 14 in 2008, 

increased to 20 in 2009, and declined to 

14 in 2010. Among radio-collared 

wolves found dead, illegal killing 

represented 67 percent of all mortality 

in 2006, 19 percent in 2007, 23 percent 

in 2008, 62 percent in 2009, and 38 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26117 

percent in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 2010, 

p. 13; Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 2). 

In the UP of Michigan, human-caused 

mortalities accounted for 75 percent of 

the diagnosed mortalities, based upon 

34 wolves recovered from 1960 to 1997, 

including mostly non-radio-collared 

wolves. Twenty-eight percent of all the 

diagnosed mortalities and 38 percent of 

the human-caused mortalities were from 

shooting. In the UP during that period, 

about one-third of all the known 

mortalities were from vehicle collisions 

(MI DNR 1997, pp. 5–6). During the 

1998 Michigan deer hunting season, 

three radio-collared wolves were shot 

and killed, resulting in one arrest and 

conviction (Hammill in litt. 1999, 

Michigan DNR 1999). During the 

subsequent 3 years, eight additional 

wolves were killed in Michigan by 

gunshot, and the cut-off radio-collar 

from a ninth animal was located, but the 

animal was never found. These 

incidents resulted in six guilty pleas, 

with three cases remaining open. 

Data collected from radio-collared 

wolves from the 1999 to 2009 bioyears 

(mid-April to mid-April) show that 

human-caused mortalities still account 

for the majority of the wolf mortalities 

(66 percent) in Michigan. Deaths from 

vehicular collisions were about 18 

percent of total mortality (27 percent of 

the human-caused mortality) and 

showed no trend over this 11-year 

period. Deaths from illegal killing 

constituted 39 percent of all mortalities 

(60 percent of the human-caused 

mortality) over the period. From 1999 

through 2001, illegal killings were 31 

percent of the mortalities, but this 

increased to 42 percent during the 2002 

through 2004 bioyears and to 40 percent 

during bioyears 2005 through 2010 

(Roell 2010, pers. comm.). 

Most Michigan residents place a high 

priority on wolf management actions 

that address public concerns for human 

safety (Beyer et al. 2006). Quick and 

professional responses to wolf conflicts 

have been important for wolf recovery 

(Ruid et al. 2009, p. 280). In most cases, 

people can take simple, sensible 

measures to avoid those situations and 

protect themselves against harm. Other 

cases may warrant higher levels of 

concern and professional assistance. 

Michigan DNR solved most wolf-human 

conflicts using nonlethal methods (Roell 

2010, pers. comm.). However, in a few 

incidents lethal control was warranted 

and carried out under Federal 

regulations (50 CFR 17.21, which allows 

the take of an endangered species when 

there is a ‘‘demonstrable but 

nonimmediate threat’’ to protect human 

safety, or to euthanize a sick or injured 

wolf, but only if it is not reasonably 

possible to translocate the animal alive), 

or while wolves were not Federally 

protected (Roell 2010 et al., p. 9). Since 

2004 the Michigan DNR and USDA– 

Wildlife Services have killed 13 animals 

(12 involving human safety and 1 sick 

wolf) under the authority of this 

regulation (Roell 2010 et al., p. 9). Two 

others were killed for human safety 

concerns while wolves were Federally 

delisted (Roell 2010, pers. comm.). 

North-central Minnesota data from 16 

diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared 

wolves over a 12-year period (1994– 

2005) show that human-causes resulted 

in 69 percent of the diagnosed 

mortalities. This includes 1 wolf 

accidentally snared, 2 vehicle collisions, 

and 8 (50 percent of all diagnosed 

mortalities) that were shot (DelGiudice 

in litt. 2005). However, this data set of 

only 16 mortalities over 12 years is too 

small for reliable comparison to 

Wisconsin and Michigan data. 

A smaller mortality dataset is 

available from a 1987–91 study of 

wolves in, and adjacent to, Minnesota’s 

Voyageurs National Park, along the 

Canadian border. Of 10 diagnosed 

mortalities, illegal killing outside the 

Park was responsible for a minimum of 

60 percent of the deaths (Gogan et al. 

2004, p. 22). 

Two Minnesota studies provide some 

limited insight into the extent of 

human-caused wolf mortality before and 

after the species’ listing. On the basis of 

bounty data from a period that predated 

wolf protection under the Act by 20 

years, Stenlund (1955, p. 33) found an 

annual human-caused mortality rate of 

41 percent. Fuller (1989, pp. 23–24) 

provided 1980–86 data from a northcentral Minnesota study area and found 

an annual human-caused mortality rate 

of 29 percent, a figure that includes 2 

percent mortality from legal depredation 

control actions. Drawing conclusions 

from comparisons of these two studies, 

however, is difficult due to the 

confounding effects of habitat quality, 

exposure to humans, prey density, 

differing time periods, and vast 

differences in study design. Although 

these figures provide support for the 

contention that human-caused mortality 

decreased after the wolf’s protection 

under the Act, it is not possible at this 

time to determine if human-caused 

mortality (apart from mortalities from 

depredation control) has significantly 

changed over the nearly 35-year period 

that the gray wolf has been listed as 

threatened or endangered. 

Wolves were largely eliminated from 

the Dakotas in the 1920s and 1930s and 

were rarely reported from the mid-1940s 

through the late 1970s. Ten wolves were 

killed in these two States from 1981 to 

1992 (Licht and Fritts 1994, pp. 76–77). 

Seven more were killed in North Dakota 

since 1992, with four of these 

mortalities occurring in 2002 and 2003; 

in 2001, one wolf was killed in Harding 

County in extreme northwestern South 

Dakota. The number of reported 

sightings of wolves in North Dakota is 

increasing. From 1993 to 1998, six wolf 

depredation reports were investigated in 

North Dakota, and adequate signs were 

found to verify the presence of wolves 

in two of the cases. A den with pups 

was also documented in extreme northcentral North Dakota near the Canadian 

border in 1994. From 1999 to 2003, 

residents of North Dakota reported 16 

wolf sightings or depredation incidents 

to USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services, and 

9 of these incidents were verified. 

Additionally, one North Dakota wolf 

sighting was confirmed in early 2004, 

two wolf depredation incidents were 

verified north of Garrison in late 2005, 

and one wolf was found dead in Eddy 

County in 2009. USDA–APHIS–Wildlife 

Services also confirmed a wolf sighting 

along the Minnesota border near Gary, 

South Dakota, in 1996, and a trapper 

with the South Dakota Game, Fish, and 

Parks Department sighted a lone wolf in 

the western Black Hills in 2002. 

Several other unconfirmed sightings 

have been reported from these States, 

including two reports in South Dakota 

in 2003. Wolves killed in North and 

South Dakota were most often shot by 

hunters after being mistaken for coyotes, 

or were killed by vehicles. The 2001 

mortality in South Dakota and one of 

the 2003 mortalities in North Dakota 

were caused by M–44 devices that had 

been legally set in response to 

complaints about coyotes. 

In and around the core recovery areas 

in the Midwest, a continuing increase in 

wolf mortalities from vehicle collisions, 

both in actual numbers and as a percent 

of total diagnosed mortalities, is 

expected as wolves continue their 

colonization of areas with more human 

developments and a denser network of 

roads and vehicle traffic. In addition, 

the growing wolf populations in 

Wisconsin and Michigan are producing 

greater numbers of dispersing 

individuals each year, and this also will 

contribute to increasing numbers of 

wolf-vehicle collisions. This increase in 

accidental deaths would be unaffected 

by a removal of wolves in the proposed 

WGL DPS from the protections of the 

Act. 

In those areas of the proposed WGL 

DPS that are beyond the areas currently 

occupied by wolf packs in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan, we expect 

that human-caused wolf mortality in the 

form of vehicle collisions, shooting, and 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26118 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

trapping have been removing all, or 

nearly all, the wolves that disperse into 

these areas. We expect this to continue 

after Federal delisting. Road densities 

are high in these areas, with numerous 

interstate highways and other freeways 

and high-speed thoroughfares that are 

extremely hazardous to wolves 

attempting to move across them. 

Shooting and trapping of wolves also is 

likely to continue as a threat to wolves 

in these areas for several reasons. 

Especially outside of Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan, hunters will 

not expect to encounter wolves, and 

may easily mistake them for coyotes 

from a distance, resulting in 

unintentional shootings. 

It is important to note that, despite the 

difficulty in measuring the extent of 

illegal killing of wolves, all sources of 

wolf mortality, including legal (for 

example, depredation control) and 

illegal human-caused mortality, have 

not been of sufficient magnitude to stop 

the continuing growth of the wolf 

population in Wisconsin and Michigan, 

nor to cause a wolf population decline 

in Minnesota. This indicates that total 

wolf mortality does not threaten the 

continued viability of the wolf 

population in these three States, or in 

the proposed WGL DPS. 

Human Predation Summary 

The high reproductive potential of 

wolves allows wolf populations to 

withstand relatively high mortality 

rates, including human-caused 

mortality. The principle of 

compensatory mortality is believed to 

occur in wolf populations. This means 

that human-caused mortality is not 

simply added to ‘‘natural’’ mortality, but 

rather replaces a portion of it. For 

example, some of the wolves that are 

killed during depredation control 

actions would have otherwise died 

during that year from disease, 

intraspecific strife, or starvation. Thus, 

the addition of intentional killing of 

wolves to a wolf population will reduce 

the mortality rates from other causes on 

the population. Based on 19 studies by 

other wolf researchers, Fuller et al. 

(2003, pp. 182–186) concludes that 

human-caused mortality can replace 

about 70 percent of other forms of 

mortality. 

Fuller et al. (2003, p. 182 Table 6.8) 

has summarized the work of various 

researchers in estimating mortality rates, 

especially human harvest, that would 

result in wolf population stability or 

decline. They provide a number of 

human-caused and total mortality rate 

estimates and the observed population 

effects in wolf populations in the United 

States and Canada. While variability is 

apparent, in general, wolf populations 

increased if their total average annual 

mortality was 30 percent or less, and 

populations decreased if their total 

average annual mortality was 40 percent 

or more. Four of the cited studies 

showed wolf population stability or 

increases with human-caused mortality 

rates of 24 to 30 percent. The clear 

conclusion is that a wolf population 

with high pup productivity—the normal 

situation in a wolf population—can 

withstand levels of overall and of 

human-caused mortality without 

suffering a long-term decline in 

numbers. 

The wolf populations in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan will stop 

growing when they have saturated the 

suitable habitat and are curtailed in less 

suitable areas by natural mortality 

(disease, starvation, and intraspecific 

aggression), depredation management, 

incidental mortality (for example, road 

kill), illegal killing, and other means. At 

that time, we should expect to see 

population declines in some years 

followed by short-term increases in 

other years, resulting from fluctuations 

in birth and mortality rates. Adequate 

wolf monitoring programs, however, as 

described in the Michigan, Wisconsin, 

and Minnesota wolf management plans, 

are likely to identify high mortality rates 

or low birth rates that warrant corrective 

action by the management agencies (see 

Regulatory Mechanisms in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan, below). The 

goals of all three State wolf management 

plans are to maintain wolf populations 

well above the numbers recommended 

in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern 

Timber Wolf to ensure long-term viable 

wolf populations. The State 

management plans recommend a 

minimum wolf population of 1,600 in 

Minnesota, 350 in Wisconsin, and 200 

in Michigan. 

Despite human-caused mortalities of 

wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan, these wolf populations have 

continued to increase in both numbers 

and range. If wolves in the proposed 

WGL DPS are delisted, as long as other 

mortality factors do not increase 

significantly and monitoring is adequate 

to document, and if necessary 

counteract (see Post-Delisting 

Monitoring, below), the effects of 

excessive human-caused mortality 

should that occur, the Minnesota– 

Wisconsin–Michigan wolf population 

will not decline to nonviable levels in 

the foreseeable future as a result of 

human-caused killing or other forms of 

predation. Therefore, we conclude that 

predation, including all forms of 

human-caused mortality, will not be a 

sufficient future threat to cause wolves 

in the proposed WGL DPS to be likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future in all or a significant portion of 

the range within the proposed WGL 

DPS. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms is one of five factors that, 

under the Endangered Species Act (Act), 

may result in a determination as to 

whether a species should be listed or 

not. In analyzing whether the existing 

regulatory mechanisms are adequate, 

the Service reviews relevant Federal, 

state, and Tribal laws, plans, 

regulations, Memorandum of 

Understandings, Cooperative 

Agreements and other such factors that 

influence conservation of the species in 

question, including analyzing the extent 

those mechanism can be relied upon. 

Other examples include State 

governmental actions enforced under a 

State statute or constitution, or Federal 

action under statute. 

Strongest weight is given to statutes 

and their implementing regulations, and 

management direction that stems from 

those laws and regulations. Some other 

agreements are more voluntary in 

nature; in those cases we analyze the 

specific facts to determine the extent to 

which it can be relied on in the future, 

including how it addresses threats to the 

species. We consider all pertinent 

information, including the efforts and 

conservation practices of State 

governments, whether or not these are 

enforceable by law. Regulatory 

mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude 

the need for listing if such mechanisms 

are judged to adequately address the 

threat to the species such that listing is 

not warranted. Conversely, threats on 

the landscape are exacerbated when not 

addressed by existing regulatory 

mechanisms, or when the existing 

mechanisms are not adequate (or not 

adequately implemented or enforced). 

The following sections discuss the 

adequacy of regulatory mechanisms that 

would be implemented if the WGL DPS 

were delisted, that is, removed from the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. For the reasons described in 

the following section, the Service has 

determined that, if delisted, adequate 

regulatory mechanisms would be in 

place to ensure that this DPS of wolves 

is neither threatened nor endangered. 

Regulatory Mechanisms in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan 

State Wolf Management Planning 

During the 2000 legislative session, 

the Minnesota Legislature passed wolf 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26119 

management provisions addressing wolf 

protection, taking of wolves, and 

directing MN DNR to prepare a wolf 

management plan. The MN DNR revised 

a 1999 draft wolf management plan to 

reflect the legislative action of 2000, and 

completed the Minnesota Wolf 

Management Plan (MN Plan) in early 

2001 (MN DNR 2001, pp. 8–9). 

The Wisconsin Natural Resources 

Board (NRB) approved the Wisconsin 

Wolf Management Plan in October 1999 

(WI Plan). In 2004 and 2005 the 

Wisconsin Wolf Science Advisory 

Committee and the Wisconsin Wolf 

Stakeholders group reviewed the 1999 

Plan, and the Science Advisory 

Committee subsequently developed 

updates and recommended 

modifications to the 1999 Plan. The WI 

DNR presented the Plan updates and 

modifications to the Wisconsin NRB on 

June 28, 2006, and the NRB approved 

them at that time, with the 

understanding that some numbers 

would be updated and an additional 

reference document would be added 

(Holtz in litt. 2006). The updates were 

completed and received final NRB 

approval on November 28, 2006 (WI 

DNR 2006a, p. 1). 

In late 1997, the Michigan Wolf 

Recovery and Management Plan (MI 

Plan) was completed and received the 

necessary State approvals. It primarily 

focused on wolf recovery, rather than 

long-term management of a large wolf 

population and the conflicts that result 

as a consequence of successful wolf 

restoration. In 2006 the MI DNR 

convened a Michigan Wolf Management 

Roundtable committee (Roundtable) to 

provide guiding principles to the DNR 

on changes and revisions to the 1997 

Plan and to guide management of 

Michigan wolves and wolf-related 

issues following Federal delisting of the 

species. The MI DNR relied heavily on 

those guiding principles as it drafted a 

new wolf management plan. The 

Roundtable was composed of 

representatives from 20 Michigan 

stakeholder interests in wolf recovery 

and management, and its membership is 

roughly equal in numbers from the UP 

and the LP. During 2006, the 

Roundtable provided its ‘‘Recommended 

Guiding Principles for Wolf 

Management in Michigan’’ to the DNR in 

November (Michigan Wolf Management 

Roundtable 2006. p. 2). Based on those 

Roundtable recommendations, a revised 

Michigan Wolf Management Plan was 

completed in July 2008 (MI DNR 2008a). 

The complete text of the Wisconsin, 

Michigan, and Minnesota wolf plans 

can be found on our Web site (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan 

The Minnesota Plan is based, in part, 

on the recommendations of a State wolf 

management roundtable (MN DNR 2001, 

Appendix V) and on a State wolf 

management law enacted in 2000 (MN 

DNR 2001, Appendix I). This law and 

the Minnesota Game and Fish Laws 

constitute the basis of the State’s 

authority to manage wolves. The Plan’s 

stated goal is ‘‘to ensure the long-term 

survival of wolves in Minnesota while 

addressing wolf-human conflicts that 

inevitably result when wolves and 

people live in the same vicinity’’ (MN 

DNR 2001, p. 2). It establishes a 

minimum goal of 1,600 wolves in the 

State. Key components of the plan are 

population monitoring and 

management, management of wolf 

depredation of domestic animals, 

management of wolf prey, enforcement 

of laws regulating take of wolves, public 

education, and increased staffing to 

accomplish these actions. Following the 

proposed delisting, Minnesota DNR’s 

management of wolves would differ 

from their current management while 

listed as threatened under the Act. Most 

of these differences deal with the 

control of wolves that attack or threaten 

domestic animals. 

The Minnesota Plan divides the State 

into two wolf management zones— 

Zones A and B (see Figure 2 below). 

Zone A corresponds to Federal Wolf 

Management Zones 1 through 4 

(approximately 30,000 sq mi (48,000 sq 

km) in northeastern Minnesota) in the 

Service’s Recovery Plan for the Eastern 

Timber Wolf, whereas Zone B 

constitutes Zone 5 in that recovery plan 

(MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20 and 

Appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). 

Within Zone A, wolves would receive 

strong protection by the State, unless 

they were involved in attacks on 

domestic animals. The rules governing 

the take of wolves to protect domestic 

animals in Zone B would be less 

protective than in Zone A (see Postdelisting Depredation Control in 

Minnesota below). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26120 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

The MN DNR plans to allow wolf 

numbers and distribution to naturally 

expand, with no maximum population 

goal, and if any winter population 

estimate is below 1,600 wolves, it would 

take actions to ‘‘assure recovery’’ to 

1,600 wolves (MN DNR 2001 p. 19). The 

MN DNR plans to continue to monitor 

wolves in Minnesota to determine 

whether such intervention is necessary. 

The MN DNR plans to conduct another 

statewide population survey in the 

winter of 2012–13 and at subsequent 5- 

year intervals. In addition to these 

statewide population surveys, MN DNR 

annually reviews data on depredation 

incident frequency and locations 

provided by Wildlife Services and 

winter track survey indices (see Erb 

2008) to help ascertain annual trends in 

wolf population or range (MN DNR 

2001, pp. 18–19). The agency is 

currently evaluating alternatives to its 

current methodology with the potential 

to improve the efficiency and accuracy 

of its statewide population estimates 

(Stark 2009a, pers. comm.). 

Minnesota (MN DNR 2001, pp. 21–24, 

27–28) plans to reduce or control illegal 

mortality of wolves through education, 

increased enforcement of the State’s 

wolf laws and regulations, discouraging 

new road access in some areas, and 

maintaining a depredation control 

program that includes compensation for 

livestock losses. The MN DNR plans to 

use a variety of methods to encourage 

and support education of the public 

about the effects of wolves on livestock, 

wild ungulate populations, and human 

activities and the history and ecology of 

wolves in the State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 

29–30). These are all measures that have 

been in effect for years in Minnesota, 

although increased enforcement of State 

laws against take of wolves would 

replace enforcement of the Act’s take 

prohibitions. Financial compensation 

for livestock losses has increased to the 

full market value of the animal, 

replacing previous caps of $400 and 

$750 per animal (MN DNR 2001, p. 24). 

We do not expect the State’s efforts to 

result in the reduction of illegal take of 

wolves from existing levels, but we 

believe these measures will be crucial in 

ensuring that illegal mortality does not 

significantly increase if this proposed 

delisting is finalized. 

The likelihood of illegal take 

increases in relation to road density and 

human population density, but 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05MY11.125</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26121 

changing attitudes towards wolves may 

allow them to survive in areas where 

road and human densities were 

previously thought to be too high (Fuller 

et al. 2003, p. 181). The MN DNR does 

not plan to reduce current levels of road 

access, but would encourage managers 

of land areas large enough to sustain one 

or more wolf packs to ‘‘be cautious about 

adding new road access that could 

exceed a density of one mile of road per 

square mile of land, without considering 

the potential effect on wolves’’ (MN 

DNR 2001, pp. 27–28). 

Under Minnesota law, the illegal 

killing of a wolf is a gross misdemeanor 

and is punishable by a maximum fine of 

$3,000 and imprisonment for up to one 

year. The restitution value of an illegally 

killed wolf is $2,000 (MN DNR 2001, p. 

29). The MN DNR acknowledges that 

increased enforcement of the State’s 

wolf laws and regulations would be 

dependent on increases in staff and 

resources, additional cross-deputization 

of Tribal law enforcement officers, and 

continued cooperation with Federal law 

enforcement officers. Minnesota DNR 

has designated three conservation 

officers who are stationed in the State’s 

wolf range as the lead officers for 

implementing the wolf management 

plan (MN DNR 2001, pp. 29, 32; Stark 

2009a, pers. comm.). 

Minnesota DNR will consider wolf 

population management measures, 

including public hunting and trapping 

seasons and other methods, in the 

future. However, State law and the 

Minnesota Plan state that such 

consideration will occur no sooner than 

5 years after Federal delisting, and there 

would be opportunity for full public 

comment on such possible changes at 

that time (Minnesota Statutes 97B.645 

Subdiv. 9, see MN DNR 2001 Appendix 

1, p. 6; MN DNR 2001, p. 20). The 

Minnesota Plan requires that these 

population management measures be 

implemented in such a way to maintain 

a statewide late-winter wolf population 

of at least 1,600 animals (MN DNR 2001, 

pp. 19–20), well above the planning goal 

of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves for the State in 

the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 

1992, p. 28), therefore, implementing 

such management measures under that 

requirement would ensure the wolf’s 

continued survival in Minnesota. 

Depredation Control in Minnesota— 

Although Federally protected as a 

threatened species in Minnesota (since 

their 1978 reclassification), wolves that 

have attacked domestic animals have 

been killed by designated government 

employees under the authority of a 

special regulation (50 CFR 17.40(d)) 

under section 4(d) of the Act. However, 

no control of depredating wolves was 

allowed in Federal Wolf Management 

Zone 1, comprising about 4,500 sq mi 

(7,200 sq km) in extreme northeastern 

Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 72). In 

Federal Wolf Management Zones 2 

through 5, employees or agents of the 

Service (including USDA–APHIS– 

Wildlife Services) have taken wolves in 

response to depredations of domestic 

animals within one-half mile of the 

depredation site. Young-of-the-year 

captured on or before August 1 must be 

released. The regulations that allow for 

this take (50 CFR 17.40(d)(2)(i)(B)(4)) do 

not specify a maximum duration for 

depredation control, but Wildlife 

Services personnel have followed 

internal guidelines under which they 

trap for no more than 10–15 days, 

except at sites with repeated or chronic 

depredation, where they may trap for up 

to 30 days (Paul 2004, pers. comm.). 

During the period 1980–2009, the 

Federal Minnesota wolf depredation 

control program euthanized from 20 (in 

1982) to 216 (in 1997) wolves annually. 

Annual averages (and percentage of 

statewide population) were 30 (2.2 

percent) wolves killed from 1980 to 

1984, 49 (3.0 percent) from 1985 to 

1989, 115 (6.0 percent) from 1990 to 

1994, 152 (6.7 percent) from 1995 to 

1999, and 128 wolves (4.2 percent) from 

2000 to 2005. During 2006–10 an 

average of 157 wolves were killed each 

year—approximately 5.4 percent of 

wolves in the State (Erb 2008; USDA– 

Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3). Since 

1980, the lowest annual percentage of 

Minnesota wolves killed under this 

program was 1.5 percent in 1982; the 

highest percentage was 9.4 in 1997 (Paul 

2004, pp. 2–7; 2006, p. 1). Following the 

return of wolves in Minnesota to the list 

of threatened species in 2009, 195 and 

192 wolves were killed in 2009 and 

2010, respectively, in response to 

depredation of domestic animals in 

Minnesota. This is the highest 22-year 

consecutive total since authorization to 

control depredating wolves was allowed 

by special regulation under section 4(d) 

of the Act while wolves were Federally 

listed. 

This level of wolf removal for 

depredation control has not interfered 

with wolf recovery in Minnesota, 

although it may have slowed the 

increase in wolf numbers in the State, 

especially since the late-1980s, and may 

be contributing to the possibly 

stabilized Minnesota wolf population 

suggested by the 2003–04 and 2007–08 

estimates (see additional information in 

Minnesota Recovery). Minnesota wolf 

numbers grew at an average annual rate 

of nearly 4 percent between 1989 and 

1998 while the depredation control 

program was taking its highest 

percentages of wolves (Paul 2004, pp. 2– 

7). 

Under a Minnesota statute, the 

Minnesota Department of Agriculture 

(MDA) compensates livestock owners 

for full market value of livestock that 

wolves have killed or severely injured. 

An authorized investigator must 

confirm that wolves were responsible 

for the depredation. The Minnesota 

statute also requires MDA to 

periodically update its Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) to 

incorporate new practices that it finds 

would reduce wolf depredation 

(Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 3.737, 

subdivision 5). 

Post-delisting Depredation Control in 

Minnesota—If the WGL DPS is delisted, 

depredation control will be authorized 

under Minnesota State law and 

conducted in conformance with the 

Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN 

DNR 2001). The Minnesota Plan divides 

the State into Wolf Management Zones 

A and B. Zone A is composed of Federal 

Wolf Management Zones 1–4, covering 

30,728 sq mi (49,452 sq km), 

approximately the northeastern third of 

the State. Zone B is identical to the 

current Federal Wolf Management Zone 

5, and contains the 54,603 sq mi (87,875 

sq km.) that make up the rest of the 

State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20 and 

Appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). The 

statewide survey conducted during the 

winter of 2003–04 estimated that there 

were approximately 2,570 wolves in 

Zone A and 450 in Zone B (Erb in litt. 

2005). As discussed in Recovery Criteria 

above, the Federal planning goal is 

1,251–1,400 wolves for Zones 1–4 and 

no wolves in Zone 5 (USFWS 1992, p. 

28). 

In Zone A wolf depredation control is 

limited to situations of (1) immediate 

threat and (2) following verified loss of 

domestic animals. In this zone, if the 

DNR verifies that a wolf destroyed any 

livestock, domestic animal, or pet, and 

if the owner requests wolf control be 

implemented, trained and certified 

predator controllers may take wolves 

(specific number to be determined on a 

case-by-case basis) within a 1-mile 

radius of the depredation site 

(depredation control area) for up to 60 

days. In contrast, in Zone B, predator 

controllers may take wolves (specific 

number to be determined on a case-bycase basis) for up to 214 days after MN 

DNR opens a depredation control area, 

depending on the time of year. Under 

State law, the DNR may open a control 

area in Zone B anytime within 5 years 

of a verified depredation loss upon 

request of the landowner, thereby 

providing more of a preventative 

approach than is allowed in Zone A, in 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26122 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

order to head off repeat depredation 

incidents (MN DNR 2001, p. 22). 

State law and the Minnesota Plan will 

also allow for private wolf depredation 

control throughout the State. Persons 

may shoot or destroy a wolf that poses 

‘‘an immediate threat’’ to their livestock, 

guard animals, or domestic animals on 

lands that they own, lease, or occupy. 

Immediate threat is defined as ‘‘in the 

act of stalking, attacking, or killing.’’ 

This does not include trapping because 

traps cannot be placed in a manner such 

that they trap only wolves in the act of 

stalking, attacking, or killing. Owners of 

domestic pets may also kill wolves 

posing an immediate threat to pets 

under their supervision on lands that 

they do not own or lease, although such 

actions are subject to local ordinances, 

trespass law, and other applicable 

restrictions. The MN DNR will 

investigate any private taking of wolves 

in Zone A (MN DNR 2001, p. 23). 

To protect their domestic animals in 

Zone B, individuals do not have to wait 

for an immediate threat or a depredation 

incident in order to take wolves. At any 

time in Zone B, persons who own, lease, 

or manage lands may shoot wolves on 

those lands to protect livestock, 

domestic animals, or pets. They may 

also employ a predator controller to trap 

a wolf on their land or within 1 mile of 

their land (with permission of the 

landowner) to protect their livestock, 

domestic animals, or pets (MN DNR 

2001, p. 23–24). 

The Minnesota Plan will also allow 

persons to harass wolves anywhere in 

the State within 500 yards of ‘‘people, 

buildings, dogs, livestock, or other 

domestic pets or animals.’’ Harassment 

may not include physical injury to a 

wolf. 

Depredation control will be allowed 

throughout Zone A, which includes an 

area (Federal Wolf Management Zone 1) 

where such control has not been 

permitted under the Act’s protection. 

Depredation in Zone 1, however, has 

been limited to 2 to 4 reported incidents 

per year, mostly of wolves killing dogs, 

although Wildlife Services received one 

livestock depredation complaint in 

Zone 1 in 2008 (Hart pers. comm. 2009), 

and some dog kills in this zone probably 

go unreported. In 2009, there was one 

probable and one verified depredation 

of a dog near Ely, Minnesota, and in 

2010 Wildlife Services confirmed three 

dogs killed by wolves in Zone 1 (USDA– 

Wildlife Services 2009, p. 3; USDA– 

Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3). There are 

few livestock in Zone 1; therefore, the 

number of verified future depredation 

incidents in that Zone is expected to be 

low, resulting in a correspondingly low 

number of depredating wolves being 

killed there after delisting. 

The final change in Zone A is the 

ability for owners or lessees to respond 

to situations of immediate threat by 

shooting wolves in the act of stalking, 

attacking, or killing livestock or other 

domestic animals. We believe this is not 

likely to result in the killing of many 

additional wolves, as opportunities to 

shoot wolves ‘‘in the act’’ will likely be 

few and difficult to successfully 

accomplish, a belief shared by the most 

experienced wolf depredation agent in 

the lower 48 States (Paul in litt. 2006, 

p. 5). It is also possible that illegal 

killing of wolves in Minnesota will 

decrease, because the expanded options 

for legal control of problem wolves may 

lead to an increase in public tolerance 

for wolves (Paul in litt. 2006, p. 5). 

Within Zone B, State law and the 

Minnesota Plan provide broad authority 

to landowners and land managers to 

shoot wolves at any time to protect their 

livestock, pets, or other domestic 

animals on land owned, leased, or 

managed by the individual. Such 

takings can occur in the absence of wolf 

attacks on the domestic animals. Thus, 

the estimated 450 wolves in Zone B 

could be subject to substantial reduction 

in numbers, and at the extreme, wolves 

could be eliminated from Zone B. 

However, there is no way to reasonably 

evaluate in advance the extent to which 

residents of Zone B will use this new 

authority, nor how vulnerable Zone B 

wolves will be. While wolves were 

under State management in 2007–08, 

landowners in Zone B shot six wolves 

under this authority. One additional 

wolf was trapped and euthanized in 

Zone B by a State certified predator 

controller in 2009 (Stark 2009b, pers. 

comm.). 

The limitation of this broad take 

authority to Zone B is fully consistent 

with the Recovery Plan for the Eastern 

Timber Wolf’s advice that wolves 

should be restored to the rest of 

Minnesota but not to Zone B (Federal 

Zone 5) because that area ‘‘is not 

suitable for wolves’’ (USFWS 1992, p. 

20). The Recovery Plan for the Eastern 

Timber Wolf envisioned that the 

Minnesota numerical planning goal 

would be achieved solely in Zone A 

(Federal Zones 1–4) (USFWS 1992, p. 

28), and that has occurred. Wolves 

outside of Zone A are not necessary to 

the establishment and long-term 

viability of a self-sustaining wolf 

population in the State, and therefore 

there is no need to establish or maintain 

a wolf population in Zone B. 

Accordingly, there is no need to 

maintain significant protection for 

wolves in Zone B in order to maintain 

a Minnesota wolf population that 

continues to satisfy the Federal recovery 

criteria after Federal delisting. 

This expansion of depredation control 

activities will not threaten the 

continued survival of wolves in the 

State or the long-term viability of the 

wolf population in Zone A, the large 

part of wolf range in Minnesota. 

Significant changes in wolf depredation 

control under State management will 

primarily be restricted to Zone B, which 

is outside of the area necessary for wolf 

recovery (USFWS 1992, pp. 20, 28). 

Furthermore, wolves may still persist in 

Zone B despite the likely increased take 

there. The Eastern Timber Wolf 

Recovery Team concluded that the 

changes in wolf management in the 

State’s Zone A would be ‘‘minor’’ and 

would not likely result in ‘‘significant 

change in overall wolf numbers in Zone 

A.’’ They found that, despite an 

expansion of the individual depredation 

control areas and an extension of the 

control period to 60 days, depredation 

control will remain ‘‘very localized’’ in 

Zone A. The requirement that such 

depredation control activities be 

conducted only in response to verified 

wolf depredation in Zone A played a 

key role in the team’s evaluation 

(Peterson in litt. 2001). While wolves 

were under State management in 2007 

and 2008, the number of wolves killed 

for depredation control (133 wolves in 

2007 and 143 wolves in 2008) remained 

consistent with those killed under the 

special regulation under section 4(d) of 

the Act while wolves were Federally 

listed (105, in 2004; 134, in 2005; and 

122, in 2006). 

Minnesota will continue to monitor 

wolf populations throughout the State 

and will also monitor all depredation 

control activities in Zone A (MN DNR 

2001, p. 18). These and other activities 

contained in their plan will be essential 

in meeting their population goal of a 

minimum statewide winter population 

of 1,600 wolves, well above the 

planning goal of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves 

that the Revised Recovery Plan 

identifies as sufficient to ensure the 

wolf’s continued survival in Minnesota 

(USFWS 1992, p. 28). 

The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan 

Both the Wisconsin and Michigan 

Wolf Management Plans are designed to 

manage and ensure the existence of wolf 

populations in the States as if they are 

isolated populations and are not 

dependent upon immigration of wolves 

from an adjacent State or Canada, while 

still maintaining connections to those 

other populations. We support this 

approach and believe it provides strong 

assurances that the wolf in both States 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26123 

will remain a viable component of the 

proposed WGL DPS for the foreseeable 

future. 

The WI Plan allows for differing 

levels of protection and management 

within four separate management zones 

(see figure 3). The Northern Forest Zone 

(Zone 1) and the Central Forest Zone 

(Zone 2) now contain most of the State’s 

wolf population, with approximately 6 

percent of the Wisconsin wolves in 

Zones 3 and 4 (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2009, Table 1). Zones 1 

and 2 contain all the larger 

unfragmented areas of suitable habitat 

(see Wolf Range Ownership and 

Protection, above), so most of the State’s 

wolf packs will continue to inhabit 

those parts of Wisconsin for the 

foreseeable future. At the time the 

Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan was 

completed, it recommended immediate 

reclassification from State-endangered 

to State-threatened status, because 

Wisconsin’s wolf population had 

already exceeded its reclassification 

criterion of 80 wolves for 3 years. That 

state reclassification occurred in 1999, 

after the population exceeded that level 

for 5 years. 

The Wisconsin Plan further 

recommends that the State manage for a 

wolf population of 350 wolves outside 

of Native American reservations, and 

specifies that the species should be 

delisted by the State once the 

population reaches 250 animals outside 

of reservations. The species was 

proposed for State delisting in late 2003, 

and the State delisting process was 

completed in 2004. Upon State 

delisting, the species was classified as a 

‘‘protected nongame species,’’ a 

designation that continues State 

prohibitions on sport hunting and 

trapping of the species (Wydeven and 

Jurewicz 2005, p. 1; WI DNR 2006b, p. 

71). The Wisconsin Plan includes 

criteria that would trigger State relisting 

to threatened (a decline to fewer than 

250 wolves for 3 years) or endangered 

status (a decline to fewer than 80 wolves 

for 1 year). The Wisconsin Plan will be 

reviewed annually by the Wisconsin 

Wolf Advisory Committee and will be 

reviewed by the public every 5 years. 

Recently the WI DNR began work on 

updating the State’s wolf management 

plan, which may include increasing the 

State management goal (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2009, p. 3). 

The WI Plan was updated during 

2004–06 to reflect current wolf 

numbers, additional knowledge, and 

issues that have arisen since its 1999 

completion. This update is in the form 

of text changes, revisions to two 

appendices, and the addition of a new 

appendix to the 1999 plan, rather than 

as a major revision to the plan. Several 

components of the plan that are key to 

our delisting evaluation are unchanged. 

The State wolf management goal of 350 

animals and the boundaries of the four 

wolf management zones remain the 

same as in the 1999 Plan. The updated 

2006 Plan continues access management 

on public lands and the protection of 

active den sites. Protection of pack 

rendezvous sites, however, is no longer 

considered to be needed in areas where 

wolves have become well established, 

due to the transient nature of these sites 

and the larger wolf population. The 

updated Plan states that rendezvous 

sites may need protection in areas 

where wolf colonization is still 

underway or where pup survival is 

extremely poor, such as in northeastern 

Wisconsin (WI DNR 2006a, p. 17). The 

guidelines for the wolf depredation 

control program did not undergo 

significant alteration during the update 

process. The only substantive change to 

depredation control practices is to 

expand the area of depredation control 

trapping in Zones 1 and 2 to 1 mi (1.6 

km) outward from the depredation site, 

replacing the previous 0.5 mi (0.8 km) 

radius trapping zone (WI DNR 2006a, 

pp. 3–4). 

An important component of the WI 

Plan is the annual monitoring of wolf 

populations by radio collars and winter 

track surveys in order to provide 

comparable annual data to assess 

population size and growth for at least 

5 years after Federal delisting. This 

monitoring will include health 

monitoring of captured wolves and 

necropsies of dead wolves that are 

found. Wolf scat will be collected and 

analyzed to monitor for canine viruses 

and parasites. Health monitoring will be 

part of the capture protocol for all 

studies that involve the live capture of 

Wisconsin wolves (WI DNR 2006a, p. 

14). 

Cooperative habitat management will 

be promoted with public and private 

landowners to maintain existing road 

densities in Zones 1 and 2, protect wolf 

dispersal corridors, and manage forests 

for deer and beaver (WI DNR 1999, pp. 

4, 22–23; 2006a, pp. 15–17). 

Furthermore, in Zone 1, a year-round 

prohibition on tree harvest within 330 

feet (100 m) of den sites, and seasonal 

restrictions to reduce disturbance 

within one-half mile of dens, will be WI 

DNR policy on public lands and will be 

encouraged on private lands (WI DNR 

1999, p. 23; 2006a, p. 17). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26124 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

The 1999 WI Plan contains, and the 

2006 update retains, other 

recommendations that will provide 

protection to assist in maintenance of a 

viable wolf population in the State: (1) 

Continue the protection of the species as 

a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ with penalties 

similar to those for unlawfully killing 

large game species (fines of $1,000– 

$2,000, loss of hunting privileges for 3– 

5 years, and a possible 6-month jail 

sentence), (2) maintain closure zones 

where coyotes cannot be shot during 

deer hunting season in Zone 1, (3) 

legally protect wolf dens under the 

Wisconsin Administrative Code, (4) 

require State permits to possess a wolf 

or wolf-dog hybrid, and (5) establish a 

restitution value to be levied in addition 

to fines and other penalties for wolves 

that are illegally killed (WI DNR 1999, 

pp. 21, 27–28, 30–31; 2006a, pp. 3–4). 

The 2006 update of the WI Plan 

continues to emphasize the need for 

public education efforts that focus on 

living with a recovered wolf population, 

ways to manage wolves and wolf-human 

conflicts, and the ecosystem role of 

wolves. The Plan continues the State 

reimbursement for depredation losses 

(including dogs and missing calves), 

citizen stakeholder involvement in the 

wolf management program, and 

coordination with the Tribes in wolf 

management and investigation of illegal 

killings (WI DNR 1999, pp. 24, 28–29; 

2006a, pp. 22–23). 

Given the decline and ultimate 

termination in Federal funding for wolf 

monitoring that would occur upon 

delisting, Wisconsin and Michigan 

DNRs are seeking an effective, yet costefficient, method for detecting wolf 

population changes to replace the 

current labor-intensive and expensive 

monitoring protocols. Both DNRs have 

considered implementing a ‘‘Minnesotatype’’ wolf survey. Such methodology is 

less expensive for larger wolf 

populations than the intensive radio 

monitoring and track survey methods 

currently used by the two States, and if 

the wolf population continues to grow 

there will be increased need to develop 

and implement a less expensive 

method. However, each State conducted 

independent field testing of the 

Minnesota method several years ago and 

found that method to be unsuitable for 

both States’ lower wolf population 

density and uneven pack distribution. 

In both States the application of that 

method resulted in an overestimate of 

wolf abundance, possibly due to the 

more patchy distribution of wolves and 

packs in these States and the difficulty 

in accurately delineating occupied wolf 

range in areas where wolf pack density 

is relatively low in comparison to 

Minnesota and where agricultural lands 

are interspersed with forested areas 

(Wiedenhoeft 2005, pp. 11–12; Beyer in 

litt. 2006b). 

Both States remain interested in 

developing accurate but less costly 

alternate survey methods. WI DNR 

might test other methods following any 

Federal delisting, but the State will not 

replace its traditional radio tracking/ 

snow tracking surveys during the 5 year 

post-delisting monitoring period 

(Wydeven in litt. 2006b). The 2006 

update to the Wisconsin Wolf 

Management Plan has not changed the 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05MY11.126</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26125 

WI DNR’s commitment to annual wolf 

population monitoring in a manner that 

ensures accurate and comparable data 

(WI DNR 1999, pp.19–20), and we are 

confident that adequate annual 

monitoring will continue for the 

foreseeable future. 

Depredation Control in Wisconsin— 

The rapidly expanding Wisconsin wolf 

population has resulted in an increased 

need for depredation control. From 1979 

through 1989, there were only five cases 

(an average of 0.4 per year) of verified 

wolf depredations in Wisconsin. 

Between 1990 and 1997, there were 27 

verified depredation incidents in the 

State (an average of 3.4 per year), and 

82 incidents (an average of 16.4 per 

year) occurred from 1998 to 2002. 

Depredation incidents increased to 23 

cases (including 50 domestic animals 

killed and 4 injured) in 2003, 35 cases 

(53 domestic animals killed, 3 injured, 

and 6 missing) in 2004, and to 45 cases 

(53 domestic animals killed and 11 

injured) in 2005 (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2004a, pp. 2–3, 7–8 Table 

3; Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 7; Wydeven 

et al. 2006b, p. 7). From 2005 to 2008, 

depredation incidents continued to 

increase, with 52 cases (92 domestic 

animals killed (includes 50 chickens) 

and 16 injured) in 2006, 60 cases (51 

domestic animals killed, 18 injured, and 

14 missing) in 2007, and 57 cases (67 

domestic animals killed and 10 injured) 

in 2008 (Wydeven et al. 2007a, p. 7; 

Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, pp. 8, 

25–32; Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 6). 

Similar levels of depredations 

continued to occur in 2009, with 55 

cases (65 domestic animals killed and 

11 injured), but increased again to 81 

cases (99 domestic animals killed and 

20 injured) in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 

2010, pp. 9–10; Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 

3). 

The number of farms experiencing 

wolf depredations has increased from 5 

farms in 2000, to 28–32 farms from 2007 

to 2009, and to 47 farms in 2010, a 

nearly ten-fold increase in the number 

of farms experiencing depredations 

during the last decade. The number of 

counties with wolf depredations on 

farms also grew during that time period 

from 5 to 17 counties, indicating that 

wolf depredation problems on farms are 

continuing to expand (Wydeven in litt. 

2009; Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 23; 

Wydeven et al. 2011, p.3). Between 

1995 and 2002, an average of 7 percent 

of packs in Wisconsin were involved in 

livestock depredations (Wydeven et al. 

2004, p.36), and between 2002 and 

2010, an average of 13 percent (from 7 

to 17) of the State’s packs were involved 

in livestock depredation (WI DNR data). 

More aggressive lethal controls possible 

in 2007 and 2008 through State 

management following a temporary 

period of Federal delisting appear to 

have started to stabilize levels of 

livestock depredation in 2007–09, but 

loss of those control methods allowed 

major increases in levels of depredation 

in 2010. 

A significant portion of depredation 

incidents in Wisconsin involve attacks 

on dogs, primarily those engaged in bear 

hunting activities or dogs being trained 

in the field for hunting. In most cases, 

these have been hunting dogs that were 

being used for, or being trained for, 

hunting bears, bobcats, coyotes, and 

snowshoe hare (Ruid et al. 2009, pp. 

285–286). It is believed that the dogs 

entered the territory of a wolf pack and 

may have been close to a den, 

rendezvous site, or feeding location, 

thus triggering an attack by wolves 

defending their territory or pups. The 

frequency of attacks on hunting dogs 

has increased as the State’s wolf 

population has grown. Between 1986 

and 2010, 206 dogs were killed and 80 

were injured by wolves in Wisconsin 

(WI DNR data files and summary of wolf 

survey reports). Generally about 90 

percent of dogs killed were hunting 

hounds and about 50 percent of dogs 

injured were pet dogs attacked near 

homes (Ruid et al. 2009). 

More than 80 percent of the dog kills 

occurred since 2001, with an average of 

17.2 dogs killed annually (range 6 to 25 

dogs killed per year), and 6.8 injured 

each year (range 1 to 14 dogs) during the 

period 2001–10 (WI DNR files). Data on 

recent depredations in 2009 and 2010 

show a continued increase in wolf 

attacks on dogs, with 23 dogs killed and 

11 injured by 20 wolf packs (12 percent 

of Wisconsin packs) in 2009, and 24 

dogs killed and 14 injured by 21 wolf 

packs in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 2010, pp. 

51–52; Wydeven et al. 2011 p.3). While 

the WI DNR compensates dog owners 

for mortalities and injuries to their dogs, 

the DNR takes no action against the 

depredating pack unless the attack was 

on a dog that was leashed, confined, or 

under the owner’s control on the 

owner’s land. Instead, the DNR issues 

press releases to warn bear hunters and 

bear dog trainers of the areas where wolf 

packs have been attacking bear dogs (WI 

DNR 2008, p. 5) and provides maps and 

advice to hunters on the WI DNR Web 

site (see http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/ 

land/er/mammals/wolf/dogdepred.htm). 

In 2010, 14 wolf attacks on dogs had 

occurred near homes, which was the 

highest level seen of this type of 

depredation (Wydeven et al. 2011, p.3). 

Post-delisting Depredation Control in 

Wisconsin—Following the proposed 

Federal delisting, wolf depredation 

control in Wisconsin will be carried out 

according to the 2006 Updated 

Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan (WI 

DNR 2006a, pp. 19–23), Guidelines for 

Conducting Depredation Control on 

Wolves in Wisconsin Following Federal 

Delisting (WI DNR 2008), and any Tribal 

wolf management plans or guidelines 

that may be developed for reservations 

in occupied wolf range. The 2006 

updates have not significantly changed 

the 1999 State Plan, and the State wolf 

management goal of 350 wolves outside 

of Indian reservations (WI DNR 2006a, 

p. 3) is unchanged. Verification of wolf 

depredation incidents will continue to 

be conducted by USDA–APHIS– 

Wildlife Services, working under a 

cooperative agreement with WI DNR, or 

at the request of a Tribe, depending on 

the location of the suspected 

depredation incident. If determined to 

be a confirmed or probable depredation 

by a wolf or wolves, one or more of 

several options will be implemented to 

address the depredation problem. These 

options include technical assistance, 

loss compensation to landowners, 

translocating or euthanizing problem 

wolves, and private landowner control 

of problem wolves in some 

circumstances (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 3– 4, 

20–22). 

Technical assistance, consisting of 

advice or recommendations to prevent 

or reduce further wolf conflicts, will be 

provided. This may also include 

providing to the landowner various 

forms of noninjurious behavior 

modification materials, such as flashing 

lights, noise makers, temporary fencing, 

and fladry (a string of flags used to 

contain or exclude wild animals). 

Monetary compensation is also 

provided for all verified and probable 

losses of domestic animals and for a 

portion of documented missing calves 

(WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). 

The WI DNR compensates livestock 

and pet owners for confirmed losses to 

depredating wolves. The compensation 

is made at full market value of the 

animal (up to a limit of $2,500 for dogs) 

and can include veterinarian fees for the 

treatment of injured animals (WI DNR 

2006c 12.54). Compensation costs have 

been funded from the endangered 

resources tax check-off and sales of the 

endangered resources license plates. 

Current Wisconsin law requires the 

continuation of the compensation 

payment for wolf depredation regardless 

of Federal listing or delisting of the 

species (WI DNR 2006c 12.50). In recent 

years annual depredation compensation 

payments have ranged from $68,907.88 

(2007) to $203,943.51 (2010). From 1985 

through December 24, 2010, the WI DNR 

had spent $1,083,162.62 on 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26126 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

reimbursement for damage caused by 

wolves in the State, with 82 percent of 

that total spent since 2000 (http:// 

dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/ 

pdfs/wolf_damage_payments_2010.pdf). 

For depredation incidents in 

Wisconsin Zones 1 through 3, where all 

wolf packs currently reside, wolves may 

be trapped by Wildlife Services or WI 

DNR personnel and, if feasible, 

translocated and released at a point 

distant from the depredation site. If 

wolves are captured adjacent to an 

Indian reservation or a large block of 

public land, the animals may be 

translocated locally to that area. As 

noted above, long-distance translocating 

of depredating wolves has become 

increasingly difficult in Wisconsin and 

is likely to be used infrequently in the 

future as long as the off-reservation wolf 

population is above 350 animals. In 

most wolf depredation cases where 

technical assistance and nonlethal 

methods of behavior modification are 

judged to be ineffective, wolves will be 

shot or trapped and euthanized by 

Wildlife Services or DNR personnel. 

Trapping and euthanizing will be 

conducted within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius 

of the depredation in Zones 1 and 2, and 

within a 5-mi (8-km) radius in Zone 3. 

There is no distance limitation for 

depredation control trapping in Zone 4, 

and all wolves trapped in Zone 4 will 

be euthanized, rather than translocated 

(WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). 

Following the proposed Federal 

delisting, Wisconsin landowners who 

have had a verified wolf depredation 

will be able to obtain limited-duration 

permits from WI DNR to kill a limited 

number of depredating wolves on land 

they own or lease, based on the size of 

the pack causing the local depredations 

(WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Such permits 

would be issued to: (1) Landowners 

with verified permits on their property 

within the last 2 years; (2) landowners 

within 1 mile of properties with verified 

wolf depredations during the calendar 

year; (3) landowners with vulnerable 

livestock within WI DNR-designated 

proactive control areas; (4) landowners 

with human safety concerns on their 

property, and (5) landowners with 

verified harassment of livestock on their 

property (WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Limit on 

number of wolves to control will be 

based on estimated number of wolves in 

the pack causing depredation problems. 

In addition, landowners and lessees of 

land statewide will be allowed to kill a 

wolf without obtaining a permit ‘‘in the 

act of killing, wounding, or biting a 

domestic animal,’’ the incident must be 

reported to a conservation warden 

within 24 hours and the landowners are 

required to turn any dead wolves over 

to the WI DNR (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22– 

23; WI DNR 2008, p. 6). During the 19 

months wolves were Federally delisted 

in 2007 and 2008, 5 wolves were shot 

in the act of depredations on domestic 

animals, and 2 wolves were shot by one 

landowner out of 67 permits issued. 

One wolf was shot in the act of attack 

on domestic animals during 2 months 

when wolves were delisted in 2009. 

The updated Wisconsin Plan also 

envisions the possibility of intensive 

control management actions in subzones of the larger wolf management 

zones (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). 

Triggering actions and type of controls 

planned for these ‘‘proactive control 

areas’’ are listed in recent versions of the 

WI DNR depredation control guidelines 

(WI DNR 2008, pp. 7–9). Controls on 

these actions would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis to address specific 

problems, and would likely be carried 

out only in areas that lack suitable 

habitat, have extensive agricultural 

lands with little forest interspersion, in 

urban or suburban settings, and only 

when the State wolf population is well 

above the management goal of 350 

wolves outside Indian reservations in 

late-winter surveys. The use of intensive 

population management in small areas 

will be adapted as experience is gained 

with implementing and evaluating 

localized control actions (Wydeven 

2006, pers. comm.). 

We have evaluated future lethal 

depredation control based upon verified 

depredation incidents over the last 

decade and the impacts of the 

implementation of similar lethal control 

of depredating wolves under 50 CFR 

17.40(d) for Minnesota, § 17.40(o) for 

Wisconsin and Michigan, and section 

10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for Wisconsin and 

Michigan. Under those authorities, WI 

DNR and Wildlife Services trapped and 

euthanized 17 wolves in 2003, 24 in 

2004, 29 in 2005, 18 in 2006, 37 in 2007, 

39 in 2008, 9 in 2009, and 16 in 2010 

(WI DNR 2006a, p. 32; Wydeven et al. 

2008, pp. 8–9; Wydeven et al. 2009, pp. 

6–7; Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 15; 

Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 3). Although 

these lethal control authorities applied 

to Wisconsin and Michigan DNRs for 

only a portion of 2003 (April through 

December) and 2005 (all of January for 

both States; April 1 and April 19, for 

Wisconsin and Michigan respectively, 

through September 13), they covered 

nearly all of the verified wolf 

depredations during 2003–05, and thus 

provide a reasonable measure of annual 

lethal depredation control. Lethal 

control authority only occurred for 

about 3.5 months in 2006. 

For 2003, 2004, and 2005, this 

represents 5.1 percent, 6.4 percent, 7.4 

percent (including the several possible 

wolf-dog hybrids), respectively, of the 

late-winter population of Wisconsin 

wolves during the previous winter. Note 

that some of the wolves euthanized after 

August 1 were young-of-the-year who 

were not present during the late-winter 

survey, so the cited percentages are 

overestimates. 

This level of lethal depredation 

control was followed by a wolf 

population increase of 11 percent from 

2003 to 2004, 17 percent from 2004 to 

2005, and 7 percent from 2005 to 2006 

(Wydeven and Jurewicz 2005, p. 5; 

Wydeven et al. 2006a, p. 10). Limited 

lethal control authority was granted to 

WI DNR in 2006 by a section 10 permit 

resulting in removal of 18 wolves (3.9 

percent of winter wolf population), and 

this permit remained in effect for 3.5 

months (Wydeven et al. 2007, p. 7). 

Lethal depredation control was again 

authorized in the State while wolves 

were delisted in 2007 (9.5 months) and 

2008 (9 months). During those times, 40 

and 43 wolves, respectively, were killed 

for depredation control (by Wildlife 

Services or by legal landowner action), 

representing 7 and 8 percent of the latewinter population of Wisconsin wolves 

during the previous year. 

This level of lethal depredation 

control was followed by a wolf 

population increase of 0.5 percent from 

2007 to 2008, and 12 percent from 2008 

to 2009, (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 

2008, pp. 19–22; Wydeven et al. 2009a, 

p. 6). Authority for lethal control on 

depredating wolves only occurred for 2 

months in 2009. During that time, eight 

wolves were euthanized for depredation 

control by USDA–WS, and one wolf was 

shot by a landowner; additionally a wolf 

was captured and euthanized by USDA– 

WS for human safety concerns later in 

2009 after relisting (Wydeven et al. 

2010, p. 15). Thus in 2009, 10 wolves, 

or 2 percent of the winter wolf 

population, were removed in control 

activities. 

The Wisconsin wolf population in 

winter 2010 grew to 690 wolves, an 

increase of 8 percent from the wolf 

population in 2009 (Wydeven et al. 

2010, pp. 12–13). In 2010, authority for 

lethal control of wolves depredating 

livestock was not available in 

Wisconsin, but 16 wolves or 2 percent 

of the winter population were removed 

for human safety concerns (Wydeven et 

al. 2011, p. 3). This provides strong 

evidence that this form and magnitude 

of depredation control will not 

adversely impact the viability of the 

Wisconsin wolf population. The 

locations of depredation incidents 

provide additional evidence that lethal 

control will not have an adverse impact 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26127 

on the State’s wolf population. Most 

livestock depredations are caused by 

packs near the northern forest-farm land 

interface. Few depredations occur in 

core wolf range and in large blocks of 

public land. Thus, lethal depredation 

control actions will not impact most of 

the Wisconsin wolf population (WI DNR 

2006a, p. 30). 

Control actions in Wisconsin also 

resulted in removal of wolf-dog hybrids 

from the wild that had begun 

associating with packs. Wolf-dog hybrid 

removal in depredation control activity 

by USDA–WS included 3 in 2005, 1 in 

2007, 2 in 2008, and 1 in 2010 (WI DNR 

files). 

One substantive change to lethal 

control that will result from the 

proposed Federal delisting is the ability 

of a small number of private 

landowners, whose farms have a history 

of recurring wolf depredation, to obtain 

DNR permits to kill depredating wolves 

(WI DNR 2006a, p. 23; WI DNR 2008, p. 

8). During the time wolves were 

Federally delisted from March 12, 2007 

through September 29, 2008, the DNR 

issued 67 such permits, resulting in 2 

wolves being killed. Some landowners 

received permits more than once and 

permits were issued for up to 90 days 

at a time and restricted to specific 

calendar years. During that same time 

period, under Wisconsin depredation 

management guidelines, landowners 

were allowed to shoot wolves in the act 

of attacks on domestic animals on 

private land without a permit; under 

that authority, landowners killed a total 

of five wolves. The death of these seven 

additional wolves—only one percent of 

the State’s wolves in 2008—did not 

affect the viability of the population. 

Another substantive change after the 

proposed delisting may be potential 

proactive trapping or ‘‘intensive control’’ 

of wolves in limited areas as described 

above. We are confident that the number 

of wolves killed by these actions will 

not impact the long-term viability of the 

Wisconsin wolf population, because 

generally less than 15 percent of packs 

cause depredations that would initiate 

such controls, and ‘‘proactive’’ controls 

will be carried out only if the State’s 

late-winter wolf population exceeds 350 

animals outside Indian reservations. 

The State’s current guidelines for 

conducting depredation control actions 

say that no control trapping will be 

conducted on wolves that kill ‘‘dogs that 

are free-roaming, roaming at large, 

hunting, or training on public lands, 

and all other lands except land owned 

or leased by the dog owner’’ (WI DNR 

2008, p. 5). Controls would be applied 

on wolves depredating pet dogs attacked 

near homes and wolves attacking 

livestock, which in 2010 included 25 

packs attacking livestock (23 packs that 

were also documented in the previous 

winter surveys), 8 packs attacking dogs 

at homes, and 5 packs attacking both 

livestock and dogs. Thus control would 

have been applied to 31 packs (17 

percent of State packs) previously 

detected and 2 new packs. Because of 

these state-imposed limitations, we 

believe that lethal control of wolves 

depredating on hunting dogs will be 

rare and, therefore, will not be a 

significant additional source of 

mortality in Wisconsin. 

Lethal control of wolves that attack 

captive deer is included in the WI DNR 

depredation control program, because 

farm-raised deer are considered to be 

livestock under Wisconsin law (WI DNR 

2008, pp. 5–6; 2006c, 12.52). However, 

Wisconsin regulations for deer farm 

fencing have been strengthened, and it 

is unlikely that more than an occasional 

wolf will need to be killed to end wolf 

depredations inside deer farms in the 

foreseeable future. Claims for wolf 

depredation compensation are rejected 

if the claimant is not in compliance 

with regulations regarding farm-raised 

deer fencing or livestock carcass 

disposal (Wisconsin Statutes 90.20 & 

90.21, WI DNR 2006c 12.54). 

Data from verified wolf depredations 

in recent years indicate that depredation 

on livestock is likely to increase as long 

as the Wisconsin wolf population 

increases in numbers and range. Wolf 

packs establishing in more marginal 

habitat with high acreage of pasture 

land are more likely to become 

depredators (Treves et al. 2004, p. 121– 

122). Most large areas of forest land and 

public lands are included in Wisconsin 

Wolf Management Zones 1 and 2, and 

they have already been colonized by 

wolves. Therefore, new areas likely to 

be colonized by wolves in the future 

will be in Zones 3 and 4, where they 

will be exposed to much higher 

densities of farms, livestock, and 

residences. During 2008, of farms 

experiencing wolf depredation, 25 

percent (8 of 32) were in Zone 3, yet 

only 4 percent of the State wolf 

population occurs in this zone 

(Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 23). Further 

expansion of wolves into Zone 3 would 

likely lead to an increase in depredation 

incidents and an increase in lethal 

control actions against Zone 3 wolves. 

However, these Zone 3 mortalities will 

have no impact on wolf population 

viability in Wisconsin because of the 

much larger wolf populations in Zones 

1 and 2. 

For the foreseeable future, the wolf 

population in Zones 1 and 2 will 

continue to greatly exceed the recovery 

goal in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern 

Timber Wolf of 200 late-winter wolves 

for an isolated population and 100 

wolves for a subpopulation connected to 

the larger Minnesota population, 

regardless of the extent of wolf mortality 

from all causes in Zones 3 and 4. 

Ongoing annual wolf population 

monitoring by WI DNR will provide 

timely and accurate data to evaluate the 

effects of wolf management under the 

Wisconsin Plan. 

The possibility of a public harvest of 

wolves is acknowledged in the 

Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan and 

in plan updates (WI DNR 1999, 

Appendix D; 2006c, p. 23). However, 

the question of whether a public harvest 

will be initiated and the details of such 

a harvest are far from resolved. Public 

attitudes toward a wolf population in 

excess of 350 would have to be fully 

evaluated, as would the impacts from 

other mortalities, before a public harvest 

could be initiated. 

The Wisconsin Conservation 

Congress, a group that advises the WI 

DNR on issues of fishing and hunting 

regulations, held hearings in 2008 

(while wolves were Federally delisted 

in the WGL) to gather information on 

the public’s attitudes toward a public 

harvest of wolves in the State. Of the 

people attending those meetings, 86 

percent recommended that efforts begin 

to develop public harvest regulations for 

wolves in the State, indicating a strong 

interest among hunters and anglers to 

begin such development. Establishing a 

public harvest, however, would be 

preceded by extensive public input, 

including public hearings, and would 

require legislative authorization and 

approval by the Wisconsin Natural 

Resources Board. Because of the steps 

that must precede a public harvest of 

wolves and the uncertainty regarding 

the possibility of, and the details of, any 

such program, we consider public 

harvest of Wisconsin wolves to be 

highly speculative at this time. The 

Service will closely monitor any steps 

taken by States and Tribes within the 

proposed WGL DPS to establish any 

public harvest of wolves during our 

post-delisting monitoring program. 

Future updates for the Wisconsin wolf 

management and conservation plan will 

likely contain more specific language on 

any potential public harvest for the 

State. The WI DNR is committed to 

maintaining a wolf population at 350 

wolves outside of Indian reservations, 

which translates to a statewide 

population of 361 to 385 wolves in late 

winter. No harvest would be considered 

if the wolf population fell below this 

goal (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15, 16). Any 

harvest would consist of limited permits 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26128 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

on limited portions of the wolf range to 

reduce wolf-human conflict, and 

extensive areas in wolf range would be 

closed to harvest of wolves (WI DNR 

1999, p. 21). Also, the fact that the 

Wisconsin Plan calls for State relisting 

of the wolf as a threatened species if the 

population falls to fewer than 250 for 3 

years provides a strong assurance that 

any future public harvest is not likely to 

threaten the persistence of the 

population (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15–17). 

Based on wolf population data, the 

current Wisconsin Plan and the 2006 

updates, we believe that any public 

harvest plan would continue to 

maintain the State wolf population well 

above the recovery goal of 200 wolves 

in late winter. 

The Michigan Wolf Management Plan 

In 1997, the Michigan DNR finalized 

the Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and 

Management Plan (MI DNR 1997). That 

plan was developed when the number 

of wolves in the State was relatively 

small, and focused on recovery. In 2001, 

the MI DNR began reevaluating the 1997 

Plan and appointed a committee to 

evaluate wolf recovery and management 

in the State. As a result of that 

evaluation, MI DNR concluded that the 

1997 Plan needed revising, which 

prompted a more formal review, 

including extensive stakeholder input. 

Recognizing that wolf recovery had been 

achieved in Michigan, additional 

scientific knowledge had been gained, 

and new social issues had arisen since 

the 1997 Plan was drafted, the focus of 

the revised plan shifted from a recovery 

plan to a wolf management plan. To 

assist in this endeavor, the DNR 

convened a Michigan Wolf Management 

Roundtable, composed of a diverse 

group of citizens spanning the spectrum 

of those interested in, and impacted by, 

wolf recovery and management in 

Michigan, including Tribal entities and 

organizations focused on agriculture, 

hunting and trapping, the environment, 

animal protection, law enforcement and 

public safety, and tourism. 

The Roundtable was asked to review 

the 1997 wolf management goal, to set 

priorities for management issues, and to 

recommend strategic goals or policies 

the DNR should use in addressing the 

management issues. The Roundtable 

provided ‘‘guiding principles’’ for 

managing wolves and wolf-related 

issues following Federal delisting 

(Michigan Wolf Management 

Roundtable 2006, pp. 6–7). Those 

guiding principles strongly influenced 

the 2008 Michigan Wolf Management 

Plan (MI Plan) (MI DNR 2008a). 

The 2008 MI Plan describes the wolf 

recovery goals and management actions 

needed to maintain a viable wolf 

population in the UP of Michigan, while 

facilitating wolf-related benefits and 

minimizing conflicts. The four principal 

goals are to ‘‘1) maintain a viable 

Michigan wolf population above a level 

that would warrant its classification as 

threatened or endangered; 2) facilitate 

wolf-related benefits; 3) minimize wolfrelated conflicts; and 4) conduct 

science-based wolf management with 

socially acceptable methods’’ (MI DNR 

2008a, p. 22). The Michigan Plan details 

wolf management actions, including 

public education and outreach 

activities, annual wolf population and 

health monitoring, research, 

depredation control, ensuring adequate 

legal protection for wolves, and prey 

and habitat management. It does not 

address the potential need for wolf 

recovery or management in the Lower 

Peninsula, nor wolf management within 

Isle Royale National Park (where the 

wolf population is fully protected by the 

National Park Service). 

As with the WI Plan, the MI DNR has 

chosen to manage the State’s wolves as 

though they are an isolated population 

that receives no genetic or demographic 

benefits from immigrating wolves, even 

though their population will continue to 

be connected with populations in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Canada. The 

Michigan wolf population must exceed 

200 wolves in order to achieve the 

Plan’s first goal of maintaining a viable 

wolf population in the UP. This number 

is consistent with the Federal Recovery 

Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf’s 

definition of a viable, isolated wolf 

population (USFWS 1992, p. 25). The 

MI Plan, however, clearly states that 200 

wolves is not the target population size, 

and that a larger population may be 

necessary to meet the other goals of the 

Plan. Therefore, the State will maintain 

a wolf population that will ‘‘provide all 

of the ecological and social benefits 

valued by the public’’ while 

‘‘minimizing and resolving conflicts 

where they occur’’ (MI DNR 2008a, pp. 

22–23). We strongly support this 

approach, as it provides assurance that 

a viable wolf population will remain in 

the UP regardless of the future fate of 

wolves in Wisconsin or Ontario. 

The 2008 Michigan Plan identifies 

wolf population monitoring as a priority 

activity, and specifically states that the 

WI DNR will monitor wolf abundance 

annually for at least 5 years postdelisting (MI DNR 2008a, pp. 31–32). 

This includes monitoring to assess wolf 

presence in the northern Lower 

Peninsula. As discussed previously, the 

size of the wolf population in Michigan 

is determined by extensive radio and 

snow tracking surveys. Recently the MI 

DNR also conducted a field evaluation 

of a less expensive ‘‘Minnesota-type’’ 

wolf survey. However, similar to WI 

DNR’s experience, the evaluation 

concluded that the method 

overestimated wolf numbers, and is not 

suitable for use on the State’s wolf 

population as it currently is distributed 

(Beyer in litt. 2006b). 

From 1989 through 2006, the WI DNR 

attempted to count wolves throughout 

the entire UP. As the wolf population 

increased, this method became more 

difficult. In the winter of 2006–07, the 

MI DNR implemented a new sampling 

approach based on an analysis by Potvin 

et al. (2005, p. 1668) to increase the 

efficiency of the State survey. The new 

approach is based on a geographically 

based stratified random sample and 

produces an unbiased, regional estimate 

of wolf abundance. The UP was 

stratified into three sampling areas, and 

within each stratum the DNR 

intensively surveys roughly 40 to 50 

percent of the wolf habitat area 

annually. Computer simulations have 

shown that such a geographically 

stratified monitoring program will 

produce unbiased and precise estimates 

of the total wolf population which can 

be statistically compared to estimates 

derived from the previous method to 

detect significant changes in the UP 

wolf population (Beyer in litt 2006b, see 

attachment by Drummer; Lederle in litt. 

2006; Roell et al. 2009, p. 3). 

Another component of wolf 

population monitoring is monitoring 

wolf health. The MI DNR will continue 

to monitor the impact of parasites and 

disease on the viability of wolf 

populations in the State through 

necropsies of dead wolves and 

analyzing biological samples from 

captured live wolves. Prior to 2004, MI 

DNR vaccinated all captured wolves for 

canine distemper and parvovirus and 

treated them for mange. These 

inoculations were discontinued to 

provide more natural biotic conditions 

and to provide biologists with an 

unbiased estimate of disease-caused 

mortality rates in the population (Roell 

in litt. 2005b). Since diseases and 

parasites are not currently a significant 

threat to the Michigan wolf population, 

the MI DNR is continuing the practice 

of not actively managing disease. If 

monitoring indicates that diseases or 

parasites may pose a threat to the wolf 

population, the MI DNR will again 

consider more active management 

similar to that conducted prior to 2004. 

The 2008 Plan includes maintaining 

habitat and prey necessary to sustain a 

viable wolf population in the State as a 

management component. This includes 

maintaining prey populations required 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26129 

for a viable wolf population while 

providing for sustainable human uses, 

maintaining habitat linkages to allow for 

wolf dispersal, and minimizing 

disturbance at known, active wolf dens 

(MI DNR 2008a, pp. 36–41). 

The Plan does not determine whether 

a public harvest will be used as a 

management strategy in Michigan, but it 

discusses developing a ‘‘socially and 

biologically responsible policy 

regarding public harvest’’ (MI DNR 

2008a, p. 65). Instituting public harvest 

during a regulated season would first 

require that the wolf be classified as a 

‘‘game animal’’ in the State. Gameanimal status in Michigan may be 

designated only by the State Legislature 

and, additionally, only the State 

Legislature could authorize the first 

harvest season. If such designation and 

authorization were conferred, the 

Michigan Natural Resources 

Commission would then need to enact 

regulations pertaining to the methods of 

a public harvest. 

To minimize illegal take, the 2008 

Plan calls for enacting and enforcing 

regulations to ensure adequate legal 

protection for wolves in the State. 

Under State regulations, wolves could 

be classified as threatened, endangered, 

game, or protected animal, all of which 

prohibit killing (or harming) the species 

except under a permit, license, or 

specific conditions. As discussed above, 

designating a species as a ‘‘game animal’’ 

would require action by the State 

Legislature. Michigan reclassified 

wolves from endangered to threatened 

in June 2002, and in April 2009, 

removed gray wolves from the State’s 

Threatened and Endangered species list 

and amended the Wildlife Conservation 

Order to grant ‘‘protected animal’’ status 

to the gray wolf in the State (Roell 2009, 

pers. comm.). A person who commits a 

violation regarding the possession or 

taking of most wildlife species with the 

four legal designations (threatened, 

endangered, game, or protected animal) 

in Michigan is guilty of a misdemeanor 

punishable by imprisonment for not 

more than 90 days, or a fine of not less 

than $100 or more than $1,000, or both. 

Penalties may also include costs of 

prosecution, loss of hunting privileges, 

and reimbursing the value of the animal 

($1,500 for a threatened or endangered 

species, $100 to $500 for most game 

species, and $100 for protected animals) 

(MI DNR 2008a, p. 35). 

The 2008 Plan emphasizes the need 

for public education efforts that focus 

on living with a recovered wolf 

population and ways to manage wolves 

and wolf-human interaction (both 

positive and negative). The Plan 

recommends continuing reimbursement 

for depredation losses, citizen 

stakeholder involvement in the wolf 

management program, continuing 

important research efforts, and 

minimizing the impacts of captive 

wolves and wolf-dog hybrids on the 

wild wolf population (MI DNR 2008a, 

pp. 31, 59, 61, and 66). 

The 2008 Michigan Plan calls for 

establishing a wolf management 

advisory group that would meet 

annually to monitor the progress made 

toward implementing the Plan. 

Furthermore, the Plan will be reviewed 

and updated at 5-year intervals, to 

address ‘‘ecological, social, and 

regulatory’’ changes (MI DNR 2008a, p. 

66). The plan also addresses currently 

available and potential new sources of 

funding to offset costs associated with 

wolf management. 

The MI DNR has long been an 

innovative leader in wolf recovery 

efforts, exemplified by its initiation of 

the nation’s first attempt to reintroduce 

wild wolves to vacant historical wolf 

habitat in 1974 (Weise et al. 1975). The 

MI DNR’s history of leadership in wolf 

recovery and its repeated written 

commitments to ensure the continued 

viability of a Michigan wolf population 

above a level that would trigger State or 

Federal listing as threatened or 

endangered further reinforces that the 

revised 2008 Michigan Wolf 

Management Plan will provide adequate 

regulatory mechanisms for Michigan 

wolves. The DNR’s primary goal 

remains to conduct management to 

maintain the wolf population in 

Michigan above the minimum size that 

is biologically required for a viable, 

isolated population and to provide for 

ecological and social benefits valued by 

the public while resolving conflicts 

where they occur (MI DNR 2008a, p. 

22). 

Depredation Control in Michigan— 

Data from Michigan show a general 

increase in confirmed events of wolf 

depredations on livestock (Table 2). 

These livestock depredations occurred 

at 59 different UP farms (approximately 

7 percent of the existing farms); 16 (27 

percent) of those 59 farms have 

experienced more than one depredation 

event. Over 80 percent of the 

depredation events were on cattle, with 

the rest on sheep, poultry, rabbits, and 

captive cervids (Roell et al. 2009, pp. 9, 

11). In 2010, 26 (57 percent) of the 

depredation events occurred on a single 

farm. The relationship between the 

number of wolves and the number of 

depredation events suggests that for 

every 100 additional wolves in the 

population there will be about 3 

additional livestock depredation events 

per year (Roell et al. 2010, p. 6). 

TABLE 2—NUMBER OF VERIFIED LIVESTOCK DEPREDATION EVENTS BY

WOLVES IN MICHIGAN BY YEAR

Year Number of animals killed 

1998 ............ 3 

1999 ............ 1 

2000 ............ 5 

2001 ............ 3 

2002 ............ 5 

2003 ............ 13 

2004 ............ 11 

2005 ............ 5 

2006 ............ 10 

2007 ............ 14 

2008 ............ 14 

2009 ............ 12 

2010 ............ 46 

Michigan has not experienced as high 

a level of attacks on dogs by wolves as 

Wisconsin, although a slight increase in 

such attacks has occurred over the last 

decade. Yearly losses vary and actions 

of a single pack of wolves can be an 

important influence. In Michigan, there 

is not a strong relationship between 

wolf depredation on dogs and wolf 

abundance (Roell et al. 2010, p. 7). The 

number of dogs killed in the State 

between 1996 and 2010 was 34; 12 

additional dogs were injured in wolf 

attacks during that same period. Of the 

34 wolf-related dog deaths during that 

time, 50 percent involved hounds used 

to hunt bears (Roell 2010, pers. comm.). 

Similar to Wisconsin, MI DNR has 

guidelines for its depredation control 

program, stating that lethal control will 

not be used when wolves kill dogs that 

are free-roaming, hunting, or training on 

public lands. Lethal control of wolves, 

however, would be considered if wolves 

have killed confined pets and remain in 

the area where more pets are being held 

(MI DNR 2005a, p. 6). However, in 2008, 

the Michigan Legislature passed a law 

that would allow dog owners or their 

designated agents to remove, capture, 

or, if deemed necessary, use lethal 

means to destroy a gray wolf that is in 

the act of preying upon the owner’s dog, 

which includes dogs free-roaming or 

hunting on public lands. 

During the several years that lethal 

control of depredating wolves had been 

conducted in Michigan, there is no 

evidence of resulting adverse impacts to 

the maintenance of a viable wolf 

population in the UP. A total of 41 

wolves were killed by the MI DNR and 

USDA –Wildlife Services in response to 

depredation events during the time 

period when permits or special rules 

were in effect or while wolves were not 

on the Federal list of threatened and 

endangered species (Roell et al. 2010, p. 

8). Four, five, two, seven, fourteen, 

eight, and one wolves, respectively, 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26130 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

were euthanized in 2003, 2004, 2005, 

2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (2 months) 

(Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88; Roell in litt. 

2006, p. 1; Roell et al. 2010, p. 19; Roell 

2010, pers. comm.). This represents 1.2 

percent, 1.7 percent, 0.5 percent, 1.6 

percent, 2.7 percent, 2.5 percent, and 

0.2 percent, respectively, of the UP’s 

late-winter population of wolves during 

the previous winter. Following this 

level of lethal depredation control, the 

UP wolf population increased 12 

percent from 2003 to 2004, 13 percent 

from 2004 to 2005, 7 percent from 2005 

to 2006, 17 percent from 2006 to 2007, 

2 percent from 2007 to 2008, and 11 

percent from 2008 to 2009, 

demonstrating that the wolf population 

continues to increase at a healthy rate 

(Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR 

2006a, Roell et al. 2009, p. 4). Lethal 

control of wolves during livestock 

depredation was not available in 2010. 

Post-delisting Depredation Control in 

Michigan—Following the proposed 

Federal delisting, wolf depredation 

control in Michigan would be carried 

out according to the 2008 Michigan 

Wolf Recovery and Management Plan 

(MI DNR 2008) and any Tribal wolf 

management plans that may be 

developed in the future for reservations 

in occupied wolf range. 

To provide depredation control 

guidance when lethal control is an 

option, MI DNR has developed detailed 

instructions for incident investigation 

and response (MI DNR 2005a). 

Verification of wolf depredation 

incidents will be conducted by MI DNR 

or USDA–APHIS—Wildlife Services 

personnel (working under a cooperative 

agreement with MI DNR or at the 

request of a Tribe, depending on the 

location) who have been trained in 

depredation investigation techniques. 

The MI DNR specifies that the 

verification process will use the 

investigative techniques that have been 

developed and successfully used in 

Minnesota by Wildlife Services (MI 

DNR 2005a, Append. B, pp. 9–10). 

Following verification, one or more of 

several options will be implemented to 

address the depredation problem. 

Technical assistance, consisting of 

advice or recommendations to reduce 

wolf conflicts, will be provided. 

Technical assistance may also include 

providing to the landowner various 

forms of noninjurious behavior 

modification materials, such as flashing 

lights, noise makers, temporary fencing, 

and fladry. 

Trapping and translocating 

depredating wolves has been used in the 

past, resulting in the translocation of 23 

UP wolves during 1998–2003 (Beyer et 

al. 2006, p. 88), but as with Wisconsin, 

suitable relocation sites are becoming 

rarer, and there is local opposition to 

the release of translocated depredators. 

Furthermore, none of the past 

translocated depredators have remained 

near their release sites, making this a 

questionable method to end the 

depredation behaviors of these wolves 

(MI DNR 2005a, pp. 3–4). Therefore, 

reducing depredation problems by 

relocation is no longer recommended as 

a management tool in Michigan (MI 

DNR 2008a, p. 57). 

Lethal control of depredating wolves 

is likely to be the most common future 

response in situations when improved 

livestock husbandry and wolf behavior 

modification techniques (for example, 

flashing lights, noise-making devices) 

are judged to be inadequate. As wolf 

numbers continue to increase on the UP, 

the number of verified depredations will 

also increase, and will probably do so at 

a rate that exceeds the rate of wolf 

population increase. This will occur as 

wolves increasingly disperse into and 

occupy areas of the UP with more 

livestock and more human residences, 

leading to additional exposure to 

domestic animals. In a previous 

application for a lethal take permit 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, MI 

DNR requested authority to euthanize 

up to 10 percent of the late-winter wolf 

population annually (MI DNR 2005b, p. 

1). However, based on 2003–05 and 

2007–09 depredation data, it is likely 

that significantly less than 10 percent 

lethal control will be needed over the 

next several years. 

The MI Plan provides 

recommendations to guide management 

of various conflicts caused by wolf 

recovery, including depredation on 

livestock and pets, human safety, and 

public concerns regarding wolf impacts 

on other wildlife. We view the MI Plan’s 

depredation and conflict control 

strategies to be conservative, in that they 

commit to nonlethal depredation 

management whenever possible, oppose 

preventative wolf removal where 

problems have not yet occurred, 

encourage incentives for best 

management practices that decrease 

wolf-livestock conflicts without 

impacting wolves, and support closely 

monitored and enforced take by 

landowners of wolves ‘‘in the act of 

livestock depredation’’ or under limited 

permits if depredation is confirmed and 

nonlethal methods are determined to be 

ineffective. Based on these components 

of the revised MI Plan and the stated 

goal for maintaining wolf populations at 

or above recovery goals, the Service 

believes any wolf management changes 

implemented following the proposed 

delisting would not be implemented in 

a manner that results in significant 

reductions in Michigan wolf 

populations. The MI DNR remains 

committed to ensuring a viable wolf 

population above a level that would 

trigger relisting as either threatened or 

endangered in the future (MI DNR 

2008a, p. 9). 

Similar to Wisconsin, Michigan 

livestock owners are compensated when 

they lose livestock as a result of a 

confirmed wolf depredation. Currently 

there are two complementary 

compensation programs in Michigan, 

one funded by the MI DNR and 

implemented by Michigan Department 

of Agriculture (MI DA) and another set 

up through donations (from Defenders 

of Wildlife and private citizens) and 

administered by the International Wolf 

Center (IWC), a nonprofit organization. 

From the inception of the program to 

2000, MI DA has paid 90 percent of full 

market value of depredated livestock at 

the time of loss. The IWC account was 

used to pay the remaining 10 percent 

from 2000 to 2002 when MI DA began 

paying 100 percent of the full market 

value of depredated livestock. The IWC 

account continues to be used to pay the 

difference between value at time of loss 

and the full fall market value for 

depredated young-of-the-year livestock, 

and together the two funds have 

provided nearly $38,000 in livestock 

loss compensation through 2008 (Roell 

et al., p. 15). Neither of these programs 

provides compensation for pets or for 

veterinary costs to treat wolf-inflicted 

livestock injuries. The MI DNR plans to 

continue cooperating with MI DA and 

other organizations to maintain the wolf 

depredation compensation program (MI 

DNR 2008a, pp. 59–60). 

In 2009, Michigan passed two House 

Bills that would become effective after 

Federal delisting. Those bills authorized 

a livestock or dog owner (or a 

designated agent) to ‘‘remove, capture, 

or use lethal means to destroy a wolf 

that is in the act of preying upon’’ the 

owner’s livestock or dog. During the 2 

months that wolves were Federally and 

State delisted in 2009, no wolves were 

killed under these authorizations. We 

are confident that the limited number of 

wolves expected to be taken under these 

Bills would not affect the viability of the 

Michigan wolf population. 

Regulatory Mechanisms in Other States 

and Tribal Areas Within the Proposed 

WGL DPS 

North Dakota and South Dakota 

North Dakota lacks a State endangered 

species law or regulation. Any wolves in 

the State currently are classified as 

furbearers, with a closed season. North 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26131 

Dakota Game and Fish Department is 

unlikely to change the species’ State 

classification immediately following the 

proposed Federal delisting. Wolves are 

included in the State’s Wildlife Action 

Plan as a ‘‘Level 3’’ Species of 

Conservation Priority. Level 3 species 

are those ‘‘having a moderate level of 

conservation priority, but are believed 

to be peripheral or do not breed in 

North Dakota.’’ Placement on this list 

gives species greater access to 

conservation funding, but does not 

afford any additional regulatory or 

legislative protection (Bicknell in litt. 

2009). 

Currently any wolves that may be in 

South Dakota are not State listed as 

threatened or endangered, nor is there a 

hunting or trapping season for them. 

Upon the effective date of any Federal 

delisting, gray wolves in eastern South 

Dakota will fall under general 

protections afforded all State wildlife. 

These protections require specific 

provisions—seasons and regulations— 

be established prior to initiating any 

form of legal take. Thus, the State could 

choose to implement a hunting or 

trapping season for wolves east of the 

Missouri River; however, absent some 

definitive action to establish a season, 

wolves would remain protected. 

Following the proposed Federal 

delisting, any verified depredating 

wolves east of the Missouri will likely 

be trapped and killed by the USDA– 

APHIS–Wildlife Services program 

(Larson in litt. 2005). Non-depredating 

wolves in North and South Dakota not 

on the Federal list will continue to 

receive protection by the States’ wildlife 

protection statutes unless specific action 

is taken to open a hunting or trapping 

season or otherwise remove existing 

protections. 

Post-delisting Depredation Control in 

North and South Dakota—Since 1993, 

five incidents of verified wolf 

depredation have occurred in North 

Dakota, with one in September 2003 and 

two more in December 2005. There have 

been no verified wolf depredations in 

South Dakota in recent decades. 

Following the proposed Federal 

delisting we assume that lethal control 

of a small number of depredating 

wolves will occur in one or both of 

these States. Lethal control of 

depredating wolves may have adverse 

impacts on the ability of wolves to 

occupy any small areas of suitable or 

marginally suitable habitat that may 

exist in the States. However, lethal 

control of depredating wolves in these 

two States will have no adverse effects 

on the long-term viability of wolf 

populations in the proposed WGL DPS 

as a whole, because the existence of a 

wolf or a wolf population in the Dakotas 

will not make a meaningful contribution 

to the maintenance of the current viable, 

self-sustaining, and representative 

metapopulation of wolves in the 

proposed WGL DPS. 

Other States in the Western Great Lakes 

DPS 

The proposed DPS includes the 

portion of Iowa that is north of Interstate 

Highway 80, which is approximately 60 

percent of the State. The Iowa Natural 

Resource Commission currently lists 

wolves as furbearers, with a closed 

season (Howell in litt. 2005). If the State 

retains this listing following the 

proposed Federal delisting of the DPS, 

wolves dispersing into northern Iowa 

will be protected by State law. 

The portion of Illinois that is north of 

Interstate Highway 80, less than onefifth of the State, is included in the DPS, 

and is part of the geographic area where 

wolves are proposed for removal from 

Federal protection. Gray wolves are 

currently protected in Illinois as a 

threatened species under the Illinois 

Endangered Species Protection Act (520 

ILCS 10). Thus, following the proposed 

Federal delisting, wolves dispersing into 

northern Illinois would continue to be 

protected from human take by State law. 

The extreme northern portions of 

Indiana and northwestern Ohio are 

included within the proposed DPS. If 

this proposal is made final, any wolves 

that are found in this area would no 

longer be Federally protected under the 

Act. The State of Ohio classifies the gray 

wolf as ‘‘extirpated,’’ and there are no 

plans to reintroduce or recover the 

species in the State. The species lacks 

State protection, but State action is 

likely to apply some form of protection 

if wolves begin to disperse into the State 

(Caldwell in litt. 2005). Indiana DNR 

lists the gray wolf as extirpated in the 

State, and the species would receive no 

State protection under this classification 

following any Federal delisting. The 

only means to provide State protection 

would be to list them as Stateendangered, but that is not likely to 

occur unless wolves become resident in 

Indiana (Johnson in litt. 2005, in litt. 

2006). Thus, if this proposal is made 

final, Federally delisted wolves that 

might disperse into Indiana and Ohio 

would lack State protection there, 

unless these two States take specific 

action to provide new protections. 

Because the portions of Iowa, Illinois, 

Indiana, and Ohio within the proposed 

WGL DPS do not contain suitable 

habitat or currently established packs, 

depredation control in these States 

would not have any significant impact 

on the continued viability of wolf 

populations in the proposed WGL DPS. 

Tribal Management and Protection of 

Wolves 

Native American Tribes and interTribal resource management 

organizations have indicated to the 

Service that they will continue to 

conserve wolves on most, and probably 

all, Native American reservations in the 

core recovery areas of the proposed 

WGL DPS. The wolf retains great 

cultural significance and traditional 

value to many Tribes and their members 

(additional discussion is found in Factor 

E), and to retain and strengthen cultural 

connections, many Tribes oppose 

unnecessary killing of wolves on 

reservations and on ceded lands, even 

following any Federal delisting (Hunt in 

litt. 1998; Schrage in litt. 1998a; 

Schlender in litt. 1998). Some Native 

Americans view wolves as competitors 

for deer and moose, whereas others are 

interested in harvesting wolves as 

furbearers (Schrage in litt. 1998a). Many 

Tribes intend to sustainably manage 

their natural resources, wolves among 

them, to ensure that they are available 

to their descendants. Traditional natural 

resource harvest practices, however, 

often include only a minimum amount 

of regulation by the Tribal governments 

(Hunt in litt. 1998). 

Although not all Tribes with wolves 

that visit or reside on their reservations 

have completed management plans 

specific to the wolf, several Tribes have 

informed us that they have no plans or 

intentions to allow commercial or 

recreational hunting or trapping of the 

species on their lands after the proposed 

Federal delisting. The Red Lake Band of 

Chippewa Indians (Minnesota) and the 

Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa 

Indians (Michigan) have developed wolf 

monitoring and/or management plans. 

The Service has also awarded a grant to 

the Ho-Chunk Nation to identify wolf 

habitat on reservation lands. 

As a result of many past contacts 

with, and previous written comments 

from, the Midwestern Tribes and their 

inter-Tribal natural resource 

management agencies—the Great Lakes 

Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission 

(GLIFWC), the 1854 Authority, and the 

Chippewa Ottawa Treaty Authority—it 

is clear that their predominant 

sentiment is strong support for the 

continued protection of wolves at a 

level that ensures that viable wolf 

populations remain on reservations and 

throughout the treaty-ceded lands 

surrounding the reservations. While 

several Tribes stated that their members 

may be interested in killing small 

numbers of wolves for spiritual or other 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26132 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

purposes, this would be carried out in 

a manner that would not impact 

reservation or ceded territory wolf 

populations. 

The Red Lake Band of Chippewa 

Indians (Minnesota) completed a wolf 

management plan in 2010 (Red Lake 

Band of Chippewa Indians 2010). A 

primary goal of the management plan is 

to maintain wolf numbers at a level that 

will ensure the long-term survival of 

wolves on Red Lake lands. Key 

components of the plan are habitat 

management, public education, and law 

enforcement. To address human-wolf 

interactions, the plan outlines how 

wolves may be taken on Red Lake lands. 

Wolves thought to be a threat to public 

safety may be harassed at any time, and 

if they must be killed, the incident must 

be reported to Tribal law enforcement. 

Agricultural livestock are not common 

on Red Lake lands, and wolf-related 

depredation on livestock or pets is 

unlikely to be a significant management 

issue. If such events do occur, Tribal 

members may protect their livestock or 

pets by lethal means, but ‘‘* * * all 

reasonable efforts should be made to 

deter wolves using non-lethal means’’ 

(Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 

2010, p. 15). Hunting or trapping of 

wolves on Tribal lands will be 

prohibited. The Reservation currently 

has seven or eight packs with an 

estimated 40–48 wolves within its 

boundaries (Red Lake Band of 

Chippewa Indians 2010, p. 12). 

In 2009, the Little Traverse Bay Bands 

of Odawa Indians (LTBB) finalized a 

management plan for the 1855 

Reservation and portions of the 1936 

ceded territory in the northern LP of 

Michigan (Little Traverse Bay Bands of 

Odawa Indians Natural Resource 

Department 2009). The plan provides 

the framework for managing wolves on 

the LTBB Reservation with the goal of 

maintaining a viable wolf presence on 

the LTBB Reservation or within the 

northern LP should a population 

become established by (1) prescribing 

scientifically sound biological wolf 

management, research, and monitoring 

strategies; (2) addressing wolf-related 

conflicts; (3) facilitating wolf-related 

benefits; and (4) developing and 

implementing wolf-related education 

and public information. 

The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake 

Band of Minnesota Ojibwe (Council) 

approved a resolution that describes the 

sport and recreational harvest of wolves 

as an inappropriate use of the animal. 

That resolution supports limited harvest 

of wolves to be used for traditional or 

spiritual uses by enrolled Tribal 

members if the harvest is done in a 

respectful manner and would not 

negatively affect the wolf population. 

The Council is revising the Reservation 

Conservation Code to allow Tribal 

members to harvest some wolves after 

Federal delisting (Googgleye, Jr. in litt. 

2004). The Tribe is currently developing 

a wolf management plan (Mortensen 

2011, pers. comm.). In 2005, the Leech 

Lake Reservation was home to an 

estimated 75 wolves, the largest 

population of wolves on a Native 

American reservation in the 48 

conterminous States (Mortensen 2006, 

pers. comm.; White in litt. 2003). 

Although no recent surveys have been 

conducted, the number of wolves on the 

reservation likely remains the same 

(Mortensen 2009, pers. comm.). 

The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota) 

believes that the ‘‘well being of the wolf 

is intimately connected to the well 

being of the Chippewa People’’ (Schrage 

in litt. 2003). In 1998, the Band passed 

a resolution opposing Federal delisting 

and any other measure that would 

permit trapping, hunting, or poisoning 

of the wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b; in 

litt. 2003; 2009, pers. comm.). If this 

prohibition is rescinded, the Band’s 

Resource Management Division will 

coordinate with State and Federal 

agencies to ensure that any wolf hunting 

or trapping would be ‘‘conducted in a 

biologically sustainable manner’’ 

(Schrage in litt. 2003). 

The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) has 

strongly opposed State and Federal 

delisting of the gray wolf. Current Tribal 

law protects wolves from harvest, 

although harvest for ceremonial 

purposes would likely be permitted 

after Federal delisting (Symbal in litt. 

2003). 

The Menominee Indian Tribe of 

Wisconsin is committed to establishing 

a self-sustaining wolf population, 

continuing restoration efforts, ensuring 

the long-term survival of the wolf in 

Menominee, placing emphasis on the 

cultural significance of the wolf as a 

clan member, and resolving conflicts 

between wolves and humans. They are 

currently working on developing a 

Menominee Wolf Management Plan 

(Cox 2011, pers. comm.). 

The Tribe has shown a great deal of 

interest in wolf recovery and protection. 

In 2002, the Tribe offered their 

Reservation lands as a site for 

translocating seven depredating wolves 

that had been trapped by WI DNR and 

Wildlife Services. Tribal natural 

resources staff participated in the soft 

release of the wolves on the Reservation 

and helped with the subsequent radiotracking of the wolves. Although by 

early 2005 the last of these wolves died 

on the reservation, the Tribal 

conservation department continued to 

monitor another pair that had moved 

onto the Reservation, as well as other 

wolves near the reservation (Wydeven 

in litt. 2006a). When that pair produced 

pups in 2006, but the adult female was 

killed, Reservation biologists and staff 

worked diligently with the WI DNR and 

the Wildlife Science Center (Forest 

Lake, Minnesota) to raise the pups in 

captivity in the hope that they could 

later be released to the care of the adult 

male. However, the adult male died 

prior to pup release, and they were 

moved back to the Wildlife Science 

Center (Pioneer Press 2006), and were 

subsequently transferred to the 

International Wolf Center in Ely, 

Minnesota, where they remain in 

captivity. 

The Menominee Tribe continues to 

support wolf conservation and 

monitoring activity in Wisconsin. In 

recent years the Menominee Tribe has 

assisted the WI DNR in radio-telemetry 

wolf flights, allowing more regular 

flights to occur across all of northern 

Wisconsin. 

The Keweenaw Bay Indian 

Community (Michigan) will continue to 

list the wolf as a protected animal under 

the Tribal Code following any Federal 

delisting, with hunting and trapping 

prohibited (Mike Donofrio 1998, pers. 

comm.). Furthermore, the Keweenaw 

Bay Community plans to develop a 

management plan that will address 

wolves (Donofrio in litt. 2003; Warner 

20010, pers. comm.). At least three other 

Tribes (Stock-bridge Munsee 

Community, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of 

Ojibwe, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, 

and Grand Portage Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa) have indicated that 

they are currently developing Tribal 

wolf management plans. 

Several Midwestern Tribes (for 

example, the Bad River Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians and the 

LTBB) have expressed concern that 

Federal delisting will result in increased 

mortality of wolves on reservation 

lands, in the areas immediately 

surrounding the reservations, and in 

lands ceded by treaty to the Federal 

Government by the Tribes (Kiogama and 

Chingwa in litt. 2000). The Tribe’s goal 

is to reduce the threats to reservation 

wolf packs when they are temporarily 

off the reservation. Other Tribes have 

expressed interest in such an agreement. 

If this and similar agreements are 

implemented, they will provide 

additional protection to certain wolf 

packs in the western Great Lakes area. 

The GLIFWC has stated its intent to 

work closely with the States to 

cooperatively manage wolves in the 

ceded territories in the core areas, and 

will not develop a separate wolf 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26133 

management plan (Schlender in litt. 

1998). Furthermore, the Voigt Intertribal 

Task Force of GLIFWC has expressed its 

support for strong protections for the 

wolf, stating ‘‘[delisting] hinges on 

whether wolves are sufficiently restored 

and will be sufficiently protected to 

ensure a healthy and abundant future 

for our brother and ourselves’’ 

(Schlender in litt. 2004). 

According to the 1854 Authority, 

‘‘attitudes toward wolf management in 

the 1854 Ceded Territory run the gamut 

from a desire to see total protection to 

unlimited harvest opportunity.’’ 

However, the 1854 Authority would not 

‘‘implement a harvest system that would 

have any long-term negative impacts to 

wolf populations’’ (Edwards in litt. 

2003). In comments submitted for our 

2004 delisting proposal for a larger 

Eastern DPS of the gray wolf, the 1854 

Authority stated that the Authority is 

‘‘confident that under the control of 

State and Tribal management, wolves 

will continue to exist at a self-sustaining 

level in the 1854 Ceded Territory. 

Sustainable populations of wolves, their 

prey and other resources within the 

1854 Ceded Territory are goals to which 

the 1854 Authority remains committed. 

As such, we intend to work with the 

State of Minnesota and other Tribes to 

ensure successful state and Tribal 

management of healthy wolf 

populations in the 1854 Ceded 

Territory’’ (Myers in litt. 2004). The 

1854 Authority is currently developing 

a wolf management plan for the 1854 

Ceded Territory, based on the above 

principles (Edwards 2011, pers. comm.). 

While there are few written Tribal 

protections currently in place for 

wolves, the highly protective and 

reverential attitudes that have been 

expressed by Tribal authorities and 

members have assured us that any postdelisting harvest of reservation wolves 

would be very limited and would not 

adversely impact the delisted wolf 

populations. Furthermore, any offreservation harvest of wolves by Tribal 

members in the ceded territories would 

be limited to a portion of the harvestable 

surplus at some future time. Such a 

harvestable surplus would be 

determined and monitored jointly by 

State and Tribal biologists, and would 

be conducted in coordination with the 

Service and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, as is being successfully done for 

the ceded territory harvest of inland and 

Great Lakes fish, deer, bear, moose, and 

furbearers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan. Therefore, we conclude that 

any future Native American take of 

delisted wolves will not significantly 

impact the viability of the wolf 

population, either locally or across the 

proposed WGL DPS. 

The Service and the Department of 

the Interior recognize the unique status 

of the Federally recognized Tribes, their 

right to self-governance, and their 

inherent sovereign powers over their 

members and territory. If we ultimately 

determine that delisting the WGL DPS is 

supported by the best available science, 

the Department, the Service, the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA), and other 

Federal agencies, as appropriate, will 

take the needed steps to ensure that 

Tribal authority and sovereignty within 

reservation boundaries are respected as 

the States implement their wolf 

management plans and revise those 

plans in the future. Furthermore, there 

may be Tribal activities or interests 

associated with wolves encompassed 

within the Tribes’ retained rights to 

hunt, fish, and gather in treaty-ceded 

territories. The Department is available 

to assist in the exercise of any such 

rights. If biological assistance is needed, 

the Service may provide it via our field 

offices. Upon delisting, the Service 

would remain involved in the postdelisting monitoring of the wolves in 

the WGL, but all Service management 

and protection authority under the Act 

would end. Legal assistance would be 

provided to the Tribes by the 

Department of the Interior, and the BIA 

will be involved, when needed. If this 

proposal is finalized, we strongly 

encourage the States and Tribes to work 

cooperatively toward post-delisting wolf 

management. 

Consistent with our responsibilities to 

Tribes and our goal to have the most 

comprehensive data available for our 

post-delisting monitoring, if the 

proposal to delist the WGL DPS is made 

final, we will annually contact Tribes 

and their designated intertribal natural 

resource agencies within the DPS during 

the 5-year post-delisting monitoring 

period to obtain any information they 

wish to share regarding wolf 

populations, the health of those 

populations, or changes in their 

management and protection. 

Reservations within the WGL DPS that 

may have significant wolf data to 

provide during the post-delisting period 

include Bois Forte, Bad River, Fond du 

Lac, Grand Portage, Keweenaw Bay 

Indian Community, Lac Courte Oreilles, 

Lac du Flambeau, Leech Lake, 

Menominee, Oneida, Red Lake, 

Stockbridge-Munsee Community, and 

White Earth. Throughout the 5-year 

post-delisting monitoring period, the 

Service will annually contact the 

natural resource agencies of each of 

these reservations and that of the 1854 

Treaty Authority and Great Lakes Indian 

Fish and Wildlife Commission. We 

encourage the States and Tribes within 

the WGL DPS to work together on 

management and monitoring issues 

post-delisting. 

Federal Lands 

The five national forests with resident 

wolves (Superior, Chippewa, 

Chequamegon-Nicolet, Hiawatha, and 

Ottawa National Forests) in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan are all 

operating in conformance with 

standards and guidelines in their 

management plans that follow the 1992 

Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber 

Wolf’s recommendations for the eastern 

timber wolf (USDA FS 2004a, chapter 2, 

p. 31; USDA FS 2004b, chapter 2, p. 28; 

USDA FS 2004c, chapter 2, p. 19; USDA 

FS 2006a, chapter 2, p. 17; USDA FS 

2006b, chapter 2, pp. 28–29). Delisting 

is not expected to lead to an immediate 

change in these standards and 

guidelines; in fact, the Regional Forester 

for U.S. Forest Service Region 9 is 

expected to maintain the classification 

of the wolf as a Regional Forester 

Sensitive Species for at least 5 years 

after Federal delisting (Moore in litt. 

2003). Under these standards and 

guidelines, a relatively high prey base 

will be maintained, and road densities 

will be limited to current levels or 

decreased. For example, on the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest 

in Wisconsin, the standards and 

guidelines specifically include the 

protection of den sites and key 

rendezvous sites, and management of 

road densities in existing and potential 

wolf habitat (USDA 2004c, Chap. 2, p. 

19). 

The trapping of depredating wolves 

would likely be allowed on national 

forest lands under the guidelines and 

conditions specified in the respective 

State wolf management plans. However, 

there are relatively few livestock raised 

within the boundaries of national forests 

in the upper Midwest, so wolf 

depredation and lethal control of wolves 

is neither likely to be a frequent 

occurrence, nor constitute a significant 

mortality factor, for the wolves in the 

proposed WGL DPS. Similarly, in 

keeping with the practice for other 

State-managed game species, any public 

hunting or trapping season for wolves 

that might be opened in the future by 

the States would likely include hunting 

and trapping within the national forests 

(Lindquist in litt. 2005; Williamson in 

litt. 2005; Piehler in litt. 2005; Evans in 

litt. 2005). The continuation of current 

national forest management practices 

will be important in ensuring the longterm viability of wolf populations in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26134 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Wolves regularly use four units of the 

National Park System in the proposed 

WGL DPS and may occasionally use 

three or four other units. Although the 

National Park Service (NPS) has 

participated in the development of some 

of the State wolf management plans in 

this area, NPS is not bound by States’ 

plans. Instead, the NPS Organic Act and 

the NPS Management Policy on Wildlife 

generally require the agency to conserve 

natural and cultural resources and the 

wildlife present within the parks. 

National Park Service management 

policies require that native species be 

protected against harvest, removal, 

destruction, harassment, or harm 

through human action, although certain 

parks may allow some harvest in 

accordance with State management 

plans. Management emphasis in 

National Parks after delisting will 

continue to minimize the human 

impacts on wolf populations. Thus, 

because of their responsibility to 

preserve all native wildlife, units of the 

National Park System are often the most 

protective of wildlife. In the case of the 

wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS 

policies will continue to provide 

protection following the proposed 

Federal delisting. 

Management and protection of wolves 

in Voyageurs National Park, along 

Minnesota’s northern border is not 

likely to change after delisting. The 

park’s management policies require that 

‘‘native animals will be protected against 

harvest, removal, destruction, 

harassment, or harm through human 

action.’’ No population targets for 

wolves will be established for the 

National Park (Holbeck in litt. 2005). To 

reduce human disturbance, temporary 

closures around wolf denning and 

rendezvous sites will be enacted 

whenever they are discovered in the 

park. Sport hunting is already 

prohibited on park lands, regardless of 

what may be allowed beyond park 

boundaries (West in litt. 2004). A radiotelemetry study conducted between 

1987 and 1991 of wolves living in and 

adjacent to the park found that all 

mortality inside the park was due to 

natural causes (for example, killing by 

other wolves or starvation), whereas the 

majority (60–80 percent) of mortality 

outside the park was human-induced 

(for example, shooting and trapping) 

(Gogan et al. 2004, p. 22). If there is a 

need to control depredating wolves 

outside the park, which seems unlikely 

due to the current absence of 

agricultural activities adjacent to the 

park, the park would work with the 

State to conduct control activities where 

necessary (West in litt. 2004). 

The wolf population in Isle Royale 

National Park is described above (see 

Michigan Recovery). The NPS has 

indicated that it will continue to closely 

monitor and study these wolves. This 

wolf population is very small and 

isolated from the other wolf populations 

in the proposed WGL DPS; as described 

above, it is not considered to be 

significant to the recovery or long-term 

viability of the wolf (USFWS 1992, p. 

28). 

Two other units of the National Park 

System, Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway, are regularly used by wolves. 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a 

narrow strip of land along Michigan’s 

Lake Superior shoreline. Lone wolves 

periodically use, but do not appear to be 

year-round residents of, the Lakeshore. 

If denning occurs after delisting, the 

Lakeshore would protect denning and 

rendezvous sites at least as strictly as 

the Michigan Plan recommends (Gustin 

in litt. 2003). Harvesting wolves on the 

Lakeshore may be allowed (if the 

Michigan DNR allows for harvest in the 

State), but trapping is not allowed. The 

St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, in 

Wisconsin and Minnesota, is also a 

mostly linear ownership. 

Approximately 54–58 wolves from 11 

packs used the Riverway on the 

Wisconsin side in 2010 (Wydeven 2011, 

pers. comm.). The Riverway is likely to 

limit public access to denning and 

rendezvous sites and to follow other 

management and protective practices 

outlined in the respective State wolf 

management plans, although trapping is 

not allowed on NPS lands except 

possibly by Native Americans 

(Maercklein in litt. 2003). 

At least one pack of 4–5 wolves used 

the shoreline areas of the Apostle 

Islands National Lake Shore, with a 

major deer yard area occurring on 

portions of the Park Service land. Wolf 

tracks have been detected on Sand 

Island, and a wolf was photographed by 

a trail camera on the island in 

September 2009. It is not known if 

wolves periodically swim to this and 

other islands, or if they only travel to 

islands on ice in winter. 

Wolves occurring on NWRs in the 

proposed WGL DPS will be monitored, 

and refuge habitat management will 

maintain the current prey base for them 

for a minimum of 5 years after delisting. 

Trapping or hunting by government 

trappers for depredation control will not 

be authorized on NWRs. Because of the 

relatively small size of these NWRs, 

however, most or all of these packs and 

individual wolves also spend significant 

amounts of time off these NWRs. 

Wolves also occupy the Fort McCoy 

military installation in Wisconsin. In 

2003, one pack containing five adult 

wolves occupied a territory that 

included the majority of the installation; 

in 2004 and 2006, the installation had 

one pack with two adults; in 2005 there 

was a single pack with four wolves. In 

2008–09, there were seven wolves using 

the installation (Wilder 2009, pers. 

comm.). In 2010 a pack of three wolves 

occurred in the northern portions of the 

Fort, and a pack of two occurred on the 

south side (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 42). 

Management and protection of wolves 

on the installation would not change 

significantly after Federal or State 

delisting. Den and rendezvous sites 

would continue to be protected, hunting 

seasons for other species (coyote) would 

be closed during the gun-deer season, 

and current surveys would continue, if 

resources are available. Fort McCoy has 

no plans to allow a public harvest of 

wolves on the installation (Nobles in 

litt. 2004; Wydeven et al. 2005a, p. 25; 

2006a, p. 25). 

Minnesota National Guard’s (MNG) 

Camp Ripley contains parts of two pack 

territories, which typically include 10 to 

20 wolves. MNG wildlife managers try 

to have at least one wolf in each pack 

radio-collared and to fit an additional 

one or two wolves in each pack with 

satellite transmitters that may record 

long-distance movements. There have 

been no significant conflicts with 

military training or with the permit-only 

public deer-hunting program at the 

camp, and no new conflicts are 

expected following delisting. Long-term 

and intensive monitoring has detected 

only two wolf mortalities within the 

camp boundaries—both were of natural 

causes (Dirks 2009, pers. comm.). 

The protection afforded to resident 

and transient wolves, their den and 

rendezvous sites, and their prey by five 

national forests, four National Parks, 

two military facilities, and numerous 

National Wildlife Refuges in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan would further 

ensure the conservation of wolves in the 

three States after delisting. In addition, 

wolves that disperse to other units of 

the National Refuge System or the 

National Park System within the 

proposed WGL DPS will also receive the 

protection afforded by these Federal 

agencies. 

Summary of Factor D 

In summary, if this proposed delisting 

of the WGL DPS of gray wolves is made 

final, there would be varying State and 

Tribal classifications and protections 

provided to wolves. The wolf 

management plans currently in place for 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26135 

will be more than sufficient to retain 

viable wolf populations in each State 

that are above the Federal recovery 

criteria for wolf metapopulation 

subunits, and even for three completely 

isolated wolf populations. These State 

plans provide a very high level of 

assurance that wolf populations in these 

three States will not decline to 

nonviable levels in the foreseeable 

future. Furthermore, the 2006 Update to 

the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan 

(WI DNR 2006a, p. 3–4) demonstrates 

the State’s commitment by retaining the 

previous management goal of 350 

wolves, and it did not weaken any 

significant component of the original 

1999 Plan. Similarly, the 2008 revised 

Michigan wolf plan continues to 

maintain the State’s commitments to 

maintain viable wolf populations after 

Federal delisting. While these State 

plans recognize there may be a need to 

control or even reduce wolf populations 

at some future time, none of the plans 

include a public harvest of wolves, and 

all would maintain sufficient numbers 

of wolves to ensure their continued 

survival. 

If Federally delisted, wolves in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

would continue to receive protection 

from general human persecution by 

State laws and regulations. Michigan 

met the criteria established in their 

management plan for State delisting and 

in April 2009 removed gray wolves from 

the State’s threatened and endangered 

species list and amended the Wildlife 

Conservation Order to grant ‘‘protected 

animal’’ status to the gray wolf in the 

State (Roell 2009, pers. comm.). That 

status ‘‘prohibit[s] take, establish[es] 

penalties and restitution for violations 

of the Order, and detail[s] conditions 

under which lethal depredation control 

measures could be implemented’’ 

(Humphries in litt. 2004). 

Since 2004 wolves have been listed as 

a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ by the WI 

DNR, allowing no lethal take unless 

special authorization is requested from 

the WI DNR (Wydeven et al. 2009c). 

Following the proposed Federal 

delisting, Wisconsin will fully 

implement that ‘‘protected wild animal’’ 

status for the species, including 

protections that provide for fines of 

$1,000 to $2,000 for unlawful hunting. 

Minnesota DNR will consider 

population management measures, 

including public hunting and trapping, 

but this will not occur sooner than 5 

years after Federal delisting, and MN 

DNR will maintain a wolf population of 

at least 1,600 animals (MN DNR 2001, 

p. 2). In the meantime, wolves may be 

taken legally in Zone A only when they 

pose an immediate threat to pets, 

domestic animals, or livestock or to 

protect human safety (MN DNR 2001, 

pp. 3–4). Since the wolf management 

plan was completed in 2001, MN DNR 

has fully staffed its conservation officer 

corps in the State’s wolf range (Stark 

2009a, pers. comm.). 

Except for the very small portions of 

Indiana and Ohio, if delisted, wolves in 

the proposed WGL DPS are likely to 

remain protected by various State 

designations for the immediate future. 

States within the boundaries of the DPS 

either currently have mechanisms in 

place to kill depredating wolves (North 

Dakota and South Dakota) or can be 

expected to develop mechanisms 

following the proposed Federal delisting 

of the DPS, in order to deal with wolflivestock conflicts in areas where wolf 

protection would no longer be required 

by the Act. Because these States 

(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota) constitute 

only about one-third of the land area 

within the DPS, and contain virtually no 

suitable habitat of sufficient size to host 

viable wolf populations, it is clear that 

even complete protection for wolves in 

these areas would neither provide 

significant benefits to wolf recovery in 

the DPS, nor to the long-term viability 

of the recovered populations that 

currently reside in the DPS. Therefore, 

although current and potential future 

regulatory mechanisms may allow the 

killing of wolves in these six States, 

these threats, and the area in which they 

will be, will not impact the recovered 

wolf populations in the DPS now or in 

the foreseeable future. 

Finally, based on our review of the 

completed Tribal management plans 

and communications with Tribes and 

Tribal organizations, Federally delisted 

wolves are very likely to be adequately 

protected on Tribal lands. Furthermore, 

the numerical recovery criteria (and for 

Minnesota, the numerical planning goal) 

in the Recovery Plan would be achieved 

and maintained (based on the 

population and range of off-reservation 

wolves) even without Tribal protection 

of wolves on reservation lands. In 

addition, on the basis of information 

received from other Federal land 

management agencies in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan, we expect 

National Forests, units of the National 

Park System, military bases, and 

National Wildlife Refuges will provide 

protections to wolves in the areas they 

manage if delisted that will match, and 

in some cases will exceed, the 

protections provided by State wolf 

management plans and State protective 

regulations. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

regulatory mechanisms that will be in 

place subsequent to Federal delisting 

are adequate to control threats to wolves 

in the proposed WGL DPS such that 

wolves in the proposed WGL DPS are 

not likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of the range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Taking of Wolves by Native Americans 

for Certain Purposes 

As noted elsewhere in this proposed 

rule, the wolf has great significance to 

many Native Americans in the western 

Great Lakes area, especially to Wolf 

Clan members, and has a central role in 

their creation stories. The wolf, 

Ma’’ingan, is viewed as a brother to the 

Anishinaabe people, and their fates are 

believed to be closely linked. Ma’’ingan 

is a key element in many of their beliefs, 

traditions, and ceremonies, and wolf 

pack systems are used as a model for 

Anishinaabe families and communities. 

We are not aware of any takings of 

wolves in the Midwest for use in these 

traditions or ceremonies while the wolf 

has been listed as a threatened or 

endangered species. While wolves have 

been listed as threatened in Minnesota, 

we have instructed Wildlife Services to 

provide, upon request, wolf pelts and 

other parts from wolves killed during 

depredation control actions to Tribes in 

order to partially serve these traditional 

needs. 

Some Tribal representatives, as well 

as the GLIFWC, have indicated that if 

wolves are delisted, there is likely to be 

interest in the taking of small numbers 

of wolves for traditional ceremonies 

(King in litt. 2003; White in litt. 2003). 

This take could occur on reservation 

lands where it could be closely 

regulated by a Tribe to ensure that it 

does not affect the viability of the 

reservation wolf population. Such 

takings might also occur on offreservation treaty lands on which 

certain Tribes retained hunting, fishing, 

and gathering rights when the land was 

ceded to the Federal Government in the 

19th Century. Native American taking of 

wolves from ceded lands would be 

limited to a specified portion of a 

harvestable surplus of wolves that is 

established in coordination with the 

Tribes, consistent with past Federal 

court rulings on treaty rights. Such 

taking would not occur until such time 

as a harvestable surplus has been 

documented based on biological data, 

and regulations and monitoring have 

been established by the States and 

Tribes to ensure a harvest can be carried 

out in a manner that ensures the 

continued viability of the wolf 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26136 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

population in that State. Previous court 

rulings have ensured that Native 

American treaty harvest of fish or 

wildlife species have not risked 

endangering the resource. 

If requested by the Tribes, multitribal 

natural resource agencies, or the States, 

the Service or other appropriate Federal 

agencies will work with these parties to 

help determine if a harvestable surplus 

exists, and if so, to assist in devising 

reasonable and appropriate methods 

and levels of harvest for delisted wolves 

for traditional cultural purposes. 

We conclude that the small number of 

wolves that may be taken by Native 

Americans would not be a threat 

sufficient to cause the wolves in the 

proposed WGL DPS to be in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future. 

Public Attitudes Toward the Wolf 

Human behavior has had a 

tremendous effect on wolf populations 

around the world. Theory and social 

science research have identified 

attitudes, and the beliefs on which they 

are based, as important drivers of 

behavior. Therefore, understanding 

public attitudes toward wolves is a key 

component of wolf management. The 

success of the United States wolferadication programs of the latenineteenth and early twentieth centuries 

are often accepted as evidence of 

negative public attitudes that were 

based on perceptions and beliefs 

brought by European settlers that 

portrayed the wolf as an evil, menacing 

threat (Browne-Nunez and Taylor 2002, 

p. 1; Fogleman 1988; Kellert 1986; 

Schanning 2009, pp. 252–253) and were 

perpetuated by exaggerated accounts of 

marauding wolves preying on livestock 

(Schanning 2009, p. 253). 

As the wolf arrived on the brink of 

extinction, there was a shift in 

management and a parallel shift in 

attitudes (Kellert et al. 1996; Schanning 

2009, pp. 253–254; Williams et al. 2002, 

p. 581). In the Great Lakes region, 

bounty systems were repealed 

(Wisconsin in 1957, Michigan in 1960, 

and Minnesota in 1965) and, in 1972, 

the first of many attitudinal studies 

regarding wolves was carried out in 

Minnesota (Johnson 1974). In the last 

three decades, investigations of attitudes 

toward wolves and wolf management 

have burgeoned. 

Minnesota 

The first empirical examination of 

attitudes toward wolves was conducted 

using a convenience sample of 1,692 

attendees of the Minnesota State Fair 

(Johnson 1974). It was based on the 

premise that children’s stories, which 

typically cast the wolf as a villainous 

creature, shape attitudes from an early 

age. Although it found children to be 

more negative toward the wolf, a vast 

majority of adults held positive beliefs 

and attitudes. Most respondents felt that 

wolves were not a danger to humans, 

should not be exterminated, had value 

for Minnesota, and are good for the deer 

and moose populations. 

Llewellyn (1978) reported the results 

of a content analysis of 1,083 public 

comment letters received by the Service 

regarding the proposed reclassification 

of the timber wolf in Minnesota from 

endangered to threatened. Of the 700 

letters from Minnesota residents (the 

other letters were from out-of-state), 23 

percent favored retention of endangered 

status, 7 percent supported 

reclassification, and 70 percent were in 

favor of delisting and return to State 

management. Of note were differences 

between urban and rural residents, with 

a large majority (78 percent) of urban 

residents and a minority (16 percent) of 

rural residents in favor of continued 

Federal protection of wolves. Support 

for delisting was largely based on 

concern for livestock and fear of wolves. 

Kellert (1986) conducted a statewide 

phone survey of Minnesota residents’ 

knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors 

toward the wolves. The study sample 

comprised the general public 

(Minneapolis-St. Paul residents and 

mostly rural, northern county residents), 

deer hunters, trappers, and livestock 

producers. Most respondents held 

favorable attitudes toward wolves 

(except farmers), supported protection 

of wolves and their habitat as long it did 

not interfere with human needs, and 

supported control of problem wolves. 

Urban residents expressed more 

protectionist attitudes, while rural 

residents’ attitudes were more 

utilitarian in nature. There was 

‘‘somewhat-limited’’ factual knowledge 

among the general public, but a higher 

knowledge level among trappers and, to 

a lesser degree, hunters and individuals 

with a higher income. Fear of wolves 

was expressed by some respondents, 

although most did not feel that wolves 

are a threat to people. Rather large 

percentages of farmers (12 percent) and 

trappers (17 percent) reported capturing 

or killing a wolf, and a majority of 

farmer, hunter, trapper, and northern 

county respondents reported knowing 

someone who captured or killed a wolf. 

Additionally, almost one-third of 

farmers, hunters, and trappers and a 

quarter of northern county respondents 

indicated that, given the opportunity, 

they might shoot a wolf while deer 

hunting. 

In 1999, a second statewide phone 

survey of Minnesota residents was 

conducted, similar to the 1985 study, 

using a stratified random sample of 

northern residents, southern residents, 

farmers, hunters, and trappers (Kellert 

1999). During this study period, 

Minnesota wolves were being 

considered for Federal delisting. 

Compared to the 1985 survey, this study 

found an overall increase in positive 

perceptions of the wolf. The general 

public expressed more affection and 

ethical concern for wolves than did 

farmers, although there was not a 

significant difference between groups in 

level of dislike of wolves. Over 70 

percent of respondents believed wolves 

symbolize the beauty in nature and a 

large portion of the sample perceived 

other values of wolves, including 

ecological, scientific, and moral. 

Suburban and urban residents, the 

college educated, and younger 

respondents were more likely to have 

positive attitudes. Farmers were more 

knowledgeable about the wolf and more 

likely to support delisting. Of note was 

a substantial increase in the number of 

northern Minnesota residents who 

reported either killing a wolf themselves 

or knowing someone who did. 

Chavez et al. (2005) assessed attitudes 

of residents of northwestern Minnesota. 

The sample of 600 rural residents was 

stratified by location: inside wolf range 

and outside but adjacent to wolf range. 

The study did not find large differences 

between geographic groups or farmers 

and non-farmers, with all groups 

indicating slightly unfavorable attitudes 

toward wolves. The authors suggest this 

could be attributable to shared rural 

cultural values and utilitarian attitudes. 

They also consider the possible 

influence of immigrant roots in Europe 

where folklore and early conflicts with 

wolves fostered negative attitudes. Both 

geographic groups agreed that wolves 

cause unacceptable levels of damage to 

northwest Minnesota’s livestock 

industry, although predators were 

perceived as less of an agricultural 

threat than other threats (e.g., livestock 

diseases, crop pests). 

Using a random sample of 909 

respondents (18 percent response rate), 

Schanning (2005) reported ‘‘pragmatic/ 

utilitarian’’ beliefs regarding wolves 

among Minnesota residents. Most 

respondents supported compensation to 

livestock owners and having problem 

wolves shot by the DNR. Counter to 

Kellert’s earlier findings, there was a 

significant level of fear of wolves among 

Schanning’s sample, including fear for 

personal safety (31 percent), the safety 

of children (64 percent), and pets (70 

percent). 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26137 

Michigan 

In Michigan, Hook and Robinson 

(1982, pp. 388–391) found that only a 

small percentage of respondents scored 

high on their anti-predator scale and 

most respondents were in favor of wolf 

restoration. Hunters were more positive 

toward predators than nonhunters. Fear 

of the wolf was the most important 

factor related to an anti-predator 

attitude, followed by negativistic 

attitudes toward all animals, and age, 

with older people holding more 

negative attitudes. 

Kellert (1990) conducted a statewide 

mail survey of Michigan residents’ 

knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors 

toward wolves. There were 639 

respondents from the Upper (UP) and 

Lower (LP) peninsulas and members of 

three special interest groups: hunters, 

trappers, and livestock producers. 

Livestock producers were the most 

likely of the special interest groups to 

hold negative attitudes toward the wolf. 

LP residents were more likely than UP 

residents to express fear and dislike of 

wolves. A majority of respondents in 

each group, except livestock producers, 

supported restoration (64 percent of UP 

residents, 57 percent of LP residents, 76 

percent of hunters, 66 percent of 

trappers, and 37 percent of livestock 

producers). Support was primarily 

motivated by the existence, ecological, 

and cultural values of the wolf. 

A 2002 statewide survey of 557 

Michigan residents’ attitudes toward 

wolf recovery found that support for 

recovery by UP residents had declined 

since Kellert’s 1990 study (Mertig 2004). 

At the time this study was conducted, 

the UP’s wolf population had risen to 

about 250 animals (Hammill 2007), but 

in the LP, where wolves were not 

known to be present, there was 

increased support for wolf recovery in 

the UP. Other differences from Kellert’s 

(1990) findings included increased 

support for wolf control and for hunting 

and trapping for pelts. 

Based on a sample of 1,017 Michigan 

residents (20 percent response rate), 

Schanning (2004) found that a majority 

of respondents in his survey agreed with 

pro-wolf statements including ‘‘wolves 

are a part of our vanishing wilderness 

and should be protected’’ (51 percent). 

Similar to his 2005 study of Minnesota 

residents and his 2003 study of 

Wisconsin residents (reported below), 

Schanning found a substantial level of 

fear of wolves among the Michigan 

sample. Respondents reported fear for 

their personal safety (40 percent), the 

safety of children (70 percent), pets (7 

percent), and livestock (66 percent). 

Using a stratified random sample of 

respondents from five regions in 

Michigan, Beyer (2006) measured 

tolerance of wolves using a scale for 

social carrying capacity. The scale was 

based on Michigan wolves’ perceived 

range, numbers, and the type and 

number of interactions with people. The 

study found that most people were at 

the most tolerant end of the scale, with 

smaller percentages classified as 

intolerant (7 percent) or least tolerant 

(20 percent). 

Wisconsin 

Knight (1985, reported in Schanning 

2009, p. 257) surveyed hunter attitudes 

in two Wisconsin counties in wolf range 

where a minority (20 percent) of hunters 

reported negative attitudes toward 

wolves and most (69 percent) believed 

that wolves should not be eliminated. 

In 1988, when there were only 20 

wolves in Wisconsin, Nelson and 

Franson (1988) compared farmer’ and 

non-farmers’ attitudes toward wolves 

and wolf recovery in six Wisconsin 

counties. A series of agree-disagree 

belief statements was used to gauge 

attitudes toward wolves. Non-farmers 

were more positive than farmers, and a 

majority agreed that the wolf 

‘‘symbolizes the beauty and wonder in 

nature’’ and ‘‘it would be wonderful to 

hear the wolf howl in the wild’’ (64 

percent and 62 percent respectively). 

Almost half of farmers agreed with the 

same statements. Both groups disagreed 

that they would be afraid of an attack if 

they saw a wolf while walking in the 

woods. Farmers and non-farmers were 

divided about wolf restoration, with half 

of farmers and about one-third of nonfamers opposed. Both groups favored 

trapping and removal of problem 

wolves. 

Wilson (1999) examined knowledge, 

attitudes, and behaviors toward wolves 

in a 1997 survey of two random 

samples: all Wisconsin license plate 

owners and those who purchased an 

Endangered Resources (ER) license 

plate. Fifty percent of all license plate 

owners and almost 90 percent of ER 

license plate owners supported efforts to 

increase the State wolf population. 

There were slight differences between 

hunters (47 percent) and non-hunters 

(54 percent) who support wolf recovery. 

Naughton et al. (2003) assessed 

tolerance of wolves among 535 rural 

Wisconsin residents using a mail-back 

questionnaire (82 percent response rate). 

They examined the influence of 

compensation for livestock losses to 

wolves and preferences for wolf 

management actions among different 

segments of the sample, including 

livestock producers, bear hunters, 

general residents, wolf damage 

complainants, recipients of 

compensation, and demographic 

segments. The strongest predictor of 

tolerance was social group. A large 

majority of bear hunters (73 percent) 

were in favor of reducing or eliminating 

the wolf population, compared to 45 

percent of the livestock producers and 

29 percent of general residents. 

Individuals who had lost a domestic 

animal to a predator were less tolerant 

of wolves than those who had not. 

Preferences for management actions 

depended on the conflict situation. 

Approval for lethal control was highest 

for depredation on livestock and pets. 

Bear hunters also were highly in favor 

of lethal control when hunting hounds 

are killed, but other groups did not 

muster a majority for this option. 

Compensation was not associated with 

higher tolerance when comparing 

recipients to nonrecipients among those 

who reported losing a domestic animal 

to wolves. 

Similar to his studies in Minnesota 

and Michigan, Schanning (2003) 

surveyed 644 Wisconsin residents’ (13 

percent response rate) attitudes toward 

wolves. He found a majority of 

respondents held pro-wolf attitudes 

based on their agreement with three 

belief statements: ‘‘the wolf is a symbol 

of the beauty and wonder in nature,’’ 

‘‘wolves are part of our vanishing 

wilderness and should be protected,’’ 

and ‘‘wolves are essential to maintaining 

the balance in nature’’ (72 percent, 56 

percent, and 62 percent in agreement, 

respectively). There was substantial 

support for wolf hunting (41 percent), 

and a majority (60 percent) indicated 

they would shoot a wolf if it threatened 

their pet. 

In a followup to Naughton et al. 

(2001), Treves et al. (2009) reported 

attitudes of 1,364 respondents (62 

percent response rate) toward 

compensation after wolf recovery. They 

compared the attitudes of individuals 

who contributed to Wisconsin’s 

voluntary compensation fund with 

those of noncontributors and found that 

attitudes of each group differed in 

several ways. Contributors favored 

nonlethal over lethal problem wolf 

management actions and supported all 

types of payments more strongly with 

the exception of payment for hunting 

dogs injured or killed by wolves on 

public land, but a majority of 

respondents of both groups supported 

compensation ‘‘even when wolves are 

no longer threatened or endangered.’’ 

Noncontributors were more likely to 

believe that wolf damages were part of 

raising livestock and should not be 

compensated. 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26138 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Treves et al. (in review) report the 

first longitudinal results for change in 

individual attitudes over time using 

findings from surveys conducted in 

2001 (Naughton et al. 2003), 2004 

(Treves et al. 2009), and 2009. During 

the data collection period, wolf numbers 

nearly tripled and greatly exceeded the 

State population goal, the level of wolf 

depredation on pets increased and 

became the third most frequent conflict 

after attacks on beef calves and bearhunting dogs, and wolf management 

authority was granted to State 

governments and subsequently revoked 

several times after Federal court 

challenges. The 2009 survey found 

attitudes toward wolves had become 

less favorable, and fear of wolves, 

perceived competition for deer, and 

reported inclination to illegally kill 

wolves increased. In the 2009 survey, 18 

percent of hunters indicated they would 

shoot a wolf if they saw one while 

hunting. Nearly half of respondents 

agreed their tolerance for wolves in 

Wisconsin would increase if people 

could hunt them. 

Shelley et al. (in review) compared 

attitudes of Ojibwe Indians and 

nontribal residents of Wisconsin’s wolf 

range. Tribal membership was the best 

predictor of attitudes. Ojibwe 

respondents had more positive attitudes 

toward wolves, were more supportive of 

wolf protection policy, and were less 

supportive of a public wolf harvest and 

lethal control of problem wolves. A 

considerable percentage (Ojibwe 33 

percent, nontribal 44 percent) of each 

group indicated they would be afraid if 

wolves lived near their homes. Fewer 

Ojibwe (8 percent) than nontribal 

respondents (16 percent) indicated that 

they would shoot a wolf if they saw one 

while hunting. Nontribal respondents 

(57 percent) were more likely than 

Ojibwe respondents (26 percent) to 

believe that wolves threaten deer 

hunting opportunities. Shelley et al. (in 

review) point out the potential 

significance of treaty rights, which grant 

the Tribe half of any harvest, including 

wolves, within the territories ceded by 

them in nineteenth century Federal 

treaties upheld by Federal courts in the 

1980s. 

Treves and Martin (2011) examined 

the attitudes of 2,320 respondents, 

hunters and nonhunters, living within 

or adjacent to wolf range in surveys 

conducted in Wisconsin in 2001 and 

2004 (reported above) and the northern 

Rocky Mountain (NRM) States of Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming. A majority of 

respondents supported regulated, public 

wolf hunting, although support was 

dependent on potential justifications for 

a hunting season. 

In Wisconsin, bear hunters in 2001, 

followed by other hunters, were most 

likely to support an immediate hunt, 

whereas nonhunters in favor of wolf 

hunting were more likely to be 

supportive when managers estimate the 

wolf population could sustain harvests 

or when the majority of the public 

believe damages have become 

intolerable. There was a shift in 2004 

when a majority of hunters indicated 

they would support wolf hunting when 

the population was deemed to be at a 

level that could sustain harvests. More 

nonhunters agreed with a hunt when 

the public felt damages had become 

intolerable. Inclination to kill a wolf 

illegally in Wisconsin in 2001 and 2004 

was high among hunters, particularly 

among likely carnivore-hunters. These 

two groups favored a significant 

reduction (up to half) of the Wisconsin 

wolf population. 

In addition to the studies summarized 

above, citizen input on the wolf 

management plans of Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan has provided 

additional insight on public support for 

wolf recovery. Namely, it shows strong 

support for wolf recovery if the adverse 

impacts on recreational activities and 

livestock production can be minimized 

(MI DNR 1997, pp. 13–14, 50–56; MN 

DNR 1998, p. 2; WI DNR 1999, pp. 51– 

55; WI DNR 2006c, pp. 9–11). 

Summary of Public Attitudes 

While there is a lack of empirical data 

on early attitudes toward wolves, 

historical accounts describe an 

antagonist view of wolves during the 

19th and early 20th centuries. 

Attitudinal research conducted 

throughout the lower 48 States in the 

last three decades has shown that a shift 

toward more positive attitudes took 

place during the 20th century (BrowneNun ̃ ez and Taylor 2002, Kellert et al. 

1996, Williams et al. 2002). Although 

the basis for this shift is not understood, 

suggested causes include changes in the 

portrayal of wolves in the media (Kellert 

et al. 1996) and a broader shift in 

societal values of wildlife (Manfredo et 

al. 2003). 

Although direct comparisons cannot 

be made of each study summarized 

here, given different research methods 

and contextual circumstances, we can 

summarize some common findings and 

general conclusions. Similar to research 

conducted outside the Great Lakes 

region (summarized in Williams et al. 

2002), many of the studies reviewed 

here demonstrate urban-rural 

differences in attitudes, with urban 

residents displaying more positive 

attitudes; farmers and livestock 

producers are more negative toward 

wolves; those with higher education 

levels have more positive attitudes; and 

compensation does not translate into 

increased tolerance. 

In several studies, hunters were 

mostly positive toward wolves (Hook 

and Robinson 1982, Kellert 1990, Knight 

1985), with the exception of Wisconsin 

bear hunters who were the most 

negative among special interest groups 

(Naughton et al. 2003). Cross-sectional 

studies suggest increasing support for 

control of problem wolves and public 

harvest of wolves (Kellert 1985, Mertig 

2004, Naughton et al. 2003), and one 

recent study shows this support has 

increased among individuals re-sampled 

over time (Treves et al., in review). 

Some respondents indicated they had or 

would kill a wolf illegally (Kellert 1985; 

Treves et al., in review). 

While most respondents were positive 

toward wolves, it is evident that there 

have long been competing attitudes 

toward wolves. While attitudes in other 

regions have been shown to be relatively 

stable (Williams et al. 2002, Wilson and 

Bruskotter 2009), a troubling finding for 

managers in the Great Lakes region is 

the most recent research showing 

declining support for wolves (Hammill 

2007; Mertig 2004; Treves et al., in 

review) and an increasing inclination to 

kill wolves illegally (Treves et al., in 

review). Possible explanations for this 

decline include increasing wolf 

numbers, negative interactions with 

humans, and negative media coverage 

(Hammill 2007). It is unclear how 

delisting will affect attitudes and 

behavior toward wolves. Also in 

question is how public wolf harvest 

might affect attitudes and behaviors. 

While we do not believe the affects of 

public attitudes on wolves will be a 

significant threat to the species in the 

foreseeable future, as the status and 

management of the wolf evolves, there 

will be a need for continued 

collaboration between managers and 

researchers to monitor public attitudes 

toward wolves and their management. 

Hybridization with Coyotes 

Genetic data relevant to possible 

interbreeding between North American 

wolves and coyotes was first reported in 

a study of mtDNA restriction fragment 

length polymorphisms by Lehman et al. 

(1991). They found mtDNA haplotypes 

in wolf populations in the Great Lakes 

region that they interpreted as being 

derived from coyotes (Lehman et al., p. 

108). As wolf haplotypes were not 

found in coyotes, the apparent 

introgression occurred through matings 

of wolf males with coyote females. They 

determined that a minimum of six 

instances of coyote-wolf hybridization 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26139 

could account for the diversity of 

‘‘coyote-type’’ haplotypes observed in 

wolves (p. 112). Their general 

interpretation was that introgression 

primarily occurred as coyotes expanded 

their ranges into the Great Lakes region 

within historical time, although they 

allow that two coyote-type haplotypes 

commonly observed in Great Lakes 

wolves may have been the result of 

ancient hybridization. Their data also 

indicated (Lehman et al., Figure 4) that 

coyote-type haplotypes were less 

common in the western part of the Great 

Lakes region than in the east. 

Wilson et al. (2000, Figure 6, p. 2165) 

provided a different interpretation of 

wolf-coyote relationships in the region. 

They found coyote-like mtDNA 

sequences in eastern Canadian wolves 

from Algonquin Provincial Park, 

Ontario, southern Manitoba, and 

northeastern Minnesota that were 

intermediate in sequence divergence 

between coyotes and gray wolves. As 

these haplotypes were apparently absent 

in coyotes, they were thought not to 

result from hybridization with coyotes, 

but to represent an eastern wolf species, 

Canis lycaon. They suggest that these 

Canis lycaon haplotypes may have been 

previously reported as ‘‘coyote-type’’ in 

the study of Lehman et al. (1991). 

It is now generally agreed that 

historical and most contemporary Great 

Lakes wolves have unique mtDNA 

haplotypes that are distinct from those 

of other wolves, and more related to but 

still distinct from those of coyotes. 

Haplotypes specific to the early 20th 

century wolf population of the western 

Great Lakes region were identified by 

Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3), 

from a study of 17 historical specimens 

from Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario, and 

Quebec. Of the 17 specimens that gave 

conclusive results, 14 were either the 

same or most similar to the haplotypes 

described by Wilson et al. (2000) as C. 

lycaon. Only one had a coyote 

haplotype. Wheeldon and White (2009) 

reported haplotypes from three 

additional historical specimens from the 

western Great Lakes region. Two 

individuals from Minnesota (collected 

1899 and 1900) had the same coyotelike haplotypes (C13) found in a late 

19th century specimen from Maine, 50 

years before recorded coyote sightings 

in Maine (Wilson et al. 2003), as well as 

in contemporary western Great Lakes 

wolves from Minnesota to Quebec 

(Leonard and Wayne 2008, pp. 2–3). 

The third specimen, collected in the 

winter of 1907–08 in Wisconsin, had the 

common Great Lakes wolf haplotype C1. 

Microsatellite DNA analysis of these 

three specimens grouped them with 

wolves rather than coyotes. 

Koblmu ̈ller et al. (2009) addressed the 

issue of coyote hybridization in the 

Great Lakes region from analyses of 

mtDNA sequence and both Ychromosome and autosomal 

microsatellite DNA. They found 

evidence of repeated incidences of 

ancient introgression of coyotes into 

Great Lakes wolves, although they also 

suggested that introgression by coyotes 

is recent and ongoing, especially north 

of the Great Lakes. 

Wheeldon and White (2009, p. 2) and 

Fain et al. (2010) concluded that the 

coyote-related haplotype C13 is actually 

a C. lycaon marker based on its presence 

mainly in C. lycaon-C. lupus hybrids in 

the western Great Lakes region, the 

absence of C13 in non-hybridizing 

coyotes, and its occurrence in historical 

eastern wolves. Assessments based on 

mtDNA, Y-chromosome, and autosomal 

microsatellite DNA data consistently 

found that the wolf population in the 

western Great Lakes region does not 

currently interbreed with coyotes (Fain 

et al. 2010, p. 14; Wheeldon et al. 2010). 

Previous reports of coyote-wolf 

hybridization in the WGL region were 

based on the misidentification of 

coyote-like haplotypes, which are now 

understood to be unique markers for C. 

lycaon, as discussed above. 

Lehman et al.’s (1991, p. 114) 

interpretation of coyote introgression 

into Great Lakes wolves included an 

explanation that it occurred at a time 

when wolf population densities were 

low in the region, so that wolves would 

be less likely to find mates of the same 

species and mating with coyotes was 

more likely to take place. Conversely, 

Lehman et al. (1991) suggested that 

coyote introgression does not appear to 

occur when wolf densities are higher. If 

so, the increase in population size that 

has occurred over the last 30 years 

renders the western Great Lakes wolf 

population less vulnerable to whatever 

threat may have been presented by 

coyote introgression. The wolf 

population of the region has likely been 

exposed to this factor for centuries and 

has rebounded from near extirpation, 

yet retains essential genetic, behavioral, 

and other biological features of wolves 

without being displaced by coyotes. 

This fact suggests that the threat of 

coyote hybridization to a recovered wolf 

population is small. 

Hybridization Between C. lupus and C. 

lycaon 

Although it is clear that C. lycaon and 

C. lupus have hybridized in the western 

Great Lakes region, same-species 

combinations of paternal and maternal 

markers in male wolves are more 

common than expected by random 

mating (Wheeldon et al. 2010). This 

suggests that there is some constraint on 

complete hybridization between the two 

species and that complete blending of 

the two components of the population is 

not inevitable. The limited number of 

historical specimens from the western 

Great Lakes region that have been 

genetically characterized all have 

mtDNA indicative of C. lycaon (Leonard 

and Wayne 2008, pp. 2–3; Wheeldon 

and White 2009, p. 1), but four of these 

from the early 20th century also had C. 

lupus Y-chromosome haplotypes, which 

indicates that hybridization had 

occurred by that time. The opportunity 

for hybridization between C. lycaon, 

which belongs to a North American 

lineage, and C. lupus, which evolved in 

Eurasia, has existed since C. lupus 

entered North America about 500,000 

years ago (Kurte ́n and Anderson 1980), 

yet a predominantly C. lycaon 

population of wolves still persists in the 

western Great Lakes region. 

Hybrid indices based on the cooccurrence of species specific mtDNA 

and nuclear markers have been used to 

assess the depth and extent of hybrid 

zones in tiger salamanders, cutthroat 

trout, red deer, and wolves (Abernathy 

1994; Riley et al. 2003; Wheeldon and 

White 2009). Wheeldon and White 

(2009) used the mtDNA haplotype of an 

individual wolf in combination with the 

program STRUCTURE assignment of its 

microsatellite genotype to identify C. 

lupus—C. lycaon hybrids in historical 

WGL wolves. Applying this index, half 

of WGL females with C. lupus mtDNA 

also exhibited high assignment to C. 

lupus and half of WGL females with C. 

lycaon mtDNA were similarly assigned 

to C. lycaon. Considering both lineage 

markers in males, 44 percent of males 

with C. lupus mtDNA and Ychromosome haplotypes exhibited high 

assignment to C. lupus, but only 28 

percent of males exhibiting C. lycaon 

mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes 

also exhibited high assignment to C. 

lycaon. The 8–12 microsatellite loci 

typically used in studies of C. lupus— 

C. lycaon introgression (Grewal et al. 

2004; Wilson et al. 2000, 2009; Fain et 

al. 2010; Rutledge et al. 2010; Wheeldon 

et al. 2010) can effectively estimate the 

amount of mixing at the population 

level, but not the individual level 

(Allendorf et al. 2010). Based on the 

information presented in these studies, 

there is no evidence showing that 

hybridization between C. lupus and C. 

lycaon is a threat to C. lupus. 

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five potential threat factors to assess 

whether the wolves in the proposed 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26140 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

WGL DPS are threatened or endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

their range. When considering the status 

of the species, the first step in the 

analysis is to determine whether the 

species is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

Human-caused mortality is the most 

significant issue to the long-term 

conservation status of the wolves in the 

proposed WGL DPS. Therefore, 

managing this source of mortality (i.e., 

human predation) remains the primary 

challenge to maintaining a recovered 

wolf population into the foreseeable 

future. We have concluded that 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

will maintain their share and 

distribution of the WGL wolf population 

above recovery levels for the foreseeable 

future, and that the threats have been 

sufficiently reduced. All three States 

have wolf management laws, plans, and 

regulations that adequately regulate 

human-caused mortality. Each of the 

three States has committed to manage 

its wolf population at or above viable 

population levels, and this commitment 

is not expected to change. 

Regulatory mechanisms in all three 

States are adequate to facilitate the 

maintenance of, and in no way threaten, 

the recovered status of the wolves in the 

WGL DPS. If Federally delisted, wolves 

in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

would continue to receive protection 

from general human persecution by 

State laws and regulations. Violation of 

regulations will be subject to 

prosecution. 

As long as populations are maintained 

well above minimal recovery levels, 

wolf biology (namely the species’ 

reproductive capacity) and the 

availability of large, secure blocks of 

suitable habitat will maintain strong 

populations capable of withstanding all 

other foreseeable threats. In terms of 

habitat, the amount and distribution of 

suitable habitat in public ownership 

provides, and will continue to provide, 

large core areas that contain highquality habitat of sufficient size to 

anchor a recovered wolf population. 

Our analysis of land management shows 

these areas will maintain their 

suitability into the foreseeable future, if 

not indefinitely. 

While disease and parasites can 

temporarily impact population stability, 

as long as populations are managed 

above recovery levels, these factors are 

not likely to threaten the wolf 

population at any point in the 

foreseeable future. Natural predation is 

also likely to remain an insignificant 

factor in population dynamics into the 

foreseeable future. Finally, we believe 

that other natural or manmade factors, 

such as potential hybridization with 

coyotes and public attitudes, are 

unlikely to threaten the wolves in the 

proposed WGL DPS in the foreseeable 

future in all portions of the range within 

the DPS. 

We find that the threat of habitat 

destruction or degradation or a 

reduction in the range of the wolf; 

utilization by humans; disease, 

parasites, or predatory actions by other 

animals or humans; regulatory measures 

by State, Tribal, and Federal agencies; or 

other threats will not individually or in 

combination cause wolves in the 

proposed WGL DPS to likely become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all of the species’ 

range in the DPS. Ongoing effects of 

recovery efforts over the past decades, 

which resulted in a significant 

expansion of the occupied range of 

wolves in the proposed WGL DPS, in 

conjunction with future State, Tribal, 

and Federal agency wolf management 

across that occupied range, will be 

adequate to ensure the conservation of 

the proposed WGL DPS. These activities 

will maintain an adequate prey base, 

preserve denning and rendezvous sites, 

monitor disease, restrict human take, 

and keep wolf populations well above 

the numerical recovery criteria 

established in the Revised Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25–28). Thus, 

the gray wolves in the proposed WGL 

DPS do not merit continued listing as 

threatened or endangered throughout all 

of their range. 

Is the Species Threatened or 

Endangered in a Significant Portion of 

Its Range? 

Having determined that wolves in the 

proposed WGL DPS do not meet the 

definition of endangered or threatened 

throughout their entire range, we must 

next consider whether they are in 

danger of extinction or are likely to 

become so in a significant portion of 

their range. The Act does not define the 

term ‘‘significant portion of its range.’’ 

Therefore, we must give meaning to this 

phrase based on our experience and 

expertise. We interpret a portion of a 

species’ range as being significant if it 

is part of the current range of the species 

(species used here is as defined in the 

Act, to include species, subspecies, or 

DPS) and if it is important to the 

conservation of the species because it 

contributes meaningfully to the 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the species. The 

contribution must be at a level such that 

its loss would result in a decrease in the 

ability to conserve the species. 

Applying the definition described 

above for determining whether a species 

is endangered or threatened in a 

significant portion of its range, we first 

address whether any portions of the 

range of wolves in the WGL DPS 

warranted further consideration. We 

evaluated the WGL DPS in the context 

of whether any potential remaining 

threats are concentrated in one or more 

areas, such that if there were 

concentrated impacts, those wolves 

might be threatened, and further, 

whether any such area might constitute 

a significant portion of the species 

ranges. 

Wolves are highly adaptable habitat 

generalists, and their primary biological 

need is an adequate natural prey base of 

large ungulates. The primary current 

and likely future threats to wolves are 

excessive human-caused mortality and 

increased mortality from diseases and 

parasites. Based on the biology of the 

gray wolf, threats to its continued 

existence, and conservation biology 

principles, the Recovery Plan specifies 

that two populations (or what equates to 

a single metapopulation) are needed to 

ensure long-term viability (see Recovery 

Criteria, above). The Revised Recovery 

Plan states the importance of a large 

wolf population throughout Minnesota 

Wolf Management Zones 1 through 4 

(geographically identical to Zone A in 

the 2001 Minnesota Wolf Management 

Plan, see Figure 2 in this rule) and the 

need for a second viable wolf 

population occupying 10,000 sq mi or 

5,000 sq mi elsewhere in the eastern 

United States (depending on its 

isolation from the Minnesota wolf 

population) (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–29). 

The Recovery Plan also discusses the 

importance of low-road-density areas, 

the importance of minimizing wolf– 

human conflicts, and the maintenance 

of an adequate natural prey base in the 

areas hosting these two necessary wolf 

populations. These portions of 

Minnesota (Management Zones 1 

through 4) and the portions of the 

proposed DPS that support the second 

viable wolf population (Wisconsin 

Zones 1 and 2 and the entire UP of 

Michigan) provide an adequate wild 

prey base, suitably low levels of humancaused mortality, and sufficient 

representation, resiliency, and 

redundancy to buffer the impacts of 

disease and parasite-induced mortality 

(See the discussion under Recovery 

Criteria, above) regarding how achieving 

the goals of the Recovery Plan for the 

Eastern Timber Wolf assures a viable 

wolf population in terms of 

representation, resiliency, and 

redundancy). 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26141 

Post-delisting wolf protection, 

management, and population and health 

monitoring by the States, Tribes, and 

Federal land management agencies will 

ensure the continuation of viable wolf 

populations above the Federal recovery 

criteria for the foreseeable future. This 

is particularly true in Minnesota Zone 

A, Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2, and across 

the UP of Michigan, because the State 

management plans provide for greater 

protections for the species in that area 

(see the discussion of the three plans in 

State Wolf Management Planning, 

above). 

Post-delisting threats to wolves in 

Zone B in Minnesota, Zones 3 and 4 in 

Wisconsin, and in the Lower Peninsula 

of Michigan will be more substantial, 

and may preclude the establishment of 

wolf packs in most or all of these areas 

in Wisconsin and Michigan. The 

Recovery Plan f specifically 

recommends against managing wolves 

in large areas of unsuitable habitat, 

stating that Minnesota Zone 5 (identical 

to Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B, 

Figure 2) should be managed with a goal 

of zero wolves there, because ‘‘Zone 5 is 

not suitable for wolves. Wolves found 

there should be eliminated by any legal 

means’’ (USFWS 1992, p 20). Therefore, 

the Recovery Plan views Zone 5, which 

is roughly 60 percent of the State, as not 

an important part of the range of the 

wolf. This portion of the State is 

predominantly agricultural land, with 

high road densities, and high potential 

for wolves to depredate on livestock. 

Although individual wolves and some 

wolf packs occupy parts of Zone 5, these 

wolves are using habitat islands or are 

existing in other situations where 

conditions generally are not conducive 

to their long-term persistence. 

The northern LP of Michigan appears 

to have the only unoccupied potentially 

suitable wolf habitat in the Midwest that 

is of sufficient size to maintain wolf 

packs (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239; 

Potvin 2003, pp. 44–45), although its 

small size and fragmented nature may 

mean that northern LP wolf population 

viability would be dependent upon 

continuing immigration from the UP. 

The only part of Michigan’s LP that may 

contain suitable habitat are those areas 

of fragmented habitat studied by Potvin 

(2003, pp. 44–45) and Gehring and 

Potter (2005, p. 1239). However, these 

areas amount to less than half of the 

minimal area identified by the Recovery 

Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf as 

needed for the establishment of viable 

populations. These LP areas therefore 

might have difficulty maintaining wolf 

populations even with the help of 

occasional immigration of wolves from 

the UP (see Suitable Habitat Within the 

Proposed Western Great Lakes DPS, 

above, for additional discussion). While 

the UP wolves may be significant to any 

LP wolf population (occasional UP to LP 

movements may provide important 

genetic and demographic augmentation 

crucial to a small population founded 

by only a few individuals), the reverse 

will not be true—LP wolves would not 

be important to the wolf population in 

the UP, as that population is already 

large enough in size and range to be selfsustaining. 

The lack of sufficient areas of suitable 

habitat in those parts of North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, 

and Ohio that are within the proposed 

WGL DPS are expected to preclude the 

establishment of viable populations in 

these areas, although dispersing wolves 

and packs may temporarily occur in 

some of these areas. As a result, wolf 

numbers in these areas will have no 

impact on the continued viability of 

wolves in the proposed WGL DPS, and 

are not necessary to maintain adequate 

representation, resiliency, and 

redundancy for wolves in the proposed 

DPS. 

In conclusion, Minnesota Zone A, 

Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2, and the UP 

of Michigan provide an adequate wild 

prey base, suitably low levels of humancaused mortality, and sufficient 

numbers and distribution of wolves to 

ensure adequate representation, 

resiliency, and redundancy to buffer the 

impacts of disease and parasite-induced 

mortality. Post-delisting wolf protection, 

management, and population and health 

monitoring by the States, Tribes, and 

Federal land management agencies will 

ensure the continuation of viable wolf 

populations in those areas above the 

recovery criteria established in the 

Recovery Plan for the foreseeable future. 

In coming to this determination, we 

considered the quality, quantity, and 

distribution of the habitat relative to the 

biological needs of the species, the need 

to maintain the remaining genetic 

diversity, the importance of geographic 

distribution in coping with catastrophes 

such as disease, the ability of the habitat 

to provide adequate wild prey, and the 

need to otherwise meet the conservation 

needs of the species. Reasonably 

foreseeable threats to wolves in all parts 

of the proposed WGL DPS are not likely 

to threaten wolf population viability in 

the WGL DPS in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, we find that wolves in the 

WGL DPS are not in danger of 

extinction and are not likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

their range. 

Proposed Determination 

After a thorough review of all 

available information and an evaluation 

of the five factors specified in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as 

consideration of the definitions of 

‘‘threatened’’ and ‘‘endangered’’ 

contained in the Act and the reasons for 

delisting as specified in 50 CFR 

424.11(d), we propose that revising the 

boundary of the 1978 Minnesota gray 

wolf listing and removing the WGL DPS 

of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Wolves 

have recovered in the proposed WGL 

DPS as a result of the reduction of 

threats as described in the analysis of 

the five categories of threats and no 

longer are in danger of extinction, nor 

are likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future, throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

We recognize recent taxonomic 

information indicating that the gray 

wolf subspecies Canis lupus lycaon 

should be elevated to the full species C. 

lycaon. Additionally, we acknowledge 

evidence that C. lycaon intercrosses 

with C. lupus in the western Great Lakes 

region, resulting in a mixed population 

composed of C. lupus, C. lycaon, and 

their hybrids. As discussed under 

Procedural Aspects of Proposal 

Applying to the Gray Wolf above, the 

procedural aspects of this proposed rule 

refer to the gray wolf (C. lupus), because 

that is the named entity currently on the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. Our proposed action here is to 

establish the existence of a WGL distinct 

population segment of C. lupus that is 

neither endangered nor threatened, 

despite its proximity to a closely related 

species, C. lycaon—a species whose 

status we will evaluate for possible 

protection under the Act in the near 

future. 

Because C. lycaon was recently 

recognized as a unique species (rather 

than a subspecies of C. lupus), a 

complete status review of this species 

has never been conducted. Therefore, 

we are initiating a status review for C. 

lycaon throughout its range in the 

United States and Canada. 

We also are proposing to revise the 

range of the gray wolf (the species C. 

lupus) by removing all or parts of 29 

states (see Effects of the Rule, below) 

because this area is outside of the 

currently known historical range of the 

gray wolf (see Taxonomy and Historical 

Ranges of Wolves in the United States). 

These areas should not have been 

included in the original listing of the 

gray wolf because gray wolves did not 

historically occur there; they were either 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26142 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

red wolf (C. rufus) range or eastern wolf 

(C. lycaon) range. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing encourages 

and results in conservation actions by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and private 

agencies, groups, and individuals. The 

Act provides for possible land 

acquisition and cooperation with the 

States and requires that recovery actions 

be carried out for all listed species. This 

proposed rule, if made final, would 

remove these Federal conservation 

measures for gray wolves within the 

proposed WGL DPS. 

Effects of the Rule 

This proposal, if made final, would 

revise the pre-DPS policy Minnesota 

‘‘species’’ listing and establish it as a 

WGL DPS of the gray wolf (C. lupus), 

expand the boundaries of that DPS, and 

remove the protections of the Act for 

that WGL DPS by removing the gray 

wolf wolves in that DPS from the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

This proposal, if made final, would 

remove the special regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act for wolves in 

Minnesota. These regulations currently 

are found at 50 CFR 17.40(d). 

Critical habitat was designated for the 

gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR 9607, March 

9, 1978). That rule (codified at 50 CFR 

17.95(a)) identifies Isle Royale National 

Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf 

management zones 1, 2, and 3, as 

delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1), as 

critical habitat. Wolf management zones 

1, 2, and 3 comprise approximately 

25,500 sq km (9,845 sq mi) in 

northeastern and north-central 

Minnesota. This proposal, if made final, 

would remove the designation of critical 

habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota 

and on Isle Royale, Michigan. 

As described in the Taxonomy and 

Historical Ranges of Wolves in the 

United States section above, the species’ 

historical range did not extend into 

many southern and eastern States. 

Therefore, our 1978 listing of the gray 

wolf throughout the 48 States and 

Mexico was partially in error. This 

proposed rule, if made final, would 

revise the geographic boundaries for the 

gray wolf as described in the 1978 

listing by removing all or parts of 29 

southern and eastern states (Maine, 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 

Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 

Florida, Ohio (the part outside WGL 

DPS), West Virginia, Kentucky, 

Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, 

Louisiana, Texas (east of Interstate 

Highway 35), Oklahoma (east of 

Interstate Highway 35 and southeast of 

Interstate Highway 44 north of 

Oklahoma City), Arkansas, Missouri 

(southeast of Interstate Highway 44 and 

southeast of Interstate Highway 70 east 

of St. Louis), Indiana (the part outside 

WGL DPS), and Illinois (the part outside 

WGL DPS)) because this area is outside 

of the currently known historical range 

of the gray wolf. 

We also note that this proposed rule 

initiates a 5-year status review and 

request information for wolves in the 

western United States, which may 

inform future rulemakings to replace the 

remainder of the revised lower 48-State 

listing with more targeted regional units 

(as discussed above under National 

Wolf Strategy). This proposed rule does 

not apply to the separate listing and 

protection of the red wolf (C. rufus). 

Furthermore, the remaining protections 

of the gray wolf under the Act do not 

extend to gray wolf-dog hybrids. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in 

the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to 

implement a system, in cooperation 

with the States, to monitor for not less 

than 5 years the status of all species that 

have recovered and been removed from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 

17.12). The purpose of this postdelisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify 

that a species delisted due to recovery 

remains secure from risk of extinction 

after it no longer has the protections of 

the Act. To do this, PDM generally 

focuses on evaluating (1) demographic 

characteristics of the species, (2) threats 

to the species, and (3) implementation 

of legal and/or management 

commitments that have been identified 

as important in reducing threats to the 

species or maintaining threats at 

sufficiently low levels. We are to make 

prompt use of the emergency listing 

authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the 

Act to prevent a significant risk to the 

well-being of any recovered species. 

Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly 

requires cooperation with the States in 

development and implementation of 

PDM programs, but we remain 

responsible for compliance with section 

4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively 

engaged in all phases of PDM. We also 

will seek active participation of other 

entities that are expected to assume 

responsibilities for the species’ 

conservation, after delisting. 

We developed a PDM plan for the 

wolves in the proposed WGL DPS with 

the assistance of the Eastern Wolf 

Recovery Team. That document is 

available on our Web site (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

The PDM program will rely on a 

continuation of State monitoring 

activities, similar to those which have 

been conducted by Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan DNR’s in 

recent years, and Tribal monitoring. 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

comprise the core recovery areas within 

the DPS, and, therefore, the numerical 

recovery criteria in the Recovery Plan 

apply only to the area encompassed by 

these States’ boundaries. These 

activities will include both population 

and health monitoring of individual 

wolves. During the PDM period, the 

Service and the Recovery Team will 

conduct a review of the monitoring data 

and program. We will consider various 

relevant factors (including but not 

limited to mortality rates, population 

changes and rates of change, disease 

occurrence, range expansion or 

contraction) to determine if the 

population of wolves within the DPS 

warrants expanded monitoring, 

additional research, consideration for 

relisting as threatened or endangered, or 

emergency listing. 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

DNRs have monitored wolves for several 

decades with significant assistance from 

numerous partners, including the U.S. 

Forest Service, National Park Service, 

USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services, Tribal 

natural resource agencies, and the 

Service. To maximize comparability of 

future PDM data with data obtained 

before delisting, all three State DNRs 

have committed to continue their 

previous wolf population monitoring 

methodology, or will make changes to 

that methodology only if those changes 

will not reduce the comparability of preand post-delisting data. 

In addition to monitoring wolf 

population numbers and trends, the 

PDM will evaluate post-delisting 

threats, in particular human-caused 

mortality, disease, and implementation 

of legal and management commitments. 

If at any time during the monitoring 

period we detect a substantial 

downward change in the populations or 

an increase in threats to the degree that 

population viability may be threatened, 

we will work with the States and Tribes 

to evaluate and change (intensify, 

extend, and/or otherwise improve) the 

monitoring methods, if appropriate, 

and/or consider relisting the WGL DPS, 

if warranted. 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26143 

This monitoring program will extend 

for 5 years beyond the effective delisting 

date of the DPS. At the end of the 5-year 

period, we and the Recovery Team will 

conduct another review and post the 

results on our Web site. In addition to 

the above considerations, the review 

will determine whether the PDM 

program should be terminated or 

extended. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to write regulations that are 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this proposal 

easier to understand including answers 

to questions such as the following: (1) 

Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful to your understanding of the 

proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain 

technical language or jargon that 

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the 

format of the proposal (groupings and 

order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 

clarity? What else could we do to make 

the proposal easier to understand? Send 

a copy of any comments on how we 

could make this rule easier to 

understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may also email the comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, need not be prepared in 

connection with regulations adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) 

define a collection of information as the 

obtaining of information by or for an 

agency by means of identical questions 

posed to, or identical reporting, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements imposed on, 10 or more 

persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 

1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more 

persons’’ refers to the persons to whom 

a collection of information is addressed 

by the agency within any 12-month 

period. For purposes of this definition, 

employees of the Federal Government 

are not included. The Service may not 

conduct or sponsor, and you are not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This proposal does not include any 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. As proposed under the 

Post-delisting Monitoring above, wolf 

populations in the Western Great Lakes 

DPS will be monitored by the States of 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in 

accordance with their wolf State 

management plans. There may also be 

additional voluntary monitoring 

activities conducted by a small number 

of Tribes in these three States. We do 

not anticipate a need to request data or 

other information from 10 or more 

persons during any 12-month period to 

satisfy monitoring information needs. If 

it becomes necessary to collect 

standardized information from 10 or 

more non-Federal individuals, groups, 

or organizations per year, we will first 

obtain information collection approval 

from OMB. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, 

and the Department of the Interior’s 

manual at 512 DM 2, we readily 

acknowledge our responsibility to 

communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have coordinated the proposed rule 

with the affected Tribes and, 

furthermore, throughout several years of 

development of earlier related rules and 

this proposed rule, we have endeavored 

to consult with Native American Tribes 

and Native American organizations in 

order to both (1) provide them with a 

complete understanding of the proposed 

changes, and (2) to understand their 

concerns with those changes. If 

requested, we will conduct additional 

consultations with Native American 

Tribes and multitribal organizations 

subsequent to any final rule in order to 

facilitate the transition to State and 

Tribal management of wolves within the 

proposed WGL DPS. We will fully 

consider all of the comments on the 

proposed rule that are submitted by 

Tribes and Tribal members during the 

public comment period and will attempt 

to address those concerns, new data, 

and new information where appropriate. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available upon 

request from the Ft. Snelling, 

Minnesota, Regional Office and is 

posted on our Web site (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Data Quality Act 

In developing this rule we did not 

conduct or use a study, experiment, or 

survey requiring peer review under the 

Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Ft. 

Snelling, Minnesota, Regional Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), 

with contributions from staff from 

Service Regions 2, 4, and 5. Staff from 

the Michigan DNR, Minnesota DNR, and 

Wisconsin DNR provided current 

information regarding wolves in their 

States. Staff from the Nelson Institute 

for Environmental Studies at the 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

compiled the current data on public 

attitudes toward the wolf. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby propose to 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Wolf, gray’’ under 

‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife to read as 

follows: 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26144 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Wolf, gray ................ Canis lupus ............. Holarctic .................. U.S.A.: All of CA, 

CO, KS, NE, NV, 

OR, UT, and WA; 

those portions of 

AZ, NM, TX, ID, 

MT, and WY not 

included in an experimental population as set forth 

below; and portions of IA, MO, 

ND, OK, SD, and 

TX as follows: 

(1) Southern IA, 

(that portion south 

of the centerline 

of Highway 80); 

(2) Northwestern 

MO (that portion 

northwest of the 

centerline of Interstate Highway 44 

and northwest of 

the centerline of 

Interstate Highway 70 east of St. 

Louis); 

E 1, 6, 13, 15, 

35 

N/A N/A 

................................. ................................. (3) Western ND 

(that portion south 

and west of the 

Missouri River upstream to Lake 

Sakakawea and 

west of the centerline of Highway 

83 from Lake 

Sakakawea to the 

Canadian border); 

................................. ................................. (4) Western OK 

(that portion west 

of the centerline 

of Interstate Highway 35 and northwest of the centerline of Interstate Highway 44 

north of Oklahoma City); 

................................. ................................. (5) Western SD 

(that portion south 

and west of the 

Missouri River); 

and 

................................. ................................. (6) Western TX (that 

portion west of 

the centerline of 

Interstate Highway 35). Mexico. 

Do ............................ do ............................ do ............................ U.S.A. (portions of 

AZ, NM, and 

TX—see 

§ 17.84(k)). 

XN 631 N/A 17.84(k) 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26145 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

Do ............................ do ............................ do ............................ U.S.A. (portions of 

ID, MT, and WY— 

see § 17.84(i)). 

XN 561, 562 N/A 17.84(i), 

17.84(n). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 17.40 [Amended] 

3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (d). 

§ 17.95 [Amended] 

4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the 

critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf 

(Canis lupus).’’ 

Dated: April 12, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9557 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3