• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 Thursday, July 13, 2000
Part III
Department of theInterior 
Fish and Wildlife Service50 CFR Part 17Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; Proposal To Establish ThreeSpecial Regulations for Threatened Gray  Wolves; Proposed Rule
VerDate 11<MAY>200015:44 Jul 12, 2000Jkt 190000PO 00000Frm 00001Fmt 4717Sfmt 4717E:\FR\FM\13JYP3.SGMpfrm01PsN: 13JYP3
 
43450
Federal Register
/Vol. 65, No. 135/Thursday, July 13, 2000/Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFish and Wildlife Service50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AF20
Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Proposal To Reclassifyand Remove the Gray Wolf From theList of Endangered and ThreatenedWildlife in Portions of theConterminous United States; ProposalTo Establish Three SpecialRegulations for Threatened GrayWolves
AGENCY
:
Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.
ACTION
:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
:
The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (Service or we) proposes tochange the classification of the graywolf (
Canis lupus
) under theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (Act). Increases in gray wolf numbers, expansion of the species’occupied range, and progress towardachieving the reclassification anddelisting criteria of several approvedgray wolf recovery plans show that thespecies’ current classification is nolonger appropriate throughout most of its range. This proposal, if finalized,will establish four distinct populationsegments (DPSs) for the gray wolf in theUnited States and Mexico. Gray wolvesin the Western Great Lakes DPS, theWestern DPS, and the Northeastern DPSwill be reclassified from endangered tothreatened, except where alreadyclassified as an experimental populationor as threatened. Gray wolves in theSouthwestern (Mexican) DPS will retaintheir endangered status. All threeexisting gray wolf experimentalpopulation designations will be retainedand are not affected by this proposal.Gray wolves will be removed from theprotections of the Act in all other areasof the 48 conterminous states. We areproposing a new special regulationunder section 4(d) of the Act for thethreatened Western DPS to increase ourability to respond to wolf-humanconflicts outside the two experimentalpopulation areas in the northern UnitedStates Rockies. We are proposing asecond special regulation under section4(d) that would apply to theNortheastern DPS to reduce wolf-humanconflicts and land-use restrictions. Athird section 4(d) special regulationwould expand the current Minnesotawolf depredation program intoWisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, andSouth Dakota. The classification, underthe Act, of captive gray wolves would bedetermined by the location from whichthey, or their ancestors, were removedfrom the wild. We would revise ourexisting recovery plans, as appropriateto accommodate changes necessitated by this proposal, if finalized. Thisproposal does not affect the protectioncurrently afforded by the Act to the redwolf (
C. rufus
), a separate species thatis listed as endangered in thesoutheastern United States.
DATES
:
We must receive comments frominterested parties by November 13, 2000so they can be considered in our finaldecision. Requests for formal publichearings must be received by August 28,2000. We will hold informal publicinformational meetings at numerouslocations across the country during thecomment period. The locations anddates of the informational meetings will be widely publicized in advance in thepress; the locations and dates can also be obtained by using the phone,facsimile, electronic mail, and WorldWide Web contact information given below.
ADDRESSES
:
Send all comments andother materials concerning this notice toContent Analysis Enterprise Team, Wolf Comments, 200 East Broadway, PO Box7669, Room 301, Missoula, Montana59807. Comments only (no questions orrequests for information) may besubmitted by electronic mail toGRAYWOLFCOMMENTS@FWS.GOV or by facsimile to 406–329–3021; thesubject line must say wolf comments.Questions or requests for additionalinformation should follow theinstructions in the following section.We will make the comments andmaterials we receive available for publicinspection, by appointment, duringnormal business hours at RegionalOffices and the Washington Office of theU.S. Fish Wildlife Service following theclose of the comment period. Use thecontact information in the nextparagraph to obtain the addresses of those locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Direct all questions or requests foradditional information to the Fish andWildlife Service using the Gray Wolf Phone Line—612–713–7337, facsimile—612–713–5292, the general gray wolf electronic mail address—GRAYWOLFMAIL@FWS.GOV, or writeto: GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, Fish andWildlife Service, Federal Building, 1Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111–4056. Additional information is alsoavailable on our World Wide Web siteat http://midwest.fws.gov/wolf.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Background
Purpose and Definitions of the Act 
The purpose of the Act is to identifyspecies that meet the Act’s definitions of endangered and threatened species, toadd those species to the Federal lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12,respectively), and to implementconservation measures to improve theirstatus to the point at which they nolonger need the protections of the Act.When protection is no longer needed,we take steps to remove (delist) thespecies from the Federal lists. If aspecies is listed as endangered, we mayreclassify it to threatened status as anintermediate step before eventualdelisting; however, reclassification tothreatened status is not required inorder to delist.Section 3 of the Act provides thefollowing definitions that are relevant tothis proposal:
Endangered species
—any specieswhich is in danger of extinctionthroughout all or a significant portion of its range;
Threatened species
—any specieswhich is likely to become anendangered species within theforeseeable future throughout all or asignificant portion of its range; and
Species
—includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and anydistinct population segment of anyspecies of vertebrate fish or wildlifewhich interbreeds when mature. (Seeadditional discussion in
Distinct Population Segments under Our Vertebrate Population Policy,
 below.)
Organization and Contents of ThisProposed Rule
This proposal begins with adiscussion of the biology of the graywolf, followed by a description of related issues that we considered duringthe development of this proposal. Theseissues include gray wolf taxonomy,experimental population designations,our Vertebrate Population Policy, andwolf-dog hybrids. We describe previousFederal actions taken for the gray wolf,including the development of recoveryplans, and recovery progress in variousparts of the country.A detailed discussion is presented forthe five listing factors as required by theAct. These factors are (1) the present orthreatened destruction, modification, orcurtailment of its habitat or range; (2)overutilization for commercial,recreational, scientific, or educationalpurposes; (3) disease or predation; (4)the inadequacy of existing regulatorymechanisms; and (5) other natural ormanmade factors affecting its continued
VerDate 11<MAY>200015:44 Jul 12, 2000Jkt 190000PO 00000Frm 00002Fmt 4701Sfmt 4702E:\FR\FM\13JYP3.SGMpfrm01PsN: 13JYP3
 
43451
Federal Register
/Vol. 65, No. 135/Thursday, July 13, 2000/Proposed Rules
existence. We analyze these factors forthe proposed reclassification of certainpopulations in response to the currentstatus of the species, whichencompasses present and future threatsand conservation efforts. We designateDistinct Population Segments (DPSs)and we also discuss wolves in captivityand their role in wolf recovery.We identify alternative actions thatwe considered but did not propose andexplain the reasons for selecting theproposed actions. Separate sections willexplain the three special regulationsthat are proposed and how these specialregulations will promote theconservation of the gray wolf indifferent parts of the country. We alsoexplain the conservation measures thatwould be provided to the species if thisproposal is finalized.We request comments and additionalinformation on these proposed changes.The text of the regulatory changes thatwe are proposing for the gray wolf arefound at the end of this rule.
Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves
Gray wolves are the largest wildmembers of the Canidae, or dog family,with adults ranging from 18 to 80kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 pounds (lb))depending upon sex and subspecies(Mech 1974). The average weight of male wolves in Wisconsin is 35kilograms (77 lb) and ranges from 26 to46 kg (57 to 102 lb), while femalesaverage 28 kg (62 lb) and range from 21to 34 kg (46 to 75 lb) (WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources (WIDNR) 1999a). In the northern U.S. RockyMountains, adult male gray wolvesaverage just over 45 kg (100 lb), whilethe females weigh slightly less. The furcolor is frequently grizzled gray, but itcan vary from pure white to coal black.Wolves tend to resemble coyotes (
Canislatrans
) or domestic German shepherdor husky dogs (
C. domesticus
) but can be distinguished from them by theirlonger legs, larger feet, wider head andsnout, and straight tail.Wolves are predators of large animals.Wild prey species in North Americainclude white-tailed deer (
Odocoileusvirginianus
) and mule deer (
O.hemionus
), moose (
Alces alces
), elk(
Cervus canadensis
), woodland caribou(
Rangifer caribou
) and barren groundcaribou (
R. arcticus
), bison (
Bisonbison
), muskox (
Ovibos moschatus
), bighorn sheep (
Ovis canadensis
) andDall sheep (
O. dalli 
), mountain goat(
Oreamnos americanus
), beaver (
Castor canadensis
), and snowshoe hare (
Lepusamericanus
), with small mammals, birds and large invertebrates sometimes being taken (Mech 1974, Stebler 1944,WI DNR 1999a). Domestic animalsverified as being taken by wolves inMinnesota during the last 20 yearsinclude horses, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs,geese, ducks, turkeys, chickens, dogs,and cats (Paul 1999). Since 1987, wolvesin the northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming havekilled a horse, cattle, sheep, and dogs.Wolves are social animals, normallyliving in packs of 2 to 10 members.Packs are primarily family groupsconsisting of a breeding pair, their pupsfrom the current year, offspring from theprevious year, and occasionally anunrelated wolf. Packs occupy, anddefend from other packs and individualwolves, a territory of 50 to 550 squarekilometers (sq km) (20 to 214 squaremiles (sq mi)). In the northern U.S.Rocky Mountains territories tend to belarger, typically from 520 to 1040 sq km(200 to 400 sq mi). Normally, only thetop-ranking male and female in eachpack breed and produce pups. Littersare born from early April into May; theycan range from 1 to 11 pups, butgenerally contain 4 to 6 pups (MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources (MIDNR) 1997, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService 1992a). Yearling wolvesfrequently disperse from their natalpacks, although some remain with theirpack. Dispersers may become nomadicand cover large areas as lone animals, orthey may locate suitable unoccupiedhabitat and a member of the oppositesex and begin their own territorial pack.Dispersal movements of over 800 km(500 mi) have been documented (Fritts1983).The gray wolf historically occurredacross most of North America, Europe,and Asia. In North America, gray wolvesformerly occurred from the northernreaches of Alaska, Canada, andGreenland to the central mountains andthe high interior plateau of southernMexico. The only areas of thecontiguous United States thatapparently lacked gray wolves since thelast glacial events are much of Californiaand the Gulf and Atlantic coastal plainsouth of Virginia. In addition, wolveswere generally absent from theextremely arid deserts and themountaintops of the western UnitedStates (Goldman 1944, Hall 1959, Mech1974).The influx of European settlers andtheir cultures into North America brought superstitions and fears of wolves. Their attitudes, coupled withperceived and real conflicts betweenwolves and human activities along thefrontier, led to widespread persecutionof wolves. Poisons, trapping, andshooting—spurred by Federal, State,and local government bounties—resulted in extirpation of this oncewidespread species from more than 95percent of its range in the 48conterminous States. At the time of thepassage of the Act, likely only severalhundred wolves occurred innortheastern Minnesota and on IsleRoyale, Michigan, and possibly a fewscattered wolves in the Upper Peninsulaof Michigan, Montana, and theAmerican Southwest.Researchers have learned a great dealabout gray wolf biology, especiallyregarding the species’ adaptability andits use of non-wilderness habitats.Public appreciation of the role of predators in our ecosystems hasincreased, and the recovery of thespecies is now generally supported bythe public. Most importantly, within thelast decade the prospects for gray wolf recovery in several areas of their formerhistorical United States range havegreatly increased. In the western GreatLakes area, wolves have dramaticallyincreased their numbers and occupiedrange. In addition, gray wolf reintroduction programs in the northernU.S. Rocky Mountains have shown greatsuccess.The gray wolf (
Canis lupus
) is one of two North American wolf speciescurrently protected by the Act. Theother is the red wolf (
C. rufus
), aseparate species that is listed asendangered throughout its range in thesoutheastern United States andextending west into central Texas. Thered wolf is the subject of a separaterecovery program. This proposal doesnot pertain to the current or futurelisting status or protection of the redwolf.
Summary of Related Issues Considered
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in theEastern United States
Both the 1978 and 1992 versions of the Recovery Plan for the EasternTimber Wolf were developed to recoverthe gray wolf subspecies
Canis lupuslycaon
, commonly known as the easterntimber wolf, that was believed to be thegray wolf subspecies historicallyoccurring throughout the northeasternquarter of the United States east of theGreat Plains (Goldman 1944, Hall andKelson 1959, Mech 1974). Since thepublication of those recovery plans,various studies have been conducted onthe subspecific taxonomy of the graywolf with conflicting results (Nowak1995, Wayne
et al 
. 1995).We recognize that gray wolf taxonomyat the subspecies level is subject toconflicting opinions and continuingmodification. For this reason, we willnot base our gray wolf recovery effortson any particular portrayal of gray wolf 
VerDate 11<MAY>200015:44 Jul 12, 2000Jkt 190000PO 00000Frm 00003Fmt 4701Sfmt 4702E:\FR\FM\13JYP3.SGMpfrm01PsN: 13JYP3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...