Facebook icon Twitter icon Flicker icon You Tube icon

Director's Corner

Dan Ashe served as FWS Director from June 2011 until January 2017. The following is an archive of blogs authored by Director Ashe during that time. This content is intended for historical reference only and not as a representation of current Service policy or opinion.

Gray Wolves are Recovered; Next Up, the Mexican Wolf

wolfWe are proposing to remove gray wolves from the list of threatened and endangered species throughout the United States and Mexico. Photo by Gary Kramer/USFWS

As many of you probably know, my dad had a great, 37-year career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and he describes the outfit as a collection of people who get things done -- doers.  Nowhere is that trait more proudly displayed than in our four decade effort to restore the gray wolf to the American landscape, bringing the species back from extirpation and exile from the contiguous United States.

I'm the 16th Director of the Service. It was the 10th, John Turner, a Wyoming rancher and outfitter, appointed by a Republican President, who signed the record of decision that set in motion this miraculous reintroduction and recovery. It's never been easy. We've had critics, fair and unfair. We've had great partners. Sometimes they have been one in the same. But this organization and its people have been constant. Steadfast. Committed. Professional. Determined. Now add successful!

More information on the wolf recovery

This great predator again roams the range, ridges and remote spaces of the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Western Great Lakes in one of the spectacular successes of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  These recovered populations are not just being tolerated, but are expanding under professional management by our state partners.

Today, for one reason, and one reason only, we are proposing to remove the gray wolf from the list of threatened and endangered species throughout the United States and Mexico -- they are no longer in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.


I question the description by F&W as wolf restoration being "successful." Unless successful means that ranchers are once again complaining about wolves and want to be able to shoot them on site--which delisting will most certainly allow them to do. So, here we go again. Ranchers shooting wolves is exactly what led to the near extinction in the first place. I guess that we'll see the predictably sharp decline in wolves in the next few years as a justification of F&W to suggest their inclusion on the endangered species list.

How ridiculous.
# Posted By margaret | 6/7/13 1:51 PM

Can you really look yourself in the mirror and believe that the "wildlife professionals" in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho have the best interests and long term survival of the wolves at heart? The public statements by many of their elected officials would say otherwise.
# Posted By Dave Schmitt | 6/7/13 2:51 PM

This is a travesty pure an simple. You are setting the gray wolves up for certain annihilation if you remove them from the endangered species list and federal protections. The ranchers have had their way once again and it will be open season on the gray wolf. Rescind this disgusting, scientifically flawed plan now.
# Posted By emmief | 6/7/13 4:45 PM

Kind of disgusted about your recommending removal of the wolves from the endangered species act. I wonder how long it will take for them to be near extinction again? Probably not long. Too many people view wildlife as nothing. It's a shame. Also the methods used to "hunt" them are not hunting. Traps, poisoning, gassing. Pretty brutal. Who do you work for?
# Posted By Very disappointed. | 6/7/13 7:04 PM

You have got to be kidding this article is so full of false info its almost funny ,when republicans stop using the wolf as a pawn for their actions against the Obama Admin. it will be time to delist, until then keep them protected,Wis wants to increase their killing quota to 375 this year, MT wants more,WY is a shoot on sight,you want to delist,really???????
# Posted By Rick Meier | 6/7/13 7:04 PM

I'm sorry, this decision is in error of sound science. If you think the gray wolf is going to maintain sustainable numbers, unprotected from hunters, you have CLEARLY not learned from the past.
It is outrageous that the gray wolf is being delisted just at a time when we have been able to bring them back.

How can ANY animals survive without federal protection when the human population is so out of control and in the billions! Pushing all other animals out of their habitats. I don't think any species left on this planet out numbers humans unless you are Ant.

You are making a big mistake here.

- Steven Rollner
# Posted By Steven Rollner | 6/7/13 9:15 PM

Ranchers have undue influence over State legislatures and it will be open season on wolves.All the funds and effort to bring back the wolf will be wasted.This action is shameful.
# Posted By Shawn | 6/7/13 9:26 PM

Without the protection afforded by the endangered species act, wolves will once again become, almost instant targets for the most egregious forms of harvesting...live leg trapping, baiting, den kills, poisoning. Not to mention a good old bullet to the head. Than gov will react again, in its ponderous fashion taking to much time to do the population any good. Meanwhile self congratulatory bureaucrats will put out politically neutral comments like the one here, falling and fawning all over themselves. We citizens know that without federal oversight, sharp declines in populations will occur, so why do it? Manage the wolves, USFWS, do not abrogate your responsibilities, as you have just done.
# Posted By Mike Palaima | 6/7/13 9:35 PM

Do you seriously believe that once these beautiful animals are delisted that each state will successfully protect them? No, once they are off the list there will be people lining up to hunt them. They need to stay on the endangered species list because they are just that.
# Posted By Nicky | 6/7/13 10:34 PM

I think Gray Wolves and the Mexican Wolf are still too rare to delist from the endangered status.
# Posted By Tom Proett | 6/7/13 11:28 PM

It is an absolute travesty to state that the wolf recovery has been successful. The partial delisting two years ago led to 1700 wolf killing by ranchers and government officials who believe the only good wolf is a dead one. This latest turn will result in the decimation of small, stabilizing populations which still have a long way to go. Their social structure is threatened, as is the species very existence. Shameful.
# Posted By Kim Frohlinger | 6/7/13 11:41 PM

Now it's open season on one of God's majestic creatures.....shame on you~
# Posted By | 6/8/13 3:05 AM

What a shame. One of the few animals I can think of to be brought back from near extinction (by the hand of man) to face the same fate again from greedy ranchers and so called sportsman, hunting to kill something for fun. Unlike the wolf killing for food.
# Posted By Warren Miller | 6/8/13 11:25 AM

I have great respect for your organization, but I have some serious doubts about the plan to delist the Grey Wolf. From numbers that I could find on the internet, around 500 wolves were killed last year in the previously delisted areas. That's nearly 10% of the entire population and much larger fraction of the population in the delisted areas. I don't see how such large yearly hunting losses never mind the numbers killed for other reasons can be considered sustainable. Especially when there can be potential natural pressures on the populations due to disease, climate, and collapse of their ecosystem.

If the states were to establish reasonable hunting limits and were to truly embrace the the establishment of robust populations, I would agree with the plan to delist. But, there's every evidence that the states plan to keep the populations as low as they can without triggering a re-listing of the wolf.
# Posted By Brian Cole | 6/8/13 12:21 PM

The American people are not stupid. I know several career USFWS people with longer time in with the USFWS. When I ask one of a dozen questions there is SILENCE.. Your own people can't defend this policy...page 81 of your own draft rule states that 2/3 of wolf poaching goes unreported. Mech and others say this is a major threat to wolf recovery and more importantly to wolves regaining former habitat. Read your own draft rule....we have the same enemies of biodiversity- ranchers and trophy sport hunters spreading the hysteria. Meanwhile- the very job that you occupy was the result of a political arrangement between two ranchers....mead and Salazar.... Nice science based wolf plan in Wyoming....wolves shot or killed by any means any reason in 85% of the state...bottlenecked in one small corner of the state- and we can't even protect our famous Yellowstone collared wolves from the wildlife killers. Resign mr ashe
# Posted By William huard | 6/8/13 12:22 PM

I believe we should still protect the wolves.
They are very important to out enviroment.
# Posted By Bonnie Wilson | 6/8/13 12:25 PM

"we’re proposing to hand over the management of these keystone predators to the professionals at the state and tribal wildlife agencies".

Wow. The history of this litigation is not something that gives me confidence. I feel that turning the fate of these magnificent hunters, key elements of nature's balance, over to humans - again - who have their own agenda about wolves is wrong-headed Pollyannism at best, and self-serving political drivel at worst. Comparing 65,000 wolves to 500,000 bison is comparing apples to oranges. Bison are not predatory and do not control a food chain hierarchy. No one is killing off bison these days. But neither species can survive "modern" civilization without appropriate, enlightened supervision. Abandoning wolves to ranchers is not enlightened policy.

Just my 2c.
# Posted By pj | 6/8/13 1:07 PM

Turning "management" of wolves over to the states has been disastrous. They aren't managing they are slaughtering without considering how its done(torturing by gut shooting, trapping and snaring), when its done (breeding and denning seasons when pups are born,) and not providing buffer zones outside National Parks. If a wolf travels to a neighboring state it is endangered in that state and should not be killed. It's within its former range and habitat. The Federal Agency that you oversee is also accountable to what the public wants, not just hunters, trappers, and special interest groups with big money. We pay taxes on public lands and in National Parks and it is only right and just that we, the people, have some say in the delisting and killing of wolves. An agency that calls itself steadfast, intelligent, and professional is not collectively using information gathered by scientists and biologists with their scientific facts that the recovery of wolves is not complete.
# Posted By Jeanne Rasmussen | 6/8/13 1:10 PM

This is beyond sad and disgusting, you have sold out our heritage and our land to ranchers, shame on you. As a taxpayer and person who grew up in the west I can't believe my government is doing this and giving the states the greenlight to exterminate them, I will be donating all I can to the coming lawsuits to stop this.
# Posted By Kerry | 6/8/13 5:32 PM

Please note that this is a terrible idea. Do not take the wolves off the Endangered Species List.

While this is open to public comment for 90 days, I hope that many US citizens will write in to express their disagreement with this measure.
# Posted By Mary | 6/8/13 5:48 PM

The supposed intent was state management, which has turn into horrific atrocities against the wolves, with millions of unintended victims. This is due to out of control hunters, trappers and the USFWD setting traps and M-44's filled with cyanide in State, National, and Municipal Parks. Also setting traps on private land. They've made it unsafe for our children to play in their own back yards, go camping, or play in parks that are maintained with tax dollars. Not to mention the numerous domestic pets that have died due to traps. So why are they being allowed to continue this barbaric behavior? The only conclusion I can come to, is they want to exterminate all wolves.
# Posted By Dianna Posner | 6/8/13 6:57 PM

I was very disheartened to hear that this was going to be considered. I agree that much of the data you have gathered has been skewed by the fact that it has only been attributed to those agencies that have a stake in the de-listing of wolves rather than those that desire the continued protections. The numbers simply are not realistic and you know that if they are de-listed there will be an outright massacre by the states that have been tasked with "managing" their numbers. Just take one look at the comments on your Facebook page and read the sick and disturbed comments being posted by de-listing supporters. It's enough to make any caring human sick. I want the USFWS to provide substantial independent research data that argues that de-listing is an inappropriate move at this time. It is your responsibility to look at all the angles and, by the listing of contributors to your studies, you have failed miserably at that. You must continue and expand the protections, not eliminate them.
# Posted By John Colgrove | 6/8/13 7:35 PM

The truth hurts mr ashe....I didn't expect you to publish my first post.....the american people are not fooled.....Look at your USFWS facebook page- there are thousands of pro=wolf posts...people that support biodiversity. You and President Obama are frauds
# Posted By william huard | 6/8/13 8:37 PM

Just another reason to boycott federal parks this administration and the people they appoint are not friendly to animals
# Posted By Rick Meier | 6/8/13 8:53 PM

how can you say they are in rcovery?you want to delist them and continue to slaughter them!you are wrong this decision is wrong and you will face a backlash and opposition to from the public.their protection needs to be extended to all the states includeing montana,idaho and minnesota.this drive to make them extinct needs to stop and the federal govt. needs to step in to help and protect these animals.you all will be held accountable for your actions by the people.
# Posted By | 6/10/13 11:15 AM

Dropping federal protection now is gutting 40 years of hard work to bring back wolves from the brink of exinction. Since the delisting in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes region about 1500 wolves have been hunted down in the name of management, which means open season on wolves. In my area the Northwest we have a very small population. If they are killed off we may never see them again.
# Posted By Rae | 6/10/13 11:28 AM

How can an animal that once numbered well into the hundreds of thousands be considered as "recovered" with a population now at a miniscule 6,100? The gray wolf once roamed EVERY state in North America and until that is accomplished again, protections MUST still be given! No changes should or need to occur in the protection of the gray wolf at this time.
# Posted By Jeff | 6/10/13 1:14 PM

Please reconsider this most ill-advised move...to delist the wolf. I am also concerned about the "people" that hunt and torture our wolves. We have spent too much time and money to stop now! I sent you a letter today expressing my feelings. If there are too many wolves...provide birth control...not death!
# Posted By Pam Kistler | 6/10/13 3:31 PM

Excuse me, but how is it good policy to hunt a species (wolves) to near extinction before you protect them, and then once, the species has recovered a bit, canceling their protection so they can be hunted to near extinction yet again? If we all managed our businesses and organizations the way you are running this program, we'd all be out of jobs. And that's exactly where all of you should be: fired for this mismanagement.
# Posted By KC DeWinter | 6/10/13 4:43 PM

If you really want a proper dialogue, you should just post what people have to say. Instead, I posted a comment, and now it has to be "approved" before you will post it? Are you kidding me? This Comment function is a joke, and so is the management of this department. You are all supposed to be STEWARDS of the land, water and wildlife, not destroyers of it.
# Posted By KC DeWinter | 6/10/13 4:45 PM

When they Say populations have reached "record" amounts what is their comparison? Everything we have on record is from when they were endangered. Therefore, all we know is that they are around endangered levels, but slightly above from what we recorded and once thought endangered. Its based on no reality other then the fact that we don't have the budget or will power to keep up the good fight. Citizens are willing to chip in to save the wolves, so therefore, the government is responsible for doing so!
# Posted By Matt M | 6/10/13 5:28 PM

States have proven to be entirely incapable of “managing” wolves. The livestock and hunting industries are influencing state wolf policies, while science is ignored. And, the usual Big Bad Wolf fairy tales are being trotted out to justify the wolf slaughter. How is it sound or ethical “management” to kill wolves during breeding season, or kill pregant wolves, or hunt wolves with dogs? How is it sound or ethical “management” to allow the killing of wolves without a license in 80% of Wyoming? Politics, not science, has been driving this issue from the start. Biologists warned against Tester’s delisting rider. 16 of the nation’s top biologists have warned against delisting in the lower 48. Yet you continue to ignore these credible voices and pander to politicians and special interests. You and this administration are doing unprecedented damage to the ESA and to wildlife. It’s well past time for you to resign.
# Posted By Joanne Favazza | 6/10/13 6:06 PM

I am very concerned with your decision to delist Gray wolves. Turning the future of this species over to state legislatures will almost certainly guarantee that they will be hunted to near extinction again. Recent history in my own state indicates that this is the future, as they are already under pressure. If you look at population numbers present in the wild versus the number killed in the past few years in the name of "management", there is no way the population can sustain this kind of hit once the floodgates are opened. What science supports your conclusion?
# Posted By J Adams | 6/10/13 8:17 PM

this is wrong! you should not delisted the gray wolf from federal protection, it will be open season for the ranchers and trophy, sport hunters will have states plan to keep the populations as low as they can without triggering a re-listing of the wolf. please don't let this happen!.
# Posted By leona firewolf | 6/11/13 8:07 AM

I commented yesterday and subscribed to this but strangely, my commented hasn't posted, although I'm getting updates. So, I will try again. "Cowboy Ken" Salazar and his rancher buddies are now exposed for the cheats they are. Ranchers are gaming the Federal system of compensation for livestock loss to predators by grazing irresponsibly - not sheltering newborns in sheds, and not keeping adequate watch over herds. Even so, wolf predation accounts for less than 1 percent of livestock loss. And there have been only 2 cases of wolf-on-human attack in the lower 48 states in the last 50 years. We hear an awful lot about ranchers' rights, and hunters' rights - but what about my rights as a citizen and taxpayer to a protected wilderness and its inhabitants?
# Posted By Julie Long Gallegos | 6/11/13 12:20 PM

This delisting is wrong and you know it. It is only being done to cater to a small special interest group (cattlemen & ranchers). The American public does not want to see wolves slaughtered. DO NOT DO THIS!!
# Posted By Dori Aravis | 6/11/13 1:52 PM

The States management plans for the Gray Wolf are to kill it. Wyoming has a shoot on sight policy, Wisconsin wants to use dogs to hunt wolves and is planning on doubling their "quota" for their second wolf hunt. Why are all the conservation scientists being ignored? Delisting makes NO sense when they aren't even present in more than half the states.Us non-hunters would like to see the wolves run in the wild. Recall there is a Public Trust Doctrine that gives every citizen the right to enjoy the wildlife of this country. Frankly the people who want to see wolves thrive are far more numerous than those who want to Delist the Gray Wolf. You are betraying the Public Trust when mislead them into thinking the Gray Wolf is in no danger.
# Posted By Ron Fitzpatrick | 6/11/13 4:46 PM

I agree with Julie Gallegoes...Where does the responsibility of the rancher come in ...they have been allowed to get away with this criminal behavior for too long! They need to take care of their animals...not on the backs of taxpayers and especially the wolves!
# Posted By Pam Kistler | 6/11/13 7:00 PM

Sad that USFWS think they can justify an ill-thought recommendation to delist wolves. Do you seriously think that the states who are already anti-wolf will "manage" the wolf population correctly?? Absolutely not! They will hunt them until they are all gone, and your idiotic recommendation will show just how well that worked out. Numbers and studies for each state are bought and paid for by the anti-wolf fish and game commissions--and Idaho's is the most corrupt by far. THey manipulate the numbers to satisfy the USFWS and then get their way. Maybe someday livestock and hunting interests will not be allowed to have their way and federal agencies will actually LISTEN to the majority of the folks who pay their salary. I pray that someone in the administration steps up ad sees this delisting proposal as the tragedy it will become.
# Posted By lib | 6/11/13 7:02 PM

Decision to remove the grey wolf from endangered list is a good decision. Many comments I have read on this site are based on emotion and not very well thought out or are based on not knowing the general environment the wolf survives in and where "sheltering newborns in sheds" is not possible. Keeping them protected until "they roam freely in all states", I guess we need to tear up all the Interstates and go back to "horse and buggy day", I believe the department has done an outstanding job in a difficult situation. Probably could have been delisted earlier, but that is only an opinion, I respect their hard work and open minded approach.
# Posted By | 6/12/13 9:50 AM

So we brought grey wolves back so we could shoot them? Well, knowing our totally screwed up government, that makes perfect sense.
# Posted By Dori Aravis | 6/12/13 12:36 PM

This is a complete travesty. The wolves are not recovered, and this allow a full blown slaughter of the few remaining wolves. Wolves are part of the balance of nature. Large corporate farmers and ranchers are not. I see nothing truthful in your blog. Constantly and needlessly killing the wolves reeks of political strong arming. Brutal, cruelty is the result.
# Posted By Disgusted | 6/12/13 7:37 PM

There are no so called "professionals" waiting to take over the care of the grey wolf. You compare the ESA to an emergency room and yet you're kicking out your patient while he's still on life support. And you're kicking him right into an angry mob. The officials in charge of wildlife management in the states such as Wyoming, Montana and Idaho have no interest in seeing the wolf spread out into the rest of its former range. Their idea of conservation is shoot on site. Putting wolves back into the hands of these people will see them decline drastically and we'll be right back where we started again. This animal will be back on the ESA faster than you can say genocide.
# Posted By Kate | 6/12/13 10:48 PM

As someone who lives outside of the US, I am appalled to keep reading the (in my view) justified criticisms of the Fish & Wildlife Service. The US has some of the most magnificent wildlife in the world and I despair at the minority who seem to have all the power to decide the fate of these magnificent creatures in the face of overwhelming public opinion against attempts yet again to exterminate them. They are sentient beings who deserve to be left alone. FWS is not fit for purpose.
# Posted By Carol | 6/13/13 3:47 AM

A recent artical in the Science section of the New York Times on Tuesday, June 11th, stated that more Pumas,(mountain lions), than ever before are migrating to the Rockies and west. If they used their collective heads, Republicans and ranchers would realize that wolves are not the only predatory animals responcible for ranchers problems. Apart from being beautiful animals, wolves are among the most intelligent of animals. They take only what they need to survive. They have the most tightly knit social order, And unlike humans, have as many young as they can feed, comfortably. Wolves are afraid of humans. They hide from us. They must be protected, not slaughtered. Ranchers can't blame the wolf for all their problems. But that seems to be their easy way out..There are other things they can do to protect their herds. One more thing, prey animals forage on grasses, less wolves, more prey animals, less foraging land.
# Posted By Pearl Rosenstein | 6/13/13 8:32 AM

Wildlife as animals are akin to the poorest people in our society. They need the government to protect them from the majority and the powerful. The previous comments listed express my concerns about this unnecessary action. If the federal government caretakers of wildlife can be cowed by the landowners, what chance would a respectable state wildlife professional have in the states which disparage the wolf.
# Posted By Gerald Schuth | 6/13/13 12:44 PM

Wandering packs of feral dogs kill more livestock than wolves do, this is a proven fact. Perhaps these predators should be removed first. Wolves can be managed with guard dogs, ropes with fabric attached which scares them, and besides, it is not the rancher's land, it is the American Public's land and most of us want the wolves to recover their traditional ranges. Let the ranchers buy their own land, not lease it from us at ridiculously low rates; let them electrify their fences on their own private property. The ranchers think that the only good wolf is a dead one, and once delisted, the wolves are DOA.
# Posted By Kim Frohlinger | 6/13/13 1:06 PM

I'm responding to the person who opted to post entirely anonymously on 6/12, who questioned my posting of 6/11/13 and quoted me re: shedding of newborns. Thank you for reading my comment. I must have hit a nerve! You did not address my larger points - these facts (not emotion, but facts): 1. wolf predation accounts for less than 1 percent of all livestock losses in 2012 and 2. there have been only 2 cases of wolf-on-human attacks in the last 50 years. Re: shedding of newborn livestock - if the rancher can't afford to shed newborns, the rancher shouldn't be in the ranching business.
My response to "anonymous" is that emotions are good things, they make thinking people want to analyze the emotional response. Here is a link to further that discourse.
# Posted By Julie Long Gallegos | 6/13/13 1:07 PM

I have noticed far too many wolves with collars being killed in the photos being posted all over. The taking away of wolves from the endangered list, and the mass killings with no order or sense, is really pointing to an agenda. The agenda is to kill ALL wolves, with no regard to the environmental impact. I have read the so called reasons for "management"...and this goes to all predatory wildlife...and it boils down to the short term money of hunting tags, with no care in the world of future problems killing ALL of natures predators will cause. I see a tiny group of over moneyed 'hunters', killing off a majority of wildlife for a mere moment of thrill. I would like to enjoy living wildlife, not ugly dead 'trophys' in someones' house. Federal Wildlife Managements are really failing the majority of the population, catering to the microscopic minority. As for predation of cattle on those horrible ranches, who cares? I eat local meat from organic farms, its way better by far!
# Posted By C. Stinson | 6/13/13 4:06 PM

I am responding to the June 13, 2013 / 6:20 AM Comment made by: (anonymous) IP that a "Decision to remove the grey wolf from endangered list is a good decision." I disagree. Vehemently. Many comments are based on a thorough reading of the FWS analysis. I, for one, note that its proposed delisting the grey wolf is based on its conclusion (canis lupus) is not a "species".
The preface says, "best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently listed entity (Canis lupus) is not a valid species under the Act". What a crock.

I agree that we cannot reverse engineer the climate in which wolves originally existed, but we can certainly do something other than acquiesce to one-dimensional conclusions like this. In a nutshell, unless other experts can point out that FWS's redefining "species" as applied in the Act is incorrect or unsubstantiated, I fear the worst.
# Posted By pj | 6/13/13 4:11 PM

I've been reading the comments - not one approves this stupid plan to delist wolves. Do you think we are ignorant and can't see where this decision is coming from? Special interest groups - cattlemen & trophy hunters. There is absolutely no scientific reason to hunt and kill these magnificant animals. This is greed and stupidity plain and simple. These wolves belong to the American people, not to the states and certainly not to the people who only want to kill them. Haven't wolves been tormented enough over history? In God's name, give them a break!!!!
# Posted By Dori | 6/13/13 5:14 PM

I don't believe this is the right choice for F&W to choose. After seeing photo's of "very satisfied hunters holding up their killed wolf's (most of them wearing radio tracking collars yet dead)because keeping track it's as important as getting to kill one of these great animals with a gun! So it's easy prey for the so called humans who take pride. This is a shame & it goes against what the F&W cite as their "mission statement,continuing the benefit of the American people". Also stating both a leader & trusted partner". The wolf represents what America once was, to be free & roam where ever it wanted. Now their bound by borders of states & ranchers who use our public lands as their own back yard for their cattle or other live stock. So for them the wolf is the bad guy because of these small number of citizens enforcing their right to carry arms & hunt & kill an animal that your agency predicts will continue to survive? As a former military combat veteran I resent the F&W position.
# Posted By Michael J.G. | 6/13/13 9:07 PM

When the wolves are taken off the list for protection, a BloodBath will ensue !! For whatever reason, many in this country would like to TORTURE the wolf and Why is this??
Where I grew up in the mts. Of NY (60s) we had some appearances of wild wolves. My friend & I were with our dogs. We would stand still, but I will tell you, there was NO occurances of attack!! They would sniff, stand with us but they wrre not angry. I say this because they abide by the Rules of Nature. Sit with thesecow/steer owners & figure out the Laws of Nature!!!!!! Don't kill the poor things....find other ways to keep them off the property.
And PLEASE don't let the helicopter cowboys run them into the ground & shoot them!!!!!!! That's totally cruel!!! Please consider what I say...they are nice red blooded creatures...the Lord will love you 4 it ;-)
# Posted By | 6/14/13 3:13 AM

Please reverse the proposed plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that would remove federal Endangered Species Act protections from wolves across most of the Lower 48 states. This plan would slam the door on gray wolf recovery before the job is done.The return of gray wolves to areas like the Northern Rockies and the western Great Lakes is one of the greatest conservation success stories of our time. But there are still few -- if any -- wolves in large portions of their former range, where scientists have determined suitable habitat exists. Wolf recovery in those places will depend on federal protections.Wolves are just beginning to make a comeback in Oregon and Washington, and a wolf recently made its way to California -- the first wolf in the state in more than 80 years. Lone wolves have also crossed into Utah, Colorado and multiple states in the Northeast. With federal protections removed, wolf recovery in these places is not likely to ever happen.
# Posted By nancy shinn | 6/14/13 1:55 PM

The ill-timed and reckless proposed action by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves would be a conservation nightmare. Delisting this iconic species would completely reverse decades of hard work to re-introduce the wolves to sustainable habitat. Rabid anti-wolf politics must NOT be allowed to overrule scientific facts and wildlife management principles and could lead to the extinction of this iconic species.

Already, more than 1,700 wolves have been brutally killed since Congress took away ESA protections in 2011. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to protect America’s gray wolves that are just coming back from the brink of eradication.
# Posted By DoAZIDo27 | 6/22/13 4:58 PM

The US congress has done something terrible to the face of the American Wildlife, specifically, to the Grey Wolves of the Rocky Mountains.For the first time in history, an animal has been removed from the Endangered Species List. This animal is the grey wolf. These animals have not been removed because they have bounced back in population.They have been removed because of the anti-wolf politics being pushed by local politicians in the Rocky Mountain Area including Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. People are living in the dark ages with their ideas. They are living in fear of the less than 5,000 wolves that inhabit our entire country (as of 2008, before anti-wolf politics).They have hatred towards animals that are necessary to keep the balance in the forest lands and national parks. They kill the wolves for sport, something that is socially acceptable. Other corrupt, more wealthy people pay for the hides or pay large amount of money to go on "wolf hunts".
# Posted By Jessie Matheny | 6/24/13 9:46 PM

our countries government has approved the ability to shoot and kill the animals without being punished by taking them off the Endangered Species List. Will we as humans with a population of almost 7 billion, think we have the right to kill a species to already almost at extinction? This, when we were responsible for killing them and bringing their numbers down in the first place just over 100 years ago.When I was a child growing up in Montana, the wolves reached a dangerously low population. I was proud when the local Fish and Wildlife Admin stepped in and made protected areas for the wolves while they bred, and brought in wolves from other areas to ensure their thriving numbers. This was the ethical right decision.The most famous of all the Wolves in Yellowstone National park has even been recently killed. She was the Alpha Female of the famous Lamar Canyon wolf pack. Her pack now being without a strong female alpha will have trouble defending themselves without her strength.
# Posted By Aaron | 6/24/13 9:48 PM

Join 12,000 people and sign the petition against taking wolves off of the endangered species list.

# Posted By Ayenjay | 6/24/13 10:04 PM

The people of the USA nearly destroyed the native wolf population in the past. NOW, thanks to your proposal, they have yet another chance to do so. PLEASE do NOT remove the wolf from the endangered species list. Ranchers don't need to shoot on sight anything which COULD endanger their livestock. They NEED TO TAKE BETTER CARE OF their livestock! i.e. place humans next to the cattle. OR take their chances with nature.
# Posted By S. Forsman | 7/9/13 11:45 AM

I am writing to request that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hold public hearings regarding the proposal to remove federal protections for gray wolves across much of the lower 48 states and that the current public comment period for the wolf-delisting proposal be extended by 30 days. This is of national significance: it will influence the recovery of an iconic native species that once ranged widely across the US. If enacted, the rule would remove federal protections for wolves in states they once inhabited and where suitable wolf habitat still exists without any attempt at federal recovery planning for wolves there. The proposal will also result in addressing habitat for the Mexican gray wolf subspecies in the Southwest. I recommend that hearings be held in the following five cities: Portland, Ore.; Sacramento, Calif.; Denver, Colo.; Tucson, Ariz. and Portland, Maine.
# Posted By | 7/9/13 3:17 PM

As a follow-up to my previous comment (which I forgot to add my name to): I recommend that hearings be held in the following five cities: Portland, Ore.; Sacramento, Calif.; Denver, Colo.; Tucson, Ariz. and Portland, Maine because they are located in a region where scientists have identified thousands of acres of habitat that is suitable for wolves. The Fish and Wildlife Service is aware of the studies documenting this habitat. Wolves could be restored to these regions only through continued federal protections for wolves and the development of federal recovery programs. The public cares deeply about wolves and their conservation. They are an important part of our national heritage and play a key role as apex predator. Federal recovery efforts to date have been widely publicized, and state management of wolves where federal protections have already been lifted has been extremely controversial. It is essential that there be adequate opportunity for public input.
# Posted By Dorianne Rena Dantowitz | 7/9/13 3:22 PM

Please don't take any wolves off the endangered species list. If you delist wolves, your success would effectively be nothing more than "breeding" wolves for hunters who can then hunt them to extinction again. Then you can relist them and breed them back only to let them be hunted to extinction again. How sad.
# Posted By Dorianne Dantowitz | 7/9/13 3:32 PM

Don't you find it very interesting that nobody is writing to applaud the Fish & Wildlife Division's deeply flawed decision to de-list wolves? Does that tell you something? Maybe that the American people don't want wolves delisted? I also guess that means that you will go right ahead with this wrong-headed decision since a government of the people seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth.
# Posted By Bev | 7/10/13 5:21 PM

I,too, believe this is a travesty. We have not learned from the past. Hunters are lined up, and it is only a matter of time before the numbers decline again. These predators are still necessary for nature's balance. When will we learn? Shame on those responsible for delisting this species.
# Posted By Linda | 7/11/13 9:58 AM

Unless people are educated on the importance and true nature of the wolf, removing protections from it is a ridiculous notion. With the reputation that the wolf has, it has little hope of further recovery without the protections of the federal government. Removing protections in states such as Wyoming has resulted in hundreds of wolves being killed and wolf populations are actually decreasing rather than increasing and strangely, livestock kills have actually increased as well. Experienced adult wolves being killed, leaving pups without parents and adolescent wolves without teachers. Because of the lack of guidance, younger wolves are more likely turn to taking livestock instead of hunting, which is furthering their bad reputation and spurring even more wolf killing.
# Posted By Concerned American Citizen | 7/25/13 6:00 PM

In my state, Washington, wolves are returning but far from established. Yet our local F & W has already killed one entire pack which violated our state wolf recovery plan. Don't count on the states.
# Posted By Martha Hall | 7/28/13 11:57 PM

I think training wolves to avoid livestock by using a shock collar on wolves, that is activated by another collar on livestock, or in the area of livestock, like an invisible fence used to train dogs to not roam out of an area, would be an easy fix to some of these problems. GPS tracking would also add volumes to the research of the needed size of territories for a sustainable population.
# Posted By Matt Mezinze | 7/29/13 12:47 PM

Why did we release gray wolves if we are going to turn around and kill them all? I understand why ranchers dislike wolves. But research shows that the cattle deaths have been way below what scientist have estimated. And that whole elk thing is ridiculous, mountain lions and bears (bears mainly take calves) take more elk then wolves anyway. God put wolves in the Rockies for a reason. They are a keystone species. They help out other wildlife like beavers and moose. If you can wolves out of the Rockies you take the wildness right out of them as well. In yellowstone national park wolf watching has dramatically increase the local economy because of wolves. People want to see wolves, they are willing to spend money to watch them! Keep wolves free and protected!
# Posted By Justin Patterson | 7/29/13 6:43 PM

As evidenced by the comments above the wolf reintroduction was an abysmal failure. I understand Bangs and Rappaport and Babbitt left the issue for you to deal with while taking pot shots from the peanut gallery, but that is the nature of wolf reintroduction. There is a certain amount of public education that was missing from the very beginning, and until that most vital component is fulfilled the job of FWS is not complete. I read your statement with care, and I’m positive you understand the issue in all it’s complexity. To complete the job somehow that segment of the public such as has responded in comments here, needs to arrive at an understanding of the issue too.
# Posted By Wildlife Supporter | 7/30/13 9:47 AM

Gray wolves are still endangered and ned to be protected. I think the F&W Service is making a big mistake handing it over to the states. They want to get rid of them.
# Posted By Jim Ganyon | 7/30/13 3:20 PM

Over the years I have twice visited Yellowstone. First time there a large number of Bison. Second time there were a lot less. I asked where they had gone. I found out that Montana was killing all that left the Park to the North looking for winter food in our National Forests (inside Montana). USDA and DOI need to talk.

Also , I was shown how the wolves kept the bison, moose and elk moving and not allowing them to stay and eat all the willow and other vegetation on the stream banks. This resulted in natural streams with returning otters, beaver, fish and other aquation life that before the return of wolves had long ago left Yellowstone.It is obvious to myself and other Naturalists that wolves are a top predator that are needed on all Public Lands. I am intersted in knowing what US Fish and Wildlife is doing to ensure all National Public land retain Wolves or Mountain Lions as top predators? For without a top predator America's public lands and no more than cattle ranches.
# Posted By Sam Booher | 8/13/13 9:44 PM

Over the years I have twice visited Yellowstone. First time there a large number of Bison. Second time there were a lot less. I asked where they had gone. I found out that Montana was killing all that left the Park to the North looking for winter food in our National Forests (inside Montana). USDA and DOI need to talk.

Also , I was shown how the wolves kept the bison, moose and elk moving and not allowing them to stay and eat all the willow and other vegetation on the stream banks. This resulted in natural streams with returning otters, beaver, fish and other aquation life that before the return of wolves had long ago left Yellowstone.It is obvious to myself and other Naturalists that wolves are a top predator that are needed on all Public Lands. I am intersted in knowing what US Fish and Wildlife is doing to ensure all National Public land retain Wolves or Mountain Lions as top predators? For without a top predator America's public lands and no more than cattle ranches.
# Posted By Sam Booher | 8/13/13 9:45 PM

When deciding whether or not to delist a species as an endangered species, does the Fish and Wildlife Service use mathematical modeling?
# Posted By Michael Klein | 8/26/13 6:32 PM

I wonder if any of these pro wolf supporters have ever had to make their living off the land and then to have a cash asset like a calf or lamb eaten by a hungry pack. When one of them or their peers are attacked, it may change their concrete jungle attitude.
# Posted By Dennis Pluth | 8/27/13 2:50 PM

When deciding policy on managing the gray wolf, does the Fish and Wildlife Service rely on mathematical modeling of wolf populations? If yes, where would some of those models be described?
# Posted By Michael Klein | 8/27/13 6:39 PM

Response to Dennis Pluth: Of course wolf attacks on humans are unacceptable, but they are rare, usually by those few wolves that are rabid or are habituated to humans. And of course we want to minimize wolf predation on livestock. Question is, can we do so without minimizing wolf populations? Wyoming is trying to keep wolves and livestock separate by protecting wolves in the wild northwest part of the state while allowing any wolf to be killed anywhere else in the state. It remains to be seen if this approach is successful. Another way is to make sure that there is enough wolf habitat stocked with enough wild game so that wolves do not feel the need to wander into human territory. There should be enough room in this world for both humans and wildlife, and a good wildlife environment needs a top predator like the wolf.
# Posted By Michael Klein | 8/28/13 11:14 PM

The gray wolf is nothing but a political pawn played by both sides and pimped by a shill of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sevice that tries to act legit .....shameful
# Posted By Rick Meier | 9/2/13 2:27 AM

No public hearing in the Pacific Northwest? Those of us in Oregon and Washington have a completely different view of the proposed delisting than people in the states where hearings are currently scheduled.
# Posted By Randy Comeleo | 9/5/13 3:05 PM

What are you in such a freaking big rush to delist wolves? As a member of both the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife, I tend to let them speak for me because they are much better at remaining polite. It isn't polite to destroy something that took decades to restore. With programs in place to compensate for predation I don't understand the blood lust against wolves.
# Posted By Cristy Murray | 9/5/13 3:10 PM

In the past few years the elk herd in Yellowstone has been nearly wiped out by the wolves. Only elk left are those living close by the inhabited areas. Let's face it the wolf population is growing way too fast.
They need control.
# Posted By Dennis Pluth | 9/5/13 3:56 PM

Could you please have a Public Comment Hearing in Colorado? Many people in this state would like to have their voice heard on this issue. Wolves need continued Federal protection in suitable habitat/historic range where they have not yet reestablished populations. Colorado could have wolves migrating in from both the North and South.
# Posted By Mtn Mamma | 9/5/13 8:48 PM

I live in Colorado and would love to see wolves reestablish a healthy population here. Colorado has excellent wolf habitat and is part of the Gray Wolves historical range. We could see Grays disperse from the North or Mexican Grays disperse from the South. I have closely followed the saga of wolf recovery in both science and political realms. I do feel that the USFWS's delisting proposal is premature. I would like the opportunity to voice my opinion on the matter. Would you please consider hosting an additional Public Hearing in Colorado?
# Posted By | 9/6/13 10:29 AM

To put the survival of the Gray Wolf back in the hands of the very people that led to their total eradication in the 1980's is beyond recklessness.The past 40 years the Fish and Wildlife Service has spent countless time and effort in the reintroduction of the species.This regulation would once again give control to the hunting and ranching interests who are not and will never be in favor of the wolf's survival in the lower 48 states. In good conscience no other decision can be made but to keep the Gray Wolf under Federal protection.
# Posted By Gordon Holm | 9/10/13 1:32 PM

Our iconic wolves are an integral part of wilderness ecosystems. They are magnificent, iconic animals and will, once again, be put in harms way by ranchers and thrill-of-the-kill hunters who want to see them "exterminated!" There is no truth or logic in their supposed "recovery" and handing their lives over to individual states is surely signing their death warrant! Where is compassion and respect for life when these decisions are made?
# Posted By Shirley Smith | 9/10/13 8:38 PM

OMG! Wolf recovery is not anywhere near the goal. And we see week after week how many have been slaughtered, one way or another. Just this week we see a horrible photo of men in KKK type masks, who are too afraid to show their despicable faces, who are out looking to kill as many wolves as they can. This is not success! This is extermination. It's got to be stopped! DO NOT DE-LIST THE WOLVES.
# Posted By C. Steel | 10/30/13 3:58 PM

Leaving the protection of wolves to the localized management of the northwest Rocky Mountain states is like leaving racial civil rights management to states in the deep south. Where deep prejudice and hatred against wolves has resulted in their prior near extinction, and the culture of hatred remains deeply imbedded, there is no logic, no reason, and no hope for a successful outcome. There are many issues which if handled according to local cultural norms, fly directly in opposition to the national constitutionally guaranteed rights and laws of our country. That is why we have a Supreme Court system to mediate these issues. Wolves need federal protection, especially in the light of the leverage wielded by the vested interests of anti-wolf elements in the governments of these states. I live in Montana and the prevalent attitude of the elected officials here is one which reflects ranchers views, pretty well expressed by the saying, "The only good wolf is a dead wolf."
Stop the killing.
# Posted By Carol Edwards | 10/30/13 4:08 PM

The wolf is still under threat in this country and should NOT be taken off the endangered species list.
# Posted By Sandra | 10/30/13 4:10 PM

I believe wolves are to be protected.

They have given us so much. Wolves gave us dogs and we need to respect that. They gave us thousands of years of happiness with our dogs. Dogs are descendants of the wolf and are loving, kind, and friendly. We owe them so much and I believe that they should be granted immense respect.

They can offer you a family and love if you just gave them the chance and take the proper steps. They have so much more to give us. Save our wolves.

Screw elk and deer. What do they offer?

Wolves at least offer you something and some interest. They are beautiful creatures just as important as any other.

They keep our forests from being eaten up. Deer, Elk, and Moose all eat up that beauty. Wolves keep the perfect balance in the animal kingdom.

Wolves are one of the most beautiful creatures out there.

They can be friendly. There has been incidences where people have run into a wolf pack and instead of being attacked, they were greeted with nuzzling, licking and playfulness. :)
# Posted By Cmdr. Humphrey M. Dimitrov | 10/30/13 4:10 PM

´´as it goes with the wolves, so it goes with the people´´ is an old saying among our Native nations of the north central plains over to the rockies. in the same way that the large special economic interests -pharmaceutical, OIL, chemical, medical, agricultural, junk food, and others, as well as other overly wealthy minority of the population -- wield entirely too much poitical clout and want to further dominate and diminish the chances of well being of the majority of Americans who struggle to make ends meet, similarly, the special interests of cattle ranchers, hunters, etc. would like to totally own and control our national lands and Nature itself for their own (apparent) and ill thought out convenience.
As an American I claim my rights to instruct you to protect the wellbeing of the wolves, and NOT leave them vulnerable to those forces who will only seek to exterminate them..........
# Posted By z´ev | 10/30/13 4:11 PM

This is a recipe for failure. I’ll agree gray wolf populations have increased in number but how can you honestly say that allowing states like Idaho and Wyoming who cater to cattle ranchers and hunters to manage the continued recovery of any species just out of near extinction is in any way responsible? Out of the critical recovery room and back to the emergency room, that is the only direction this is headed if ESA protection is removed and states control the future of gray wolf populations.
# Posted By | 10/30/13 4:11 PM

Shame on you! You are propagating the same lies as the irrational wolf-haters. The problem with your thesis is that it is not based on science, it's all politics & special interests. MT, ID & WY have already proven that they are not to be trusted. All Americans should have a say - not just the FWP whose staff have a financial interest in selling tags. They sold 6,000 tags for 315 wolves - that's $19/wolf. They are killing wolves that are not in trouble, they are just doing what they are supposed to do: predators keep the balance. A Native American asked me once "why do they want to kill the wolves? - you can't eat them, they are our friends." There is also the issue of genetic viability in low population numbers. Remember, wolves are a part of our wild heritage and most of us do not want to see them slaughtered to near extinction AGAIN. Yes, they are a success story, but we are the guardians of that protection. History will repeat itself. We do not trust FWP to save OUR wolves.
# Posted By Joan Alison Daniels | 10/30/13 4:21 PM

Wolves are intelligent, friendly animals that are important to our ecosystem!
I am adamantly opposed to removing them from the Endangered Species Act --and being allowed to being slaughtered at will by individual states! Our tax dollars were used to restore them;now you want to kill them! Disgusting!
# Posted By Ann D | 10/30/13 4:22 PM

These wolves are a very important part of the ecosystem. They should be saved before it's too late.
# Posted By Robin | 10/30/13 4:23 PM

HOW OUTRAGEOUS that we have to argue to stop the insane, deliberate extinction of Wolves, and integral part of the ecosystem AND our national heritage! What's next? The ranchers decide that they want Eagles delisted? WHEN will our elected officials, AND, by the way, this Administration, who campaigned on supporting the environment, STOP pandering to money interests, in this case, ranchers, and remember that they are supposed to represent the ENTIRE Country, and not special interests who are concerned solely with their own greed! Wolves are part of our National Heritage, ARE NOT A THREAT TO RANCHERS, and those who are selling them, and the American people out for their own greed are DESPICABLE. What happened to elected officials who actually ran for office to SERVE? Now it seems all we have are politicians concerned with their own re-election, regardless of the irreparable harm to the environment, the Country, and what the United States is supposed to stand for!
# Posted By Jeanne Cambouris | 10/30/13 4:23 PM

These animals deserve our respect and admiration. They are not the nuisance. We are! I'm a hunter. I'm a fisherman. And I am here to tell you to knock this crap off. It's sadistic and just plain wrong. The animals were put here by God for our. Not for our abuse. If you're not going to eat it don't kill it. There are certainly more humane options out there. The last thing we need is to push another species into extinction. I am thoroughly disgusted by your actions and ashamed to be a citizen of this nation when you act like this.
# Posted By Jason W Kaler | 10/30/13 4:24 PM

I am very upset by the cavalier attitude you have toward our wildlife. Were you aware that for the 400+ wolves in Montana, there have been over 6000 hunting permits issued this winter? If just a small fraction of those are successful, the entire population is threatened. Your comments specifically on wolves and bison were extremely naïve. I would expect that you had more detailed information on these two iconic creatures. I would respectfully ask that you take a long hard look at the wildlife MANAGEMENT and not how many can be slaughtered. Your job is to maintain and PROTECT them. Not offer them up for slaughter.
# Posted By Renee Still Day | 10/30/13 4:25 PM

Wow. Are you arguing that now that the Gray Wolves have "recovered" that we should start shooting. Air quality is much improved now since the 1990s, so would you argue that we start polluting again? You've thrown logic out the window! Let's not turn back the clock!
# Posted By Bryan Duncan | 10/30/13 4:26 PM

Please listen to the the scientists who are best able to make this decision. Wolves still need our help Mr. Ashe, otherwise they will be slaughtered.
# Posted By Ray Fryer | 10/30/13 4:34 PM

I am not sure that I am seeing evidence in the post that taking the gray wolf off of the endangered species list is a good idea. I agree that turning the ongoing recovery of the gray wolf population to the states is a bad idea. Recovery depends on a comprehensive plan -- not a bunch of state plans that are not working together. Bad idea. Bad idea.
# Posted By | 10/30/13 4:39 PM

The American taxpayer is owed a refund for all funds wasted on Gray Wolf recovery.The western states have clearly shown that they are not interested in letting any wolves live. You owe the American people an apology and the taxpayers a refund for killing off the few recovered wolves.
# Posted By James | 10/30/13 4:41 PM

What with all the extinct species and those on
Endangered lists, isn't it time to cut back on
the increasing killing of more animals?
They share this planet with us and are an
exquiste gift.
Children are becoming desensitized to murder and
we see in the news those that just kill a teacher
or classmate out of being detached from reality.
# Posted By Colette Bembenek | 10/30/13 4:43 PM

I am appalled and disgusted at what passes for reason in your agency's march to de-list the gray wolf from the protections of the Endangered Species Act. It is also deliberately misleading to "tally" their numbers across Canada, as part of your figuring. If history has shown nothing else, it continues to show woeful human disregard for the wolf's place in the ecosystem. Given the documented animosity towards wolves by many humans, de-listing them, EVER, is signing a certain death warrant to this magnificent species. Do not continue to strip the wolves of the protections they need to survive, and their rightful place not only in the far reaches of Alaska and Canada, but in the wilder areas of the lower 48 as well. Maybe when most humans understand that they can peacefully co-exist with these magnificent animals then we can safely remove them from the endangered species list. But that day is not now. Not by a long way. Shame on you for your position on this issue.
# Posted By stunned | 10/30/13 4:50 PM

With all due respect for your admirable work thus far I am deeply grateful. However, do you not remember nature will best determine what lives and dies? PLEASE CONTINUE TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE ALL WOLVES. GUN HAPPY people in our country will slaughter them for target practice. A vehicle for hatred. Live and let live!
# Posted By Donna Sue Shepherd | 10/30/13 4:55 PM

The wolf recovery is not finished. You speak of how experts in states are working to ensure their recovery. Look at Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. An official in Wyoming stated that 100 wolves are enough. In Montana they have thousands of permits to kill 625 wolves in the state. Permits allow the slaughter of 5 wolves and hunters are told to keep shooting if they hit one. They are also allowed to use calls, traps and other methods to eliminate as many as possible. Do you really think that 625 wolves in a state the size of Montana is a successful revovery? The Govenor of Idaho has stated "we don't want them" in reference to wolves. Your organization has killed hundreds from planes. Delisting the wolves could well ensure their extinction in all states that are allowed to "manage" wolf populations. They may not be in danger of extinction in the sense that there are no wolves on the planet, however, their recovery will be over and they will be treated like trash. Keep the protections!!
# Posted By Cary Semit | 10/30/13 5:03 PM

De-listing gray wolves is a foolish and tragic concept which should NOT become a reality. This population will find its own equilibrium without giving free rein to 'kill off' ANY gray wolves. There is no danger of wolves overpopulating at this time. This issue can be re-visited in the future if necessary.
# Posted By | 10/30/13 5:05 PM

We NEED to PROTECT our beautiful wolves--not murder them! This is unconscionable! WE the people have spoken.....
# Posted By sherrie munday | 10/30/13 5:07 PM

It seems apparent that the people commenting understand better than the Fish and Wildlife Service that wolves are an integral part of the ecosystem, and removing them from protections would most probably cause their extinction. Does it make any sense to protect a species that is threatened, and then remove those protections so they can, yet again, be exterminated?
There is a pogrom going on right now against wolves everywhere, including the remaining wolves on the Alaska Kenai Peninsula.
The wolf being collared will most likely be tracked so its entire pack can be killed. The awesome picture of the running Mexican Wolf and the text below says it all; time to focus on....wiping them out.
Really, I see no hope for the human race if we continue to degrade the ecosystem we depend on.
# Posted By Katie Dawson | 10/30/13 5:10 PM

FWS has not and is not doing their job by delisting species including the wolves; which have NOT recovered due to the endless slaughtering from state to state. The FWS needs to keep them on ESA before they too become extinct for an agency not doing their job to protect them.
# Posted By | 10/30/13 5:11 PM

Sad and pathetic outlook ... from someone who claims to care - and be an "expert"
# Posted By | 10/30/13 5:19 PM

This decision by FWS is wrong for so many reasons, as almost every blogger has expressed. It would be unethical, premature, cruel, and against public opinion to de-list the gray wolf and to allow states to "manage" them. Of course, "manage" means torture and kill. It is also unscientific, as so many wolf biologists have commented. These wolves do not belong to a state or to ranchers or hunters. They are our wildlife and they deserve to live. Shame on FWS for this terrible decision. PLEASE reverse it instead of being driven by political special interests.
# Posted By Ann T. | 10/30/13 5:21 PM

Save rhe wolves!
# Posted By | 10/30/13 5:25 PM

My message is simple: please save our wolves.
# Posted By Mandy | 10/30/13 5:26 PM

All Wolves need protected under endangered species rules because they are slaughtered unmercifully without this protection. We need these animals to do their part to balance nature.
# Posted By Betty Kelly | 10/30/13 5:29 PM

You all at FWS should be ashamed of your actions! You spend tax payer money on wolf recovery and the SECOND they start doing better you delist them? For how many wolf supporters there are you should listen to the people and NOT the idoit ranchers! The people of the US will stop the buying of the ranchers products to show you ALL a lesson. STOP trying to control mother nature and let the wolves alone!!
# Posted By Paul | 10/30/13 5:33 PM

"The wolf again roams the range" thanks to the reintroduction and efforts made to protect them, and now you want to take it off the Endangered Species List, so ranchers and others can...kill them??? Does this make sense to anyone? Killing the wolves in this context means various ways of poisoning, trapping, shooting, and otherwise maming and torturing them. Keep the wolves protected. That's what we, the people, want.
# Posted By Karina | 10/30/13 5:34 PM

"It's not everywhere it can be, but our work has created the potential that it may be one day." I find that to be a highly unlikely prospect, considering the amount of killing and torture that you are allowing ranchers and trophy hunters (who post grisly photos of wolves killed or in traps, while they stand grinning over sometimes still living and suffering animals. The ranchers would like to totally eradicate wolves and don't hide their agenda. The wolves need to be back on the endangered list or they will soon all be gone. I don't find your justifications to be sufficient or reassuring. You are simply giving in to Big business and their profit margins. Please think more of the animals that are disappearing from the earth and won't be around for our grandchildren, and think less of the Big Money people who put on the pressure to kill the wolves that are surely being pushed toward extinction.
# Posted By Rebecca | 10/30/13 5:41 PM

De-listing wolves is completely wrong. What is needed is better, factual education for humans, so they can understand how truly important wolves actually are!
# Posted By Kathleen L | 10/30/13 5:41 PM

Stop please!!!
# Posted By Animallover | 10/30/13 5:46 PM

Your argument sounds so reasonable--if only the states and other agencies COULD be relied upon to protect these magnificent predators. Unfortunately, as has been seen in recent months, they can't be. The slaughter is ongoing and remorseless. Even though the wolves are not endangered as a species, they may soon be endangered in the lower 48, if protections are not put back in place. Please reconsider your position and the position of the agency!
# Posted By Beverly Beard | 10/30/13 5:56 PM

Why does someone or something has to die in order for humans to be happy? Man didn't create animal life thus man has no right to reduce and/or seek measures to destroy it! Death seems to be the catch-all sunlit ions to life's woes. When it comes to animals there is euthanasia and when it comes to humans there is abortion! What a sad state of mind we humans have! Just pathetic and evil!
# Posted By Sherry | 10/30/13 6:01 PM

I am strongly opposed to the proposal to open up wolf hunting in all the States. As we have seen in the few States where hunting has been legalized, over a thousand wolves have been killed in just 2 years. At this pace, wolves will once again near extinction very soon.This proposal is premature and does not listen to the views of the premier biologists in the field. They are unified in their opposition to it. They state that wolves have recovered in only 5% of their previous territory and that recovery is tenuous at best. This proposal seems to be more about caving to ranching and hunting interests.Ranchers are upset that they suffer a mere 1% of livestock loss due to predation, even when they have free use of public lands for grazing. Hunters demonize wolves and are salivating over this new "big game".The internet is filled with photos of the terrible deaths wolves are suffering caught in traps while enduring torture by hunters. This proposal is simply bad for wolves in all ways.
# Posted By Holly Dowling | 10/30/13 6:13 PM

Wolves, like the Bison and the Eagle, and the Bobcat, and the Elk, and the wild Mustang, are American Icons. You say that you are trying to protect and grow the wolf population, but why then are so many hunters allowed to kill so many wolves? They take pleasure out of snaring, trapping, and killing them - even bragging about it and posting their photo of the dead wolf with them smiling!! There are men who even have dogs attack and kill a lone wolf. That is horrible and despicable. Wolves are beautiful, intelligent, social creatures that DESERVE our respect and our protections. THEY HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT TO LIVE AND BREED AND THRIVE IN THE WILD. We as humans are supposed to be 'GUARDIANS OF ANIMALS - NOT KILLERS OF ANIMALS. They CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. We have to stop the abuse of OVER-KILL AND TORTURE of these magnificent animals. SHAME ON THE PEOPLE WHO VIEW THEM AS PROBLEMS AND NOT AS ANOTHER LIVING, BREATHING, LIVING BEING. WE CANNOT KEEP DESTROYING WHAT MOTHER NATU
# Posted By | 10/30/13 6:36 PM

I don't understand where you're getting the information that the states are keeping wolf populations up. Throughout the upper Midwest, all the way to California, the plans are to reduce wolves to only a few hundred in some states. Others want them eradicated. Please explain this discrepancy. Gassing pups in dens and killing their mothers is brutal and disgusting. Hunting them from planes and helicopters is disgusting. Please stand up for wolves.
# Posted By Renee | 10/30/13 6:44 PM

I would like to see wolves in other parts of their former range. While I understand that your bureau has limited resources I am not confident that the rehabilitation work is done. Ranchers remain deeply hostile to wolves and many "game" hunters target wolves for elimination because they see them as competitors for elk and deer. While I realize that regulations alone cannot change hearts and minds I am not confident that the wolf population is large enough to withstand open season hunting across the northern rockies and upper Great Lakes. It is no secret that the governments of Idaho and Montana are staunchly anti-wolf and encourage human predation. But what also concerns me is the way the government kept many wildlife biologists and wolf behaviorists out of the review process which led to the removal of endangered species protections across the country. This exclusion gained national media attention and created considerable controversy. You will understand why I remain unconvinced.
# Posted By Jeremy | 10/30/13 6:45 PM

The American Gray Wolf and other wolves should not be delisted. Indeed, their protection by FWS and other federal and state agencies should be enhanced. States such as Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin--amongst others--have already proven themselves incapable of effectively and humanely managing wolves. Sufficient evidence of states' bad faith and ineptitude in managing wolf populations is already strong.

I am appalled that states permit wolves to be shot, trapped and subjected to other inhumane practices that are neither ethically or scientifically justified. It is very important to me that FWS and other bodies of the federal government recognize that stewardship of iconic, threatened and once decimated species is a responsibility we share as American citizens and thus should be under federal protection.
# Posted By Kathleen Dixon | 10/30/13 6:47 PM

I am afraid I can not agree with the decision to turn management of the gray wolf over to individual states. Given that this often results in large percentages of the wolf populations being hunted and killed, I believe that the long-term survival of the gray wolf depends on its remaining on the Endangered Species List. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to keep it there.
# Posted By Julie A. Robichaud | 10/30/13 6:55 PM

# Posted By Shelley | 10/30/13 6:56 PM

"Delisting the Grey Wolf from the Endangered Species list will make this apex
predator vulnerable to extinction. The elimination of apex predators from American
Wildlands will inevitably alter and undermine the ecological sustainability of theses
critically important ecosystems, thus reducing the genetic diversity and ultimately
the viability of all existing species of plants and animals, including human beings
who depend, whether we like it or not, on this diversity.

Interest groups and constituencies such as the NRA, ranchers, farmers, hunters equate
the freedom to kill apex predators such as wolves, bears and lions, with rights and
freedoms protected by the 2nd amendment. Whether or not this is a valid belief, the
members of these groups are either ignorant of or simply in denial concerning both
the short and long term consequences of the unregulated killing of apex predators.

We are at a crucial crossroads with climate change already demonstrating severe and
damaging impacts upon our environment. The writing is on the wall: science and
technology alone will not rescue us from the inexorable power of Nature to make Her
own corrections, regardless of the profoundly disturbing effects upon human life.
Removing federal protections for the Grey Wolf or any apex predator species that
inhabit our Wild Lands, will only weaken our security and strength as a society and
as a nation who leads the world in establishing and maintaining ethically humane
standards guiding our relationships with other creatures with whom we share the earth"
# Posted By | 10/30/13 7:05 PM

I am writing to you regarding the delisting of the Gray Wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act. Your administration concluded that wolves no longer require the “endangered species” designation, which has forestalled their extinction. Leading wildlife biologists, and a growing number of concerned Americans, respectfully disagree.
Delisting the gray wolf is an irrational decision based on politics, mythology and ideology rather than on scientifically established facts. And the facts are incontrovertible: the gray wolf that inhabits our wild lands is not a threat to agriculture, human habitation or livestock. The exact opposite is true. Protecting gray wolves will allow them to thrive within their natural habitat, and will only increase the sustainability and security of our public wild lands, which are part of what helps our nation to thrive.
# Posted By Michele Chandler | 10/30/13 7:10 PM

One thing I am absolutely positive of is that we, on this planet, are all a species of animal. So consider.....the human animal has proliferated to the point we are overrunning the planet. Therefore we should no longer need protection from destruction would be your attitude? Pandering to those with destruction on their mind could wind up being a very unhealthy decision in the future.
# Posted By PWSB | 10/30/13 7:17 PM

We've already seen what happens to wolves when FWS hands them off to the states: wolves get killed. In Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin, where FWS already allows hunting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in just two years. Even worse, we've seen photos and video of wolves maimed and left to suffer in steel traps, only to be shot point blank. That's not of long-term care.

Hunters are the ones who had driven the gray wolf nearly into extinction in the first place, leading to Congress' decision in 1978 to add them to the Endangered Species List.

It's the height of inhumanity to set this cycle up to repeat itself. Have some guts and stand up to the entrenched bias of a minority who only have their self-interest in mind and believe the only good wolf is a dead wolf.

America wants to save its wolves, not kill them.
# Posted By MBenes | 10/30/13 7:20 PM

You have no business removing Wolves from the Endangered Species list. They are a vital piece of nature that has been absent far to long. Wolves are being wiped out in Wyoming. In Idaho there are only 1000 and if there plans for hunting them go though that number could drop to 500 or 600. In Washington state there are only 9 packs. Thats around 30 Wolves.Stop playing political games with the lives of Wolves. You should speak with the people from The Defenders of Wildlife organization. They have proven ways for Wolves, livestock and Ranchers to live together peacefully. As for hunters they have no business being involved in this. Im a hunter. I hunt Deer. In the areas where Wolves have been reintroduced the Deer and Elk populations have thrived. Wolf Hunters just want a trophy to hang on the wall and brag about how they sat in the cold snow and waited for a Wolf to wander within sight of there high powered rifle. We dont eat Wolves we have no business hunting them.

Keep Wolves Protected
# Posted By Shane Freund | 10/30/13 7:24 PM

You start out discussing wolves in the lower 48 and then move on to give specific numbers of the grey wolf populations of western Canada and the totals across all of Canada and Alaska. What about the number of grey wolves in the lower 48? And I'm not asking about their populations in Salt Lake City or Denver, but throughout the western states where ranchers graze their cattle on public lands.
When you create a post to update your US constituency, 99% of whom live in the lower 48, on your successes regarding the wolf population, and then deliberately omit the numbers of wolves actually within the U.S., you look like you are hiding something. Sorry, but this voter isn't fooled.
# Posted By Donna | 10/30/13 7:26 PM

Save wolves! Please don't de-list them.
# Posted By Seth | 10/30/13 7:32 PM

While I'm pleased you will continue protecting the Mexican wolf, I am extremely disappointed about your decision to delist the gray wolf. Setting aside their vital ecological importance, allowing them to once again be hunted (often times quite brutally and inhumanely) completely ignores that hunting was the reason they needed ESA protection in the first place.

In addition to hunters, ranchers are also a significant threat to the gray wolf. Delisting them will allow ranchers to once again (needlessly) declare war, significantly undermining efforts by wildlife protection groups to reach vital reimbursement and other agreements with ranchers.

I, therefore, implore you to reconsider this disastrous decision.
# Posted By Tammi | 10/30/13 7:36 PM

This is like saying "its' a win for the wolves" by Sec of Interior Jewell and then going out and slaughtering the wolves! a win? a comeback? odd wording for what amounts to the slaughter of a fabulous family species!..this native carnivore needs not to be hunted by man but needs to do the hunting of its wild prey and continue to contribute to the trophic cascade effect. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE????Why more bio diversity loss ..stop the madness and buck up against big ag and the hunting clubs..Where in heaven's name is you environmental ethos and stewardship? The thinking by the feds on this issue is reaaly arcane and terribly outdated ..back to the 1880's we go ! We are so lucky to have these beautiful beings taking care of our lands because we do a TERRIBLE job ..I am ashamed of this president"s record on the environment and I voted for him. Please have the biologists and scientists weigh in andkick out those lobbyists, hunters and politicians that hang out in your office. SCIENCE!
# Posted By rebecca | 10/30/13 7:43 PM

I'm not convinced they are not endangered. Their population will stabilize in proportion to the food supply. We don't need hunters to do that. That's 19th century thinking. Humans don't do well at balancing nature.
# Posted By Karen Scheuermann | 10/30/13 7:53 PM

It's just devastating to hear the reports of more wolves being killed after we worked so hard to bring them back! Ranchers need to take more responsibility for their livestock like fencing and actually "riding the range". They can't just turn their cattle loose on federal or state land leased so cheaply and not expect trouble. No one should have the right to kill all predators.
# Posted By Lou | 10/30/13 8:06 PM

Moral code- Do the right thing, which is to preserve the Wolves. Do Not delist as they could again become endangered.
# Posted By Irene Huskisson | 10/30/13 8:11 PM

What you write contradicts the opinions of 16 leading wolf scientists. These scientists have questioned the appropriateness of delisting gray wolves at this time. In a letter written to you and Secretary Jewell they state:

"Based on a careful review of the rule, we do not believe that the rule reflects the conclusions of our work or the best available science concerning the recovery of wolves, or is in accordance with the fundamental purpose of the Endangered Species Act to conserve endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. ..."

"The gray wolf has barely begun to recover or is absent from significant portions of its former range where substantial suitable habitat remains. The Service’s draft rule fails to consider science identifying extensive suitable habitat in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast. It also fails to consider the importance of these areas to the long-term survival and recovery of wolves...
# Posted By Jennifer Allegretto | 10/30/13 8:25 PM

I am appalled at this plan and its direct and blatant disregard fro science. This is especially hurtful to the millions of us that have supported President Obama and have worked hard and given our hard earned monies to get him elected on the premise that this type of regressive and destructive policy was out the door with Bush.
# Posted By Harry F Bosen Jr | 10/30/13 8:28 PM

Please don't delist the wolves. The ranchers will put them on the endangered again & on the verge of extinction.
# Posted By Loretta | 10/30/13 8:45 PM

The animals are beautiful and deserve their space as much as we do. We are destroying the world. We need to appreciate and respect nature and wildlife. The wolves are majestic. Let us work together to save them.
# Posted By Joan Cummings | 10/30/13 8:47 PM

The states you propose handing the wolves over to for "care" have as much concern for the patient as a sociopath has for his or her victims. The irrational hatred and fear that some people have for wolves is just that--irrational...and that is the word that best describes officials in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and elsewhere in the west who have only too happily declared open season on these magnificent creatures. I pray that God forgives you if you proceed with this insane delisting.
# Posted By | 10/30/13 8:48 PM

I hope you would surmise by the comments on your blog that delisting the wolves is not popular and for so many compelling reasons: bad science, bad for the environment and ecology, mistrust in individual states to manage their population by opening up massacre through hunting, fraud on the part of ranchers costing tax payers a lot of money... Do you really need more reasons? All these will lead right back to them needing to be "re-listed".

Don't remove them from the list.
# Posted By Robin Tatman | 10/30/13 8:55 PM

Many animals suffering from the sixth and fastest mass extinction could benefit from the expansion of the grey wolf to its full historic range. It would save taxpayers the money currently being wasted on usless studies and monitoring animals known to recover in the presence of wolves. This would free up more tax dollars than delisting. The idea that they cannot be expanded to this full range is not backed by any facts whatsoever and stinks of corporate influence. Without the wolf disease and deer farming trophy hunters will cause a long term depopulation of deer and other wildlife. This will further reduce vital funding to wildlife management.
# Posted By | 10/30/13 9:11 PM

Wolves are a critical component of the balance of nature. They only breed when the food supply is plentiful and are thus self limiting. Let these wonderful animals alone to fulfill their role or they will soon be critically endangered again.
# Posted By naomi sobo | 10/30/13 9:20 PM

This will only be open season on the Gray Wolf by the ranchers.
# Posted By | 10/30/13 9:22 PM

When did a hand full of animals, and a few wolf packs, become a sucsefull and sustainable reintroduction? There are STILL far to few wolves in the wild, and WAY to few bison. The bison need to return to their old grazing lands, and the land needs them. The same goes for the wolves. It is the wolves that keep the small pray, gofers, mice, etc. in check, and the large animals healthy and in check. As a rancher and herder for many years, I know the coexistance can be good and done with wolves. It was their removel that caused all the land dstruction and decline of the game animals like the elck, deer, and caribue.
# Posted By Ron M | 10/30/13 9:39 PM

What you are doing is wrong, there is no way to justify killing of innocent animals, just because you can. This is what you call wild life management? giving permission to hunters to kill this iconic animals? Wolves need protection, they have the right to live on this planet as much as any one of us. Wolves should be protected before it is too late.
# Posted By | 10/30/13 9:48 PM

wolves aren't like bison - they are subject to centuries of scapegoating and violent predation by humans.
# Posted By Karen H. | 10/30/13 9:58 PM

This is a terrible idea. You say, "we’re proposing to hand over the management of these keystone predators to the professionals at the state and tribal wildlife agencies." Yet many of these so-called professionals are planning to start hunting the very animals we have worked so hard to protect. You all should be embarrassed.
# Posted By Seth | 10/30/13 9:59 PM

FWS is not listening to science and facts here; it's listening to ranchers. It's shameful. Look up the passenger pigeon guys…you're on the brink of repeating history instead of learning from it. And the methods used to kill the wolves is repugnant and inhumane on its own. FWS has dropped and kicked the ball.
# Posted By Scott | 10/30/13 9:59 PM

My 5th attempt to comment and say I disagree with your policy and your position on ceding control of gray wolf management. Either you're censoring out negative comment or your system can't handle the volume of comments from the public who also disagree with your actions.
# Posted By G. H. McAlpin | 10/30/13 10:11 PM

The grey wolf population has grown only because it was protected. The result has been to improve diversity and ecological balance in Yellowstone National Park, with wolves functioning properly as predators to reduce the oversized (overprotected) elk herds. Human hunters complained, but they are not as good as wolves at eliminating old and weak elk. Delisting the grey wolf would only bring back the conditions which led to listing it in the first place -- a very bad idea.
# Posted By J. Spickler | 10/30/13 10:16 PM

If every governor of every western state was actually committed to having a healthy wolf population, that would be one thing. There public statements tell a different story. It doesn't make much sense to push a patient out of the "emergency room" into a war zone, which is what delisting the grey wolf will do. I urge you to reconsider delisting the wolf.
# Posted By Loretta Banta | 10/30/13 10:19 PM

As someone with a formal training as a biologist I would say you need to look at the reason the Wolf was listed as endangered after the government led an effort to exterminate the Wolf mainly with poisoning which killed many other animals including eagles and badgers. There was a book written by the man who did it who thought he was doing the right thing. He caused a disaster and overpopulation and starvation of deer one of the wolves main food. The man went on to become a famous environmentalist. Aldo Leopold. You have the upper hand, you have a stable healthy wolf population, once you delist you will not. Not much has changed I was a ranch hand myself. Your population will diminish from your lack of political will. It is the science of biology that should be guiding you, not the 70 senators who are pushing for delisting and a 100 year old culture of killing wolves on sight.
I try not do anything I regret, that is why I sleep well. You should try it.
Bruce Hermes
# Posted By Bruce Hermes | 10/30/13 10:20 PM

Delisting wolves is a mistake. We need to protect them.
# Posted By Jess W | 10/30/13 10:45 PM

Somehow the Big Bad Wolf is very threatening to the psyche. It happens that even when ranchers are offered compensation for killed livestock, they still want to kill wolves. People enjoy killing them from helicopters. It is safe to say that killing wolves is way beyond reason or sport. If we don't protect them with stiff Federal laws, they will be slaughtered toward extinction as they have in the past.
# Posted By Paula Leffmann | 10/30/13 10:51 PM

I am very dismayed at the FWS support of removal of ESA protections for the grey wolf. The FWS is making a political statement versus a science based one, and bringing us back to the darker days of scapegoating/mass killings of the supposed big bad wolf.
# Posted By Mary | 10/30/13 11:12 PM

You are celebrating their recovery while hundreds are being slaughtered, mothers, pups, pregnant mothers. Every wolf killed affects & destroys they pack, yet you are celebrating. All the money & time spent trying to reintroduce them and their numbers are no where near what they were long ago & yet you are allowing them to be slaughtered. You should be ashamed!
# Posted By thebreez | 10/30/13 11:16 PM

I appreciate your work with the magnificant animals. However, delisting them and allowing hunting will result in the species near extinction again. The debate is so full of mis-information from the cattle and farm lobby groups that uninformed people who have an agenda will give extra effort to hunt them into exstinction without realizing their importance to the eco-system as documented by science. Subjecting them to groups who have carelessly placed defenseless in the wolves/natural eco-system, non-native animals as sheep, would be a tragic decision.
Thank you
# Posted By | 10/30/13 11:16 PM

Ranchers graze their cattle on public land for free and sell the cattle for a profit. Now they want to eradicate wolves because the wolves, in their own habitat, eat some of the cattle that are born to the ranchers for free, graze for free, and make the ranchers a profit-the public is paying for their livelihood and now they want to take away the wolves that belong to the public?
# Posted By Leslie | 10/30/13 11:16 PM

We are donors to the original Yellowstone wolf re-introduction program in 1996 through our National Wildlife Federation credit card. We donated more than $2000. to this program and we have eagerly followed the packs that grew from the Canadian wolves who comprised the original beginnings of the Yellowstone packs. We do not agree with the de-listing, nor do we agree with the idea that the token numbers of gray wolves represent the best we can do in the US for the gray wolf. We also agree that basically allowing the states and the livestock industry to drive wolf "management". The wolf has a long, long way to go before we ever need to think about delisting; certainly not in our lifetimes.
# Posted By Edwin and Karen A. | 10/30/13 11:27 PM

The idea of delisting the wolves is short-sighted.
The idea of hunting them is barbaric. We are killing the planet.
The ranchers have already taken plenty of the wilderness.
Do not delist.

BTW -- Is there any one comment in this list in favor of it??
# Posted By Beverly Walker | 10/30/13 11:31 PM

It seems to me all you are doing is reintroducing the conditions that caused the wolf to be close to extinction. There is no change in understanding of the balance in nature. Men who are inclined to slaughter will continue to do so once you say ok you are free to slaughter. You are failing in your duty by ignoring the obvious to your convenience and to the ruin and loss and misery of this population.
# Posted By Erline Towner | 10/30/13 11:37 PM

Aldo Leopold advises us to "think like the Mountain".
Wolves balance the Mountain's environment, they are necessary.
# Posted By Willard L. Hardin, Jr. | 10/30/13 11:38 PM

I am tired of hearing excuses as to why wolves can be hunted. They are part of the wildlife here, are needed and should be able to live their lives without the fear of guns, poison, traps or other barbaric means of killing. Aren't you supposed to protect wildlife?
# Posted By | 10/30/13 11:44 PM

"Today, for one reason, and one reason only, we are proposing to remove the gray wolf from the list of threatened and endangered species throughout the United States and Mexico -- they are no longer in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future" This complete lack of accuracy with a political spin is just offensive to the majority of persons who have knowledge of this issue, and the majority of persons who vote, call and write to their government officials and sign petitions in the 6 figures to protect wildlife. The quid pro quo between special interests and the USFWS that violates our majority opinion and that of true wolf experts is obvious. The desire of current officials to destroy wildlife for a fee is outrageous. The desire of livestock industry to unleash a disturbing element of the hunting community in a sadistic manner on these beautiful animals is reminiscent of days where racism was rampant and brutal. The system is broken.
# Posted By MJ | 10/30/13 11:52 PM

Delisting Grey wolves will only result in their near extinction again.
# Posted By joe mogel | 10/31/13 1:31 AM

My state of Montana is one of the states, Mr Ashe, that you hold up as a 'model' of good management of this species. Our FWP continues to expand the hunting of wolves, with the goal of driving the numbers down to the minimum required to avoid RE-listing. This year the legislature allowed wolf hunters to NOT wear orange, to use electronic calling of pups in distress to lure them out of Yellowstone National Park and other areas, lowered the price for killing a wolf to $19 (how's that for Devaluing)?, increased bag limit to 5 per hunter, and expanded the season to kill pregnant wolves in the early spring. Wildlife Services has killed over 100 wolves so far this year, and FWP is still guessing at the numbers. Real wildlife biologists who don't work for the government are saying this is unsustainable. Ours is just one of several states that allow hunting and trapping, and most of the other states have worse policies. This is NOT scientific-it is overtly political. You are a disgrace!
# Posted By April Lane (Montanan) | 10/31/13 1:44 AM

If you, your staff & agency care deeply about these beautiful animals please describe the positions and steps that you are taking to stop the senseless and disturbing slaughter that appears inevitable if they are delisted. thank you
# Posted By John | 10/31/13 1:54 AM

We must not remove wolves from federal protection. The protections they have been receiving has meant that the species has been able to survive. Without the protections, we are in danger of losing them!
# Posted By Leah | 10/31/13 2:56 AM

Making assertions such as "they are no longer in danger of extinction" does not justify the hunting of wolves. The only HONEST thing to say is that they are not in IMMEDIATE danger of extinction.
That can change in very short order, given the propensity of humans to kill in ever-increasing numbers. The irrefutable fact is that that permitting killing of wolves can very quickly undo decades of preservation work.
Damage done is irreversible. You cannodt unkill a wolf. And if that wolf is an integral part of a family unit, the entire family can be ruined.
It is just like fracking. Oncew the damage is evident, it is just too late.
# Posted By Patrick Sennello | 10/31/13 3:01 AM

The only reason you or anyone else would allow hunting of wolves again is the ranchers desire to exterminate them. They will immediately be back on the endangered list if hunting, poisoning, cruel trapping method are allowed. It is shameful and disgusting that so many people have so little respect and reverence for the creatures who share this earth with us. The destruction of these magnificent animals is abhorrent. I don't know how any of you sleep at night.
# Posted By Denise Bergeron | 10/31/13 3:09 AM

Please reconsider your decision to de-list Gray Wolves. They are still in a precarious state, and need our protection. Because wolves are important apical predators in their ecosystems, we need to prioritize their *continued* existence.
# Posted By B K | 10/31/13 3:12 AM

Such a specious argument from the person charged with sustaining the ecosystem is very troublesome. The facts are simple: 1) Before wolves were protected, they were wiped out of the 48 states. It is ONLY through protection that they have made a comeback. 2) Wolves are a keystone species; the health of the wolf population reflects the overall health of the ecosystem. The lack of wolves leads to overpopulation of (for example) deer, which in turn destroy the forests undergrowth and endanger all of the wildlife that depends on that undergrowth.
We need you to reexamine your position on this, sir; to do otherwise is unscientific and dangerously irresponsible.
# Posted By Joel Hildebrandt | 10/31/13 4:08 AM

De-listing the wolves will result in the cruel, unnecessary, disrespectful slaughter of our iconic wolves.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 6:49 AM

Gray wolves need protection from slaughtering everyday. They must be under the federal protection.
# Posted By Heli | 10/31/13 7:46 AM

I'm encouraged by wolves' increased numbers. I think it points to sound policy decisions made thus far and it warrants some pride. However, I think lifting restrictions now would mean all the effort will have been wasted. Please rethink this decision. This iconic species still needs your protection if it is to survive.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 8:25 AM

You may understand fish and wildlife issues, but I don't think you understand the mind of the human predator. As soon as you delist the wolves, the humans will wipe them out again,..in short order. Please don't remove wolves from the endangered list as they most certainly are still in danger from the many humans that haven't yet caught on to how and ecosystem is supposed to work. Thank you.
# Posted By Norwell Therien | 10/31/13 9:25 AM

The grey wolf should NOT be delisted. All the hard work previously done to get them to their present numbers will be in vain if this is done. Leave them be.
# Posted By DC | 10/31/13 9:25 AM

Every animal has a purpose in nature. Some animals are more cute and cuddly and therefore more easily loved.
But cute or not, every animal has a purpose.

What has been done to wolves in this country is a travesty.
The cruelty, the downright animosity is unbelievable.
We cannot let a few vocal anti-wolf lobbyists do any further damage to the wolf population.
Someone must do the right thing and protect the wolf and the ESA as they are still under serious threat!!
# Posted By JAKE HODIE | 10/31/13 9:26 AM

Wolves still need protection. They are an important part of the ecosystem. If they are delisted from the ESA, they will be doomed to near extinction once again. Let's have compassion for wildlife rather than senseless killing. We only have one chance to preserve our wildlife & their habitat & the time is now or it will be too late.
# Posted By marilyn | 10/31/13 9:31 AM

The only reason you or anyone else would allow hunting of wolves again is the ranchers desire to exterminate them. They will immediately be back on the endangered list if hunting, poisoning, cruel trapping method are allowed. It is shameful and disgusting that so many people have so little respect and reverence for the creatures who share this earth with us. The destruction of these magnificent animals is abhorrent. I don't know how any of you sleep at night.
# Posted By firewolf | 10/31/13 9:47 AM

Listen, we need to figure out ways to CO-HABITATE. This knee jerk reaction to just get rid of something that doesnt fit our tidy, organized lives is ludicrous. Our population is only going to continue to GROW, people. We are going to crowd every single species. What next? Kill them too?
# Posted By Sarah | 10/31/13 9:55 AM

The Director has written an emotional whitewash regarding the state of wolves in the U.S. Every scientific, rational opinion I have read states that wolves will once again be driven to extinction if their " management" is turned over to individual states.
Mr. Director, please listen to the scientists regarding this matter. According to law, this is what you must do. Only scientific evidence can be considered in making an E.S.A. decision. Clearly, wolves must continue to receive federal protection.
# Posted By Charles Alexander | 10/31/13 10:02 AM

Are you willing to take responsibility for the extinction of an entire species? What will you tell your children or grandchildren...how will you explain your actions. Will you be honest in telling them that you didn't believe science and the experts and preferred to side with the wealthy ranchers. Think before you decide.
# Posted By Holly | 10/31/13 10:09 AM

That the gray wolf is no longer at the edge of extinction is NOT the same as the species being safe. And letting states take over wolf protection is a recipe for renewed hunting and endangerment. It should NOT be done!!!
# Posted By Louise Quigley | 10/31/13 10:12 AM

We need a petition to have the Director of Fish and Wildlife removed from office. He is doing the will of a few and not the majority.
# Posted By Dianne | 10/31/13 10:28 AM

What a ridiculous plan to remove wolves from the Endangered Species list and hand their future/fate into the hands of the people who want them gone from their state! Even if you look at it economically, what a waste of millions of dollars spent to protect them and raise their numbers from the first slaughter, only to hand the animals back over to those who want to wipe them out, only to probably be re- listed on the endangered species list again, with more money being spent to raise the numbers again! Who's in charge of the circus?
# Posted By Rochelle | 10/31/13 10:31 AM

Turning over protections for the these beautiful creatures to states is dangerous. Wolves need federal protection and to make the claim that they are restored is an outright lie. So many wolves get slaughtered and are often unreported. Extend wolves protection from people and the state. Please keep this at the federal level.
# Posted By S. Olvera | 10/31/13 10:34 AM

Your decision to delist gray wolves (and the despicable rider that was attached to a budget bill delisting wolves in MT and ID) is completely shameful. You are blatantly pandering to the livestock and hunting industries. It's time you let science be your guide.

The states have proven that they are completely incapable of managing wolves. The mentality in the Northern Rockies is to bring the grey wolf to the brink of extinction. The politicians of these states represent ranchers and hunters; thus we have the brutal slaughter we now see. I've seen dozens of photos on the internet of so-called "hunters" proudly displaying tortured and dead wolves. A WY legislator told me he would send me a bumper sticker with the slogan "Yellowstone Wolves: Smoke A Pack A Day."

What kind of scientific "management" is this? Wolves are not decimating livestock or ungulates. Thus, there is no reason for this needless slaughter. Take wolf mgmt. out of state hands and restore federal protection!
# Posted By Joanne Favazza | 10/31/13 10:34 AM

We brought wolves back to Yellowstone & with them came more riparian growth and then the birds. Wolves are a necessary part of the environment. If we delist them now, some states will drive them to extinction again within a short time. I don't believe a shoot on sight policy can be considered "professional management by our state partners".
# Posted By | 10/31/13 10:35 AM

Stop playing politics with our natural heritage! You're supposed to be protecting wildlife instead of allowing state wildlife agencies that pander to ranchers and hunters to slaughter it. All of the data shows that wolves are not decimating livestock or game.

Quit placating special interests and do your job! Your casual attitude toward the grey wolf is shameful. The states have shown they are not capable of "managing" wolves. The attitude in the Northern Rockies is "the only good wolf is a dead wolf." An animal that has been recently taken off the ESL does not deserve to be treated this way. If you allow all grey wolves to be delisted, they will suffer the same brutal fate as those in the Northern Rockies.

My tax dollars contributed to wolf recovery, and my tax dollars help manage the public lands these wolves are being slaughtered on. I and many others have had enough of your political game playing. Protect the grey wolf and other wildlife like you are supposed to!
# Posted By Joby | 10/31/13 10:44 AM

I sharply disagree with your position. Gray wolves continue to need protection. In Wisconsin recently 97 were slaughtered in one week. Americans value this species. Protect the gray wolf.
# Posted By Mary Ellen | 10/31/13 10:58 AM

Predators, you say?? Just who are the predators here?? I'll tell you who: humans, that's who. The animals have no problem co-existing and living in peace and harmony with other living beings~~not the case with humans. Humans think the only solution to what they think are their "problems" is killing. Well, no one has a right to take a life, and that includes you people. If human beings would let nature take care of itself, that is what would happen~~it would take care of itself, the way it was meant to be before people started interfering and killing everything in their path. It is horrible what people have done to this Earth and its inhabitants. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES FOR EVEN THINKING OF REMOVING THESE BEAUTIFUL WOLVES FROM THE ENDANGERED LIST~~it is your fault that they became endangered to begin with~~do you not think it'll happen again??? STOP MURDERING!!!! LIVE AND LET LIVE!!!! HAVE A HEART!!!
# Posted By Kat Karnes | 10/31/13 11:05 AM

I am disappointed that you think it is necessary to hunt wolves. Your excuse is that the ESA was so successful. In other words, your proposal to delist gray wolves is based on killing them to the brink of extinction so they can be brought back again. What kind of muddle-headed illogical thinking is that?
# Posted By Susan | 10/31/13 11:30 AM

It is time to protect the wolves from the slaughter you have allowed. Do the right thing.
# Posted By chiefaugur | 10/31/13 11:38 AM

LEAVE THE ANIMALS ALONE !!!!!!!! What the H--- is wrong with people now days they were here first and they have every right to live in peace!
# Posted By ANY ANIMAL | 10/31/13 11:38 AM

Do you REALLY think you can trust the states to manage the wolf population properly? Wolves still need our protection. They came very near extinction once. If wolf hunting is deregulated, we (and they) may not be so fortunate the next time.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 12:15 PM

The wolf has not recovered from the brutal hateful attacks by humans. It has been proven the eco-system becomes ill without the majestic predator wolf. Waters become fouled with bacteria without the necessary greens to cleanse the waters - greens eaten by the wolf's prey.

Other than hate, the reasons for this current attack is greed - polluting ranchers, toxic mining companies want their territory so they can pollute and destroy. Wolves do not cross a rope with red flags around a grazing area or a certain breed of dog will keep them away. Rich ranchers get off our lands! Toxic mining companies, get lost!
# Posted By | 10/31/13 12:34 PM

Another federal agency bowing to the demands of special interest groups such as hunters and ranchers instead of protecting wildlife species for the American public like they are supposed to do. You really call yourselves biologists? Many studies have shown improvements to ecosystems by the mere presence of wolves, an apex predator. How do you honestly live with yourself, allowing the slaughter of innocent animals for no other reason than greed?
# Posted By K Dunn | 10/31/13 12:46 PM

I would like to add my voice to the multitude who are calling to keep the wolves on the list. Let nature have its own checks & balances without us trying to play God.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 12:47 PM

We need to continue to protect wolves from people who are determined to wipe them out. We need help to do this in the form of continuing to keep them under Federal protection.
# Posted By Paula Shafransky | 10/31/13 1:11 PM

Delisting wolves will only lead to wholesale slaughter. Over 1000 wolves have been killed this year in states that allow hunting of wolves. This will eliminate them from the lowe 48 again.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 1:17 PM

I also don't believe there are enough wolves . And it would be a wast of the tax dollars it took to bring the wolves back if they are delisted .
# Posted By SCOTT | 10/31/13 1:34 PM

I oppose removing the gray wolves from the endangered species list.
# Posted By David Graham | 10/31/13 1:37 PM

Wolves are an integral part of the ecosystem. Wolves must remain protected for the health of the ecosystem. Wolves are not the patrimony of ranchers and trophy hunters, they are an American icon, a magnificent animal. How disgusting that a small group of individuals feel they can do whatever they want and put in danger the survival of these magnificent animals. Protect the wolves.
# Posted By Diana | 10/31/13 1:38 PM

Please, please! Let's move beyond being a slaughter society can we? We frigin' slaughter EVERYTHING in this country. Including our selves. What we need is strong, anti-slaughter leadership.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 1:51 PM

You say the ESA has done its job, but those charged with wildlife care and management at the state and federal levels have not. Why bring an animal back into the environment if it is to be slaughtered in the name of ranching and farming. These animals are part of an intact environment, and officials are too often bending to the will of a few greedy humans who have not the slightest idea how an intact ecosystem actually functions, nor do they care. Stop this foolishness and get to the real management of wildlife, for wildlife and for the citizens of the world whose resource and legacy these beautiful animals actually are.
# Posted By MC Roddis | 10/31/13 2:09 PM

Delisting of the wolves is another example of special interests hijacking our democracy. The majority of scientists and Americans would like to see the wolf protected in numbers that preserve biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. Unfortunately the decisions are being influenced by the fewer but louder voices of ranchers and livestock interests that have traditionally maintained that the appropriate number of wolves is zero. This is apparent in the heat and fury of the descriptions advertising wolf hunts. These interests do not reflect the values of the majority of Americans. I hope that leadership can see past the immediate special interests to the long term interests of the ecosystem.
# Posted By Tracy Ouellette | 10/31/13 2:14 PM

I'd like to see wolves saved.
They are beautiful creatures.

They are a precious piece of the ecosystem, allowing beavers to thrive by minimizing deer populations that compete with beavers habitat.

People are living an illusion that wolves are harmful to cattle.
A study was done, and turns out cattle are more likely to die of disease, or attacked by a Mountain Lion, than they are to be the pray of a wolf.
I'm sure the study can be easily looked up, as I read about it in the Sierra Club Magazine.

Allowing people to slaughter wolves just leads to pure barbaric abuse of an innocent animal.
# Posted By S Stiles | 10/31/13 2:22 PM

nothing justifies killing wolves...
# Posted By | 10/31/13 2:26 PM

You are listening to the wrong scientist. De-listing the gray wolf from the ESA will be devastating to their survival. The wildlife managers in the states have no interest in protecting the wolf’s survival. They are strongly influenced by the ranching and hunting lobbies and not preserving native wildlife. Your proposed actions will once again eliminate the gray wolf from the lower 48 States. My family visited Yellowstone NP last month and we observed a pack of 10 wolves and got to visit with some scientist studying these wolves. These scientist were pleased with the re-introduction of the wolves to Yellowstone because of the improvements to the plants and animals in this ecosystem and they are horrified about the slaughter of the wolves in the states surrounding yellowstone. These states are not interested in preserving the wolves. These states only support the ranching and hunting interests and not native wildlife.
# Posted By Robert Husbands | 10/31/13 2:34 PM

I am extremely disappointed regarding the planned de-listing of wolves. We have seen what has happened to them where they have been de-listed - in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming. They are being hunted and killed faster than expected, entire packs broken up, the ecological benefits that wolves brought disrupted and the economic benefits of wolves at risk.

This important keystone species occupies only a small fraction of its historic range and, if de-listed, it is clear that wolves will never re-gain much of that range. Indeed, Utah is already making plans to kill wolves and they don't have any yet!

Please ignored the politics, consider the science and do the right thing: keep wolves listed.
# Posted By Michelle MacKenzie | 10/31/13 2:36 PM

No, stop killing these animals; more than that, stop spending my tax dollars on killing off endangered species...stop playing politics with my tax dollars.
# Posted By b lasley | 10/31/13 2:40 PM

How absurd to have spent years and many dollars to breed and reintroduce wolves and then to allow them to be hunted in great numbers again. Wolves are such a vital part of the natural world and its balance and they should not be sacrificed for the hair-brained reasons given.
# Posted By Mary Turner | 10/31/13 2:46 PM

Bruce Babbitt and the Clinton Administration highly disagree with your current assessment concerning the status of this vital keystone specie, the Gray Wolf."The former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under President Bill Clinton said the agency's proposal is a far cry from what we envisioned for the Gray Wolf Recovery when we embarked on this almost twenty years ago."

Man's opinion about wolves is irrelevant; what's vital to the great continuum is Earth's opinion of her wolves. Didn't Earth choose wolves for America? I saw a document listing thirty-three scientists who highly disagree with this de-listment and slaughter of this keystone specie, including Dr. Michael Soule.

Ranchers have been carefully taught to hate wolves for hundreds of years: "The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to Think Like a Mountain."
# Posted By Tess Parsons | 10/31/13 2:52 PM

The only successful control and preservation of a population is to take humans out of the mix and let nature do it -- in other words, STOP human hunting and return natural predators... and natural selection. This approach improves the entire ecosystem. This was done with deer in one of the western states and both flora and fauna benefited by finding an equilibrium. Consult George Monbiot about "Rewilding."
# Posted By Abigail | 10/31/13 2:54 PM

Ranchers lease our BLM land for pennies. Cows and other livestock erode our land and now fish and wildlife services is recommending delisting wolves??? Wolves have almost no presence. Ranchers will decimate their puny populations. Delisting the wolf is rancher driven politics and not science. Please don't do it.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 3:48 PM

If the gray wolf is delisted from the endangered species list, its recovery will have been in vain. Ranchers in most western states are awaiting the opportunity to be able to shoot wolves at will once they are delisted. Hunters and ranchers have great influence on their state governments in western states, and to say that the states are in a good position to manage the wolf population is ridiculous. If the the gray wolf is removed from the Endangered species list, you can bet that they will once again be pushed to the brink of extinction in the United States. Don't undo what has taken so long to fix. Let's keep these wolves protected.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 3:51 PM

Why restore the wolf population just to hunt them again?! Ranchers in the Midwest need to realized wolves are an important part of the ecosystem and thus they need to be protected!I am tired of ranchers using the excuse of "protecting their cows" as a reason for throwing ecosystems out of balance, because it is not valid!
# Posted By Olivia | 10/31/13 4:02 PM

The state wildlife management professionals in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have no goal other than the total extermination of wolves in their respective states. It is naive beyond belief that the USFWS would actually be blind to the rabidly anti-predator policies of these states.

The removal of federal protections for wolves is being done mainly for political reasons, appeasing wolf-haters and wolf-blamers. Giving away several decades of wolf recovery to murderous states is a betrayal of the entire process.

How long then will it be before ESA protections have to be re-applied to wolves in the Northern Rockies because they've been shot, trapped and poisoned out of existence for the second time?
# Posted By Charles Fox | 10/31/13 4:11 PM

Is there some absurd reason why the Gray wolf AND the Mexican wolf can't be protected simultaneously???

The ONLY reason you can even say that Gray wolves "are no longer in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future." is because they were listed as a threatened and endangered species. I assure you that prediction will make a complete 180 degree turn as soon as you de-list them.

This is a bad idea! Please reconsider!!
# Posted By Melissa Gitautis | 10/31/13 4:11 PM

What this administration needs most is for your chairbto be vacated.
# Posted By wgraue | 10/31/13 4:16 PM

This plan has little to do with listing or de-listing. It is about slaughter of a species. Please reconsider.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 4:20 PM

The removal of the grey wolf from the ESL truly worries me. What limits these states from abusing this proposed population management. Most hunters and cattle ranchers do not seem to care much for grey wolves. In fact these magnificent animals pose more of a threat to them and their profits. Why delist the wolves if the laws protecting them have been so successful? It has only been 35 years since they were added on the ESL.
# Posted By Johanna S | 10/31/13 4:30 PM

I'd say "recovered" only if wolves were restored fully to their historic ranges. While many are attempting to disperse and establish packs in states other than Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, its usually the case that these are shot before they can do so. And I don't consider one lone wolf in California to be indicative of a species being "recovered".
# Posted By Wm Schultz | 10/31/13 4:33 PM

Here in Colorado we have plenty of open space for wolves to roam, and yet we have none. Despite us being labeled as "cattlemen" country, the wolves have just as much right to the land as the ranchers. Wolves deserve continued protection.
# Posted By Nicole Shaffer | 10/31/13 4:41 PM

There is no reason to delist the Gray Wolf. Scientific studies have proved that a healthy number of wolves protects the eco-system. The only people who really want you to delist the gray wolf are those who delight in killing "fish in a barrel" or ranchers. Please do not delist the Gray Wolf.
# Posted By Sue Noel | 10/31/13 4:53 PM

Please continue to offer federal protection to wolves.The wolves will be back at extinction levels in no time if you leave their management to the states. Many Western state legislatures are controlled by wealthy ranching interests who see wolves as vermin to be exterminated, rather than a vital part of the ecosystem. We have seen what happened in Yosemite when the wolves were gone. The elk population exploded, and they began overgrazing riparian environments and damaging trees which provide shade to the streams. This led to a rise in water temperature and decline of trout and other cold water species. The wolves returned and the process was reversed. But this doesn't matter to interests whose main concern is profits. Public lands belong to everyone, and most Americans support conservation of the land and preservation of the ecology. Why should just a few be able to override the wishes of the majority of the American people? Please don't et this happen.
# Posted By Kathleen wolney | 10/31/13 5:01 PM

I strongly disagree with the proposal to delist the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act. Resuming the slaughter of these animals will once again lead to the threat of extinction.
# Posted By Sue Carruthers | 10/31/13 5:34 PM

wolves have not recovered fully and still need More protection, not less! Please do not delist wolves and do the right thing. Thank you
# Posted By | 10/31/13 5:37 PM

Dear Don, Please check on this Facebook Page. I ran across it this morning and I am HORRIFIED at the pics here. Each one of these hunters needs to be checked for valid licenses and have their freezers examined. In the name of justice and decency. https://www.facebook.com/sportsmenagainstwolves

Thank you for helping the wolves.
Traci 'Bear' Thiele

PS do NOT delist the gray wolf.
# Posted By Traci 'Bear' Thiele | 10/31/13 5:47 PM

The gray wolf is as vulnerable as it ever was. Ranchers and farmers have made it abundantly clear that they would like to annihilate the gray wolf, and without significant protection, they would succeed. The wolf fills an important niche in the environment. Keep them filling that niche!
# Posted By | 10/31/13 6:08 PM

The whole idea of handing the wolves' future over to those who nearly exterminated them in the first place is just ridiculous. Does F&W work to complete its mission, its scope of work, or does it work to serve the economic interests of ranching and hunting? To any rational person it appears to be the latter case. How sad.
# Posted By Amanda McNeill | 10/31/13 6:32 PM

I live in Nevada; we had one male wolf drift through our state this year. This is not Minneapolis, Salt Lake or Denver, a pretty disingenuous argument in my judgement. Delisting the wolf before it has reestablished throughout its former range is only giving free reign to hunters and ranchers who will surely begin to destroy 40 years of work, perhaps work that your father promoted during his career. Recommend you reconsider, and, by the way, advise your folks that respond to public enquiries to drop the condescending attitude.
# Posted By Henry S. Kimbell | 10/31/13 6:53 PM

This is more right wing efforts to give in to ranchers and the like. No way should any animal be "hunted" by poisoning, traps, and gassing. Has the human race made no advancement towards humanity? Do not remove protections for the gray wolf.
# Posted By James A | 10/31/13 7:11 PM

I am not sure what the Director means by calling wolf populations as recovered. As an over 40 year resident of Colorado, I have neither seen or heard a wolf in the wild yet our Rocky Mountain National Park is overrun with sickly elk and deer who are responsible for the destruction of the Park's aspen ecosystem. Colorado needs a viable population of wolves in the wild as does all the Rocky Mountain states south of Wyoming. Does the Director mean to imply that a record 75 wolves in the entire region of Arizona and New Mexico shows that the ESA's job is done? Wolves must be protected under the ESA from overzealous hunters, ranchers, and wildlife control officers until viable wolf populations exist in their entire pre-European range.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 7:52 PM

The states have already demonstrated how they will treat the gray wolves once they are no longer protected-by allowing the hunting of as many as possible. You might be correct that the gray wolf has recovered if we lived in an ideal world where hunters and ranchers respected wolves and allowed them to coexist. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in and that is why wolves need to be federally protected. When you have Governors vying to be the first to shoot a wolf, you have to acknowledge that wolves are not safe in the State's hands. Do not allow a repeat of the past-do not allow the wolf to face extermination due to your actions for that will be your legacy.
# Posted By Rori Bernstein | 10/31/13 8:16 PM

The restoration of wolves has been hailed as one of the biggest successes of the Endangered Species Act since it was passed in 1973. But the important work of wolf recovery is unfinished. Delisting the gray wolf will halt four decades of progress in its tracks and expose America's wolves to unwarranted and unrestrained killing.
# Posted By R. Swiatkowski | 10/31/13 9:03 PM

Check the recent facebook entry featuring the 8 faceless cowards hiding behind an American flag with the carcass of a wold. And then read their comments. That is what you and your service have unleashed on the gray wolf populations in the northwestern US. Your touting online about the so-called wolf recovery program and truning the animal back to state control is disgusting; your legacy will be one of fauilure.
# Posted By Robert Fritsch | 10/31/13 9:21 PM

I don't understand what safeguards you have in place that will prevent the same people who have caused the total killing of the wolves in the USA in the first place to not cause the total killing of the wolves in the USA again. Please address this in your blog. Thank you for your consideration.
# Posted By Vicki | 10/31/13 9:30 PM

Removing grey wolves from the ESA is the first domino in a very likely series of continued removal of flora and fauna from the ESA. The F & W has a incredible chance to continue to protect the amazing ecosystems we have in this country.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 9:45 PM

Wolves are a keystone species that keep the balance of populations of other species. Killing wolves disturbs this balance dangerously. Wolves naturally limit their own population so when alpha wolves are killed, this natural balance is also disrupted disastrously. Delisting wolves and allowing them to be hunted is sure to be a disaster for wolves, for the environmental balance, and for us as a result. DO NOT delist wolves.
# Posted By Shellee Davis | 10/31/13 10:24 PM

Disgraceful! The conscious & unnecessary slaughter of animals who have every bit a right to be here, to live free and without the interference of human murder and execution as we do; who are just a part of nature being themselves with families and children to take care of or who will be greatly missed when they are gone, is nothing short of a tragedy in both humanity's and God's eyes. How can you call yourself a protector of animals and the environment. This is self-imposed cruelty no matter how you look at it, which is all part of the lowest common denominator of human self-interest on a planet and in a country that tries to call itself "civilized."

Shameful... Absolutely shameful!
# Posted By Magic Potion | 10/31/13 10:49 PM

I am very discouraged by the delisting of the gray wolves from the ESA, after years of watching all the work and effort it took to bring these animals back from the brink of extinction, I know there lives will once again be in danger without the protection of the Endangered Species Act.
# Posted By Mrs. Jos. Biroschak | 10/31/13 10:51 PM

Wolves deserve our respect and our protection.
# Posted By | 10/31/13 10:57 PM

Grey wolves do not have the uninterrupted habitat range they need in order to survive unaided.
# Posted By Sandy Dudley | 10/31/13 11:14 PM

I don't believe that the wolf population has recovered to the point that there is a natural balance between predators and prey. Wolves still need to be protected. I think your intent is just to please those who enjoy killing these beautiful creatures.
# Posted By Scott Tucker | 10/31/13 11:26 PM

The wolves were brought back once from the brink of extinction & are now facing the same fate again...to say the gray wolf is recovered is so far from the truth. We have all seen what is happening in Wyoming ,Montana & Idaho- the wolves are called "vermin" & the pictures showing dead wolves piled up on top of each other is horrific. Please do not de-list the gray wolves- they face the same fate as the passenger pigeon- hunted into extinction.
# Posted By Jeff Levicke | 10/31/13 11:50 PM

I cannot believe the ridiculous suggestion that the wolf is ready to be delisted and the populations controlled by states. There is a huge silent majority that has observed and decreed the killing and mismanagement of the wolf populations in the America. It is time to step back, remember why the American public voted to save the wolf and set aside public lands for intact and healthy packs. The intent of that law has been purposely challenged and altered. The voting public will hold this agency accountable. We deserve better than the cruel and purposeful mismanagement of the American wolves.
# Posted By Cynthia Cathey Rock | 11/1/13 12:18 AM

I don't believe that the grey wolf has recovered sufficiently to start killing them again. What sense would that make? Wasted money to get started on their recovery, only to kill them back into danger. Why???
# Posted By Candace | 11/1/13 12:32 AM

Get rid of the Wolfs in Okanogan County. You moved them in there you get rid of them.!
# Posted By Ed McConnell | 11/1/13 12:42 AM

Wyoming and Montana have allowed so many wolves to be killed that even Yellowstone wolves with radio collars who wander outside the park's boundaries have been killed. That is not taking care of the species! Until the ranchers and hunters who do not value biodiversity are no longer in control of state legislatures, the gray wolf needs FEDERAL protection.
# Posted By Caroline | 11/1/13 12:50 AM

For once, why don't we make the wildlife the priority instead of the interests of people more concerned about making money than the state of the natural world? Prioritize the wolves, not the ranchers. People will ALWAYS find a way to make money. When wolves are extinct, NO amount of money will bring them back.
# Posted By Linda | 11/1/13 3:14 AM

I am more disgusted every day you at the USFWS lie and cover up scientific Prof that solves need continued protection. Your blatant disregard for the will of the public, and your failure to do your job in this instance, is beyond comprehension. There are less than a handful of wolves in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, and ones that are a part of a breeding pack (one or two left) are killed annually by ignorant and violent hunters bent on exterminating wildlife. What kind of rationale is that? You didn't include numbers of wolves in the southwest in your blog because you can't. To use Alaska as a model of recovered wolves in ridiculous and completely inapplicable. And of course you know this. The entire Northeast doesn't have a single established wolf pack. NOT ONE. So instead of recovery or reintroduction, you changed the politics to include mid-west states in the northeast, then said, "hey look, there's a few wolves in the northeast now - wow! DO NOT delist our nation's wolves!
# Posted By Tia Simon | 11/1/13 7:16 AM

Congratulations on what you call a "success." With 7 billion people in the world and the burden on the ecosystems and its wildlife that their humongous consumption demands, our wild places and its wildlife need to be protected more than ever. If wolf recovery is so "successful" why are there so many wolf scientists saying it isn't so? By delisting wolves you are encouraging the sadistic, vicious , sexually perverted among us, to have a field day. Most of these wolves will suffer gruesome deaths in traps. There is quite a group of "hunters" who are pretty sick individuals. What we all have to do is work to control the human population and educate the humans about ecosystems and wildlife without whom we do not have a healthy existence. Enter the 21C with 21C science and approach to our ecosystems and wildlife. Ban F&W and replace it with an agency called "Ecosystems and Biological Diversity" and the antiquated management of kill,poison, trap will come to an end.
# Posted By Wildlife defender | 11/1/13 8:39 AM

this practice plays havoc with our ecosystem-Nature has somehow managed to maintain balance and equilibrium without cruel, clumsy, heavy-handed measures such as the wanton slaughter of these innocent creatures!
# Posted By gil artman | 11/1/13 8:53 AM

Allowing ranchers to kill wolves again makes no sense and will bring them to near extinction again in just a few years. The ranchers need to do a better job of protecting their animals, this is wolf territory and they deserve to roam it freely.
# Posted By | 11/1/13 10:31 AM

As humans, we seem to believe we know what is best. We have MASSIVE egos. The natural world needs to be left natural. You may have the means to kill and you may also have the ability to convince yourself and others that what you are doing is necessary, BUT
you do NOT have the right. Some of us Americans do NOT support your views, and it has nothing to do with political party. I do not support your actions against wolves or any other living being. It is just wrong.
# Posted By Kelley Livingston | 11/1/13 10:36 AM

Montana sold 6,000 wolf hunting licenses but has only 600 wolves. It is obvious by this that allowing the states to manage wolf recovery is ridiculous. You are either naïve or a mouthpiece for the ranchers. This is politics purely simple. How can you call yourself a scientist, you are just a bureaucrat plain and simple.
# Posted By | 11/1/13 11:15 AM

I strongly oppose the delisting of wolves! Wolves are NOT a game species, so we should not be hunting and trapping them. With the delisting of wolves states will hunt and trap them so there numbers will dramatically decrease again! Wolves are a very important part of there ecosystem. The best scientific approach to save the wolf is to put them back on the list and only eliminate those couple of wolves who are causing problems for ranchers, farmers, etc. But ranchers and farmers also need to do whatever is necessary to protect their livestock from wolves.
# Posted By | 11/1/13 11:42 AM

You really don't get what it is you are supposed to be doing. "Fish and Wildlife Service" should be just that, a service that supports fish and wildlife. Instead you support hunters that want to completely eliminate what they see as game animals. It is high time for you to do your job and protect those animals.
# Posted By Bruce Gibson | 11/1/13 11:45 AM

I am saddened to read this blog. Turning control over to individual states is a death sentence for wolves. We should all be committed to protecting wildlife for future generations. What would our world be like if we do not save wild areas and wild animals? You should be proud about the progress that has been made, but the job is NOT over.
# Posted By Julie Squire | 11/1/13 11:46 AM

The grey wolf suffers from one additional problem other species do not. The wolf is the victim of centuries, nay, MILLENIA of prejudice and ignorance so deep it is in human fairy tales. Witness the bizarre hatred and sale of more hunting licenses than there are wolves remaining in states where the wolf has been deemed 'recovered'. Wolves may be recovering, but until human attitudes have been educated and adjusted states have not shown they can responsibly manage this 'resource'. States have shown little but ignorance and greed. Perhaps wolf populations are OK. People's attitudes are not.
# Posted By b leved | 11/1/13 12:05 PM

You do know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Most is the comments made are much more eloquent then I could be, so I'll keep it simple. If you kill off the wolves BAD things happen and you might not be able to fix the mess this time, so take a deep breathe and STOP KILLING WOLVES!!!
# Posted By RG | 11/1/13 1:15 PM

Your rationale would appear to be highly irrational.

If you really want to save wolves - stop killing them.

~ I suspect there are 'others' behind the curtain who are pushing for this plan - which if implemented, would be solely for their own benefit - but most assuredly, not wolves.
# Posted By elle | 11/1/13 1:52 PM

Wolves are still in great danger. In areas where wolf hunting is allowed, almost half have been killed. Please keep the wolf on the list.
# Posted By Angela | 11/1/13 2:18 PM

Well, it's Nov.1. has the delisting plan stabilized the wolf population? Not from what I have read. It is widely reported that hundreds or more wolves killed; Do you have evidence of precisely how many undocumented wolves have been killed. You appear to recognize the wolf as a keystone species. As such, it should be protected under the ESA. Alternative methods can be and have been framed for dealing with problems of wolf predation on livestock. But public land is PUBLIC; not part of a ranch or other private enterprise. My understanding is that ranchers get a very good deal using public lands for grazing livestock. Perhaps wolf predation on public land should be regarded as part of the price ranchers pay for low-cost grazing rights.How long do your wildlife experts project it will take to restore wolf populations after the depopulation process?
# Posted By Kent Wilson | 11/1/13 2:34 PM

Leaving the protection of wolves to the localized management of the northwest Rocky Mountain states is like leaving racial civil rights management to states in the deep south. Where deep prejudice and hatred against wolves has resulted in their prior near extinction, and the culture of hatred remains deeply imbedded, there is no logic, no reason, and no hope for a successful outcome. There are many issues which if handled according to local cultural norms, fly directly in opposition to the national constitutionally guaranteed rights and laws of our country. That is why we have a Supreme Court system to mediate these issues. Wolves need federal protection, especially in the light of the leverage wielded by the vested interests of anti-wolf elements in the governments of these states. I live in Montana and the prevalent attitude of the elected officials here is one which reflects ranchers views, pretty well expressed by the saying, "The only good wolf is a dead wolf."
Stop the killing.
# Posted By | 11/1/13 2:47 PM

I'd like to challenge your analogy of the EPA as an emergency room that eventually turns the "patients" over to benevolent providers who will provide them with long term care.

Shooting, trapping, gassing does not sound like long term care that I'd want any animal to endure.

While your analogy presents an appealing picture, it is false to the reality of what is happening in the states.
# Posted By Kent Wilson | 11/1/13 2:48 PM

How many more lives do humans really need to destroy?
# Posted By Jamie | 11/1/13 2:50 PM

I suggest before you delist wolves that you look at the number of wolf hunting licenses sold in states that have opened hunting, and compare that number to actual wolf numbers. Do the math. It equals decimation. It seems your idea of managing wolf populations equals something like growing their numbers until there are a few extra and then appeasing your real interest, ranchers and hunters.
# Posted By s. e. campbell | 11/1/13 2:56 PM

According to the endangered species act, you cannot release an animal/plant from endangered species until the threat is reduced or gone. Well for wolves that is not the case. Until we can re-educate non-ethical hunters that killing wolves are not beneficial to the ecosystem and educate ranchers on non-killing predator controls and remove the monetary incentive that state wildlife officials have in selling permits to kill wolves, then we have not removed the threat. The removal of wolves from the endangered species list in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho was not based on science but on politics. It did not take into account the pack structure of wolves and only focused on individual wolves.

You and your department are making a mockery of the Endangered Species Act - an act that we can all agree that works even with its faults. That is, it works when sound science is used to delist. Your proposal does not use sound science.
# Posted By Lisha Doucet | 11/1/13 3:33 PM

In just over two weeks, hunters and trappers in Wisconsin have killed off more than 181 wolves. Does this look like State allowed sustainable hunting to you? Your assessment of recovery is absurd in the face of trapper, hunter and rancher zeal. Please don't delist wolves.
# Posted By liz | 11/1/13 3:35 PM

Protect the wolves...do not take them off the list for protection.
# Posted By | 11/1/13 3:40 PM

I am one of the many Americans who want to save wolves, not kill them. They are going to end up on the endangered species list once again. What is the purpose of allowing hunters to CRUELLY hunt these beautiful animals? How can you justify using live traps and aerial hunting. Why can't you just let them be? They deserve to be here more than most humans. They just want to live their own lives.

Do you not have one ounce of compassion and respect for these beautiful creatures? Quit playing God with their lives.
# Posted By Tina Grider | 11/1/13 3:51 PM

Delisting wolves in the USA is based on bad science. You purposely hand-picked your "expert panel" to facilitate delisting. So the hunters get open season and all the hard work done to bring wolves back is just thrown away?
This is WRONG.
# Posted By Constance | 11/1/13 4:42 PM

Man is the true threat on this planet. We have the right to kill other living things indiscriminately out of anger, vengeance and the guise of protecting what is ours. Nature kills only out of survival, man kills for no good reason whatsoever.

If this protection is lifted for the wolves, the same cycle will occur.
# Posted By Sherry Ervin | 11/1/13 4:46 PM

This has got to be the most ridiculously clueless article I've seen so far on the subject, and it absolutely horrifies me that you're in any way involved in wildlife management. Neither the science, nor the reality on the ground support your assertions in any way and it makes me wonder who might be paying your check. Wolf haters proudly post pictures of wolves slaughtered by the pack, and yet you crow about this being a landmark recovery. The states are setting kill limits and selling kill licenses well above the total number of wolves in the contiguous U.S., yet you advocate for removal and praise state "management" methods. Of the 100 or so surviving wild Mexican wolves, two have been illegally killed this week alone. At first, I thought this piece was satire. Imagine my disappointment and disgust when I realized it wasn't.
# Posted By Sarah | 11/1/13 4:59 PM

Wolves are very important to the environment . The slaughter has to stop they were out here for a reason , without wolves who would clean up the other dead animals . They are essential to the world , we are the ones who have taken there home the woods away from them by building homes tearing down trees. This leaves them no choice but to come into our world. Wolves are more afraid us as we fear them , they are a beautiful creature. No animal that is on the protected species list should be ever taken off they need to be left on there permanently.
# Posted By Michele & Chris | 11/1/13 6:03 PM

Leaving the protection of wolves to the localized management of the northwest Rocky Mountain states is like leaving racial civil rights management to states in the deep south. Where deep prejudice and hatred against wolves has resulted in their prior near extinction, and the culture of hatred remains deeply imbedded, there is no logic, no reason, and no hope for a successful outcome. There are many issues which if handled according to local cultural norms, fly directly in opposition to the national constitutionally guaranteed rights and laws of our country. That is why we have a Supreme Court system to mediate these issues. Wolves need federal protection, especially in the light of the leverage wielded by the vested interests of anti-wolf elements in the governments of these states. I live in Montana and the prevalent attitude of the elected officials here is one which reflects ranchers views, pretty well expressed by the saying, "The only good wolf is a dead wolf."
Stop the killing.
# Posted By Carol Edwards | 11/1/13 6:36 PM

Mr Ashe, If you are talking about the minimum we can do to recover wolves, then yes, you are right, the grey wolf has recovered. Are we a country that does the bare bones minimum for a keystone species? Did we do the minimum for the Bald Eagle? And now that we have done the minimum, we are handing the task of wolf management back to the states, the very states that allowed the wolf to be decimated to begin with? Sorry, but I am not buying your line. I am certain that special interest groups are the main influence in your sort-sighted, illogical, delisting plan. The anti-wolf policies in our nation’s capital and many states stand in sharp contrast to what most voters and top wolf scientists are calling for. Ignoring public opinion and siding with special interest groups seems to be "business as usual" these days.
# Posted By Kate | 11/1/13 6:43 PM

Education is a powerful tool. Please read Farley Mowatt's book about wolves. Enlightenment is to strive for, and if you read mr. mowatt's book, you would be compelled to do everything in your power to protect this special animal.
Please do not let the special interest cattle industry be your guiding light.
# Posted By R . Nesbit | 11/1/13 7:01 PM

Save, not kill. Please !
# Posted By | 11/1/13 7:12 PM

I consider myself extremely fortunate to have seen wolves in the wild. I assure you that these animals are highly intelligent and social. They are worthy of moral consideration in their own right. Further, future generations deserve the same opportunity to see these beautiful animals in their natural habitat.

You claim that the recovery is complete, mission accomplished.

However, these animals can still be snuffed out of existence with even greater ease than they were the first time. Their reintroduction to this area is a huge success. True. But, protection is still required to ensure continued success. And, the states in the Greater Yellowstone Area have proven themselves both unwilling and unable to protect these amazing creatures.

If you turn over protection to the states, it is a near guarantee that the reintroduction will have to be repeated in years to come after the states eradicate wolves from this area once again.

Thank you for your consideration.
# Posted By Scott Sobel | 11/1/13 7:46 PM

The Gray Wolf and the Mexican Wolf Recovery is far from over! They will never be recovered at the rate we are going, they are too busy looking over their shoulders for hunters and dodging bullets!!! These graceful animals are an integral part of our wilderness ecosystems and we need them; whether ranchers or trophy hunters admit it or not!!! Just once, listen to the American public and not to the states that sell over 6,000 permits to kill wolves when there are less than 300 wolves in the whole state to start with! Do you see the inequality here? Please do not believe their propaganda and consider the facts. These iconic animals need to have a chance to make a significant recovery
# Posted By Shirley Smith | 11/1/13 7:50 PM

Mr. Ashe,

I intend to send you as many reports as possible on the run-amuck killings of wolves throughout their northwestern range. Again, this has been unleashed under your watch and YOU are responsible.
# Posted By Robert Fritsch | 11/1/13 8:24 PM

Please save the wolves !! Thank you.
# Posted By | 11/1/13 10:07 PM

There is absolutely no way the wolf (Grey, Mexican, Red and any other wolf) should be removed from the endangered species list. First they are not recovered to any sustainable number and second without the protection of the endangered species act the ranchers will simply start slaughtering them just for fun and we will be right back where we were in a very short time. No WOLVES! These are beautiful, magnificent creatures that deserve a place in our wildlife. They have a purpose.
# Posted By A Schutt | 11/1/13 10:12 PM

Humans are the only living beings that kills for pleasure! Wolves can not defend from the human weapons, do not even have a chance to do so, leaving their abandoned puppies, they too have the right to live.There is too much unnecessary cruelty of humans against them Please Protect them, not assassinate!!!
# Posted By VILU | 11/1/13 10:59 PM

We need your help investigating the deaths of two radio-collared endangered red wolves. Both were found dead with a suspected gunshot wound in Washington County, NC. Rewards are being offered for information leading to an arrest. The red wolf is one of the world’s most endangered canids.
http://1.usa.gov/19XNllO (Photo: Female red wolf, USFWS).
# Posted By | 11/1/13 11:14 PM

Delisting wolves will only lead to wholesale slaughter. Over 1000 wolves have been killed this year in states that allow hunting of wolves. This will eliminate them from the lowe 48 again.
# Posted By | 11/1/13 11:36 PM

Please do everything in your legislative power to prevent the wolves from being delisted. They deserve the protection. Wolves are an important part of the Earth's eco system. All wolf shootings need to be outlawed immediately.
# Posted By Nicola | 11/2/13 12:50 AM

Wolves and other native wild animals have a right to have places to roam. Greedy farmers, ranchers and the Wildlife service need to concentrate on wild dogs, feral hogs, invasive species, lead shot, pollution and other issues. People also need to keep in mind that they will either have wolves, coyotes, or other predators such as feral pigs and wild dogs. The wolves are probably doing most farmers and ranchers favors but eliminating more dangerous situations involving non-native species.
# Posted By Franklin J. Kapustka, PE | 11/2/13 2:27 AM

This is like healing a wounded man so he can stand up straight for the firing squad.
# Posted By Rikki Ansell | 11/2/13 3:55 AM

What seems to be in question here is whether or not the gray wolf needs protection by the ESA. So let's look at the consequences of removing protection (which costs the government how much money? does someone know who could answer me? thanks). Wolves will be killed, on sight or tracked down.
We've seen this time and again wherever their protection is removed. There aren't enough wolves for this to occur and the ecosystem to remain healthy. In my opinion, we don't even have enough as it is for our ecosystems to be healthy and balanced.
Should wolves be in cities? No. And hopefully our people will be dedicated to demanding more wild lands be preserved. We know that ranchers and humans can live peacefully and safely beside wolf populations without costing a lot of money (flag lines, farm dogs, mounted farmhands, livestock meat left out for wolves that have a harmless horrible tasting chemical in them).
For these reasons I sincerely hope that wolves will not be removed from protection.
# Posted By r m | 11/2/13 4:10 AM

Wolf populations are fragile. Some progress does not mean full recovery. Keep the grey wolf listed as endangered and protect their survival.
# Posted By concerned in Washington | 11/2/13 9:11 AM

Fish and Wildlife and Interior departments act as stewards of the US public lands, but in delisting a long mistreated species such as the gray wolf, the departments abrogate any moral conscience in the issue. Wildlife protection ensures ecological health -- for water sources along riverbanks, healthy elk/deer populations and more.
Remember that these creatures are sentient beings and are part of our natural heritage. A small number of people should not relentlessly be putting wolves through horrible ordeals. Offer incentives to ranchers and rural homeowners such as fladry. Please maintain protections for wolves under the Endangered Species Act.
# Posted By Linda Babcock | 11/2/13 9:14 AM

Please do not allow these beautful creatures be slaughtered. It is sadly ironic that you speak about killing in the same breath as "recovery" for that is what occurs when wolves are "handed over to other providers." In places where the FWS allows hunting, these animals are not only killed, but tragically often maimed and left to suffer in steel traps, only to be shot at point blank. Wolves need to be saved, not killed for sport. Please show compassion and do the right thing.
# Posted By Corinna | 11/2/13 11:36 AM

I suppose this is what the human species will keep doing all their lives - one moment spending time, energy and money to save another species and the next moment deciding to kill the very species they spent so much on saving! Ridiculous decisions. These farmers/ranchers are always ready with excuses to wipe out an animal population. This same attitude was once and still prevalent in India as well with regard to tigers. High time these petty complaining ranchers should be ignored!
# Posted By Nazneen Ahmed | 11/2/13 11:58 AM

It is a sad state of affairs when thousands of hunting licenses are sold when there are just a few hundred wolves in a state.Please consider what can happen in such a scenario.Please pay less attention to ranchers and hunters and more attention to scientists who recognize the beneficial role wolves play as the apex predator in their ecosystem.Wolves kill the weak and the old among prey animals,thereby benefitting those species.Hunters kill the individuals that will give them the most impressive trophies,which has the opposite effect.Wolves should not be delisted.
# Posted By fred fall | 11/2/13 12:04 PM

The wolves are the earth's great wild spirit. They are part of our American landscape and our connection to nature and the great spirit of our consciousness. They are like the wind! They are wild and free, not man managed quotas, as in a "stocked" fish pond or horrific game reserve, "stocked" purely for the hunt and exploitation. The delisting of Federal protection for of this amazing species would be for no other reason than that of fear, ignorance, and greed. You can't put quotas on the wind! Save the Wolves!
# Posted By elisa conte | 11/2/13 12:10 PM

The grey wolves may have come back from extinction but if they are not protected, will they remain that way? I think not, especially if individual states open up hunting on these wondrous, majestic creatures. This is clearly part of the misconception that humans have "dominion" over the earth. In reality we are part of the earth and have a responsibility to care for the earth and all of its creatures, including humans! We are in this together.
# Posted By Willoe | 11/2/13 12:10 PM

This sounds a lot like the plot from "Sophie's Choice" and deciding which child to save, but to firmly protect the wolves we need to protect both species. An area of our country that was once devoid of wolves had them reintroduced and they found that surprisingly it has a positive effect on everything from native plants to fish to other mammals. We cannot let go of any one species as the toxic condition of the planet and the exponentially exploding human population is leaving every other species at risk except for maybe rats and roaches. People could have said at one time that there would always be passenger pigeons as the skies were black with them. We may not be able to save every species, but we are quite clearly at fault if we do not at least take up the cause.
# Posted By Loretta Lehman | 11/2/13 12:58 PM

I just cannot agree with your logic to delist at the expense of lives of the wolves.
# Posted By | 11/2/13 1:34 PM

save the wolves. they are here for a reason. they do not deserve to be killed.
# Posted By | 11/2/13 1:47 PM

I oppose the de-listing of gray wolves. Despite claims that their populations are at an acceptable level, leading wolf experts and scientists disagree and believe they are not fully recovered and still need protection.
# Posted By Lady80 | 11/2/13 2:36 PM

Gray wolves are not "recovered" for their benefit. In Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin, where FWS already allows hunting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in just two years. Seems to me the "recovery" only benefitted the hunters who want to slaughter them. As long as the persistent and misguided belief that wolves are not vital to a healthy ecosystem and must be destroyed, it is not wise or feasible to delist them. Fish and Wildlife Service is not serving the wildlife in this instance.
# Posted By J Ramos | 11/2/13 2:55 PM

Even though gray wolf populations may have recovered, it is imprudent to turn management over to states. Their historic range existed before we created states. Wolves contribute to the health of the systems they inhabit. Unlike bison, a herbivore with more confined geographic requirements, wolves need lots of space. State lines do not conform to these requirements. As a result, wolves must be able to cross state borders. If state laws differ, wolves protected in one state will be killed in another. States acting independently cannot support wolf recovery; the overarching protection of the U.S. government is still required. Equally important is the fact that when wolves live without restriction, all natural systems fair better. These systems include other species, all subject to ripple out effects arising from elimination (or even reduction)of wolf populations. To protect the integrity of these ecosystems, it remains imperative to continue to list the gray wolf.
# Posted By Helen Logan Hays | 11/2/13 4:16 PM

This blog post clearly demonstrates that you have no business making policy for wolf preservation. You should be ashamed of your duplicity.
# Posted By Stephen Rosenblum | 11/2/13 5:07 PM

This is yet another example of how dysfunctional our government and our Democracy has gotten! The PEOPLE have spoken hundreds of thousands of times over this. Even Bush reversed the decision to delist the wolves. It hasn't been 10 years since reintroduction. Wyoming's "plan" is NOT science based, nor is Idahos. OUR tax dollars went to restore wolves, millions of dollars and for what? To kill them again?? Dan Ashe, so YOUR "care provider" would kill you after you "survived" the hospital stay? How proposterous a statement to liken blatant slaughter as "care" Once again it is the ranchers, hunting lobby, loggers, oil, gas; corrupt, greedy men with the power and money that influences government agencies. Butch Otter, Jeff Siddoway, so ready to kill. Gun violence, why should we question why when man continues to revert to barbaric, uneducated lethal methods. ENOUGH! I resent MY money used for such atrocities! Ranchers: COEXIST with wolves, OR REMOVE the INVASIVE species-YOUR cattle.
# Posted By Lisa Scharin | 11/2/13 5:52 PM

After the federal government transferred gray wolf management to some states, thousands of animals have been killed in the last two years. ESA is not a hospital treating injured animals and then releasing them back to the hunters so they can kill them. Gray wolves need federal government's continuous protection because they are magnificent animals, keeping elk populations in check and acting as doctors in the forest, eating injured or dead animals. It is not time to let them loose.
# Posted By Elena Rumiantseva | 11/2/13 5:56 PM

You are confusing "successful" with bowing to the pressure of ranchers who want to profit from killing the wolves. Do you expect that those ranchers will thank you? Your "blog" is nothing but conclusions unsupported by any statistics. In essence, you're saying that the wolves should be killed because now there's more of them to be killed. Under that logic, humans should be slaughtered wholesale. You are wrong wrong wrong.
# Posted By Rosemary Williams | 11/2/13 7:51 PM

What kind of bean-brained reasoning is this? The species is nowhere near recovered and you are giving it over to the "Great White Hunters" to see how many they can kill and how quickly they can do it. You call this "steadfast commitment" to recovery? If brains were gasoline . . .. Well, let's admit you have no shortage of brains; I'd guess you're just a bald-faced liar.
# Posted By Greg Lakebrink | 11/2/13 10:58 PM

I do not understand why no one values life anymore. As the superior species, shouldn't we be helping to protect all that need us? Without regulations, people will hunt in excess. It just doesn't seem fair that you aren't doing everything possible to prevent this.
# Posted By Kristin | 11/3/13 12:48 AM

Wolves are the still-more-perfect form of our best friends; therefore they have the same openness of heart and they have not forgotten anything about singing.
# Posted By Stefan Kozinski | 11/3/13 4:44 AM

This is a modern witch hunt. I thought we had left the medieval times where people behaved like bloodthirsty barbarians, but apparently there still are a lot of such people still in this life. All those in favour of slaughtering, all these important and innocent wolves, are suffering from an evil version of hybris. To thnk that you have the right to erase a specie or that it would not have such an impact on the enviroment or the wildlife is outrageous and appalling! There are ways to protect cattle and other animals, both cheap and effective. The effect it has on prey when wolves are not around has been proved to be very negative. Their offsprings do not survive as good without wolves around, that will eventualy lead to less and less animals. What wll all you bloodthirsty humans kill when you have killed all the wolves and all their prey will die out? But I guess they can't see that far ahead or that their hybris blur their sight...
# Posted By Jeanette | 11/3/13 5:45 AM

Leave the animals in peace
# Posted By Mimi | 11/3/13 8:00 AM

I'm not an environmental scientist but my common sense tells me it's too soon to take the grey wolf off the endangered species list. They are needed to help balance the food chain in nature. If bobcats are beginning to inhabit the grey wolf's territory, they will kill the wolf for food which will keep the wolf population in check.
# Posted By Katherine | 11/3/13 8:32 AM

All wolves deserve protection against extinction.
# Posted By | 11/3/13 8:41 AM

I find it incredulous that someone like yourself goes into this line of work as you are obviously no lover of wildlife, especially the wolf. Only five percent of the population are hunters and wolves are hardly a threat to ranchers yet our species seems intent on annihilating them from the planet. This is the most persecuted of all species on the face of the earth. I truly wonder how you sleep at night.
# Posted By Patricia L | 11/3/13 9:09 AM

The message is very simple it is premature and not supported by science to strip critical protections for recovering gray wolves across nearly all of the lower 48 states.
Both the grey wolf and the Mexican wolf must be protected.
# Posted By | 11/3/13 9:59 AM

I have worked in wildlife conservation and am currently a sheep farmer in MT. While I love that there has been such an outcry to protect wolves, it has been mostly emotional sentiment.1) Trout Unlimited conducted studies in the early 2000's and determined that the presence of wolves was greatly improving trout habitat. This is due to elk being more wary of browsing at river edges where they cannot hear as well, and therefore might get attacked. Less browsing means more limbs shading the water and allowing for better trout spawning.2) Brucellosis and CWD are MAJOR issues that impact the revenue from ranches and hunting tourism. Wolves, coyotes, and all of the other scavengers and hunters are responsible for eliminating these sickened animals from the natural herds of elk and bison. The route of transmission for brucellosis is oral, and since scavengers and hunters kill the sick and eat up the bloody remains, science believes their positive impacts far outweigh their negative ones.Think!
# Posted By MT farm and science | 11/3/13 10:26 AM

I will never be convinced that any species needs to be killed, for any reason. Let's face it, the ranchers are the ones who want the wolves eradicated. It is for the same reason that the wild mustangs are being rounded up and "relocated" (to slaughter-houses). The ranchers want the land so they can grow more cattle, so they can make more MONEY. When are humans going to come to the realization that we are not the only animals on this planet with some importance? For the love of God, let the animals live their lives, too!
# Posted By Debbie Groutage | 11/3/13 11:01 AM

Ranchers have undue influence over State legislatures and it will be open season on wolves.All the funds and effort to bring back the wolf will be wasted.This action is shameful.
What a shame. One of the few animals I can think of to be brought back from near extinction (by the hand of man) to face the same fate again from greedy ranchers and so called sportsman, hunting to kill something for fun. Unlike the wolf killing for food.
Has the money of ranchers gotten to you?
Do not remove the gray wolf from the list of threatened and endangered species throughout the United States and Mexico -- they are in danger of extinction now and in the foreseeable future by doing exactly what you are proposing.
# Posted By Outraged citizen | 11/3/13 11:04 AM

Do not de-list the wolves. Some people are just looking for an excuse to kill them, and you will have wasted all the time and money that was put into bringing their numbers back up.
# Posted By CC | 11/3/13 11:15 AM

Save the wolves
# Posted By Janice Mcshane | 11/3/13 12:30 PM

This kind of arrogant baloney sickens me. You aren't qualified to decide how many of any kind of animal deserves to exist. Where deer,bison, elk, moose, or caribou exist is where wolves should exist. Where wolves can exist is where they should be. They're the keepers of the health of the forests,tundras, plains and deserts, not you. They weren't put there by you. You have no right to remove them. This heavy-handed controlling by people like you almost wiped out Great Lake wolves and it drove coyotes from their homes. Because of this, we here in the northeast have to contend with coy-wolves. Big like wolves, but unafraid like coyotes. This is what you do. I'd much rather have the real and very shy wolf here but thanks to human 'management' this is what we get. Nice work. We have a chance to heal what we have damaged but you wish to set the stage for permanent disaster.
# Posted By Nancy Daly | 11/3/13 3:54 PM

America needs wolves! Delisting them from the Endangered Species Act is premature.
# Posted By Carol Bash | 11/3/13 4:20 PM

Sir, how about we just leave the wolves alone, that way we won't have to reinstate the recovery program in a year or 2 when they're back on the endangered species list.
# Posted By Charllotte Edwards | 11/3/13 6:00 PM

The gray wolf is entitled to live, survive just asGod intended. Please do not hunt them and kill them. People are in this world to protect the animals like the gray wolf. Would you like to be hunted? Treat animals like you would like to be treated.Do Unto animals and people like you would like done to you.The golden rule.
# Posted By maureen grzanna | 11/3/13 6:07 PM

Living in Montana And hearing what I here I can see no way that the elected officials from the Governor on down have any agenda but the removal of all wolves from the state. I wish I was wrong but I don't believe I am
# Posted By Greg Bischoff | 11/3/13 6:45 PM

Is this guy daft? Im glad that he is bragging about something that virtually ALL wildlife Biologists say is NOT the case.
# Posted By Josh | 11/3/13 6:48 PM

Please do not do this, these wolves need our protection.
# Posted By | 11/3/13 7:21 PM

We want to save wolves, not kill them. wolves are a natural and healthy part of the ecosystem. When they kill for food, they kill the sick, old and weak prey animals, unlike the hunters who kill the largest, healthiest stock. Thus, the wolves strengthen the herds while hunters weaken them. Indiscriminate killing of wolves will harm the environment. Please reconsider these decisions. Thank you.
# Posted By Elena Knox | 11/3/13 7:28 PM

If you think delisting wolves is a good thing..


Take into consideration wolves used to be, or were very near extinction, and allowing wolves to be hunted at numbers at which now are near 5,000 for gray wolves in America... and particularly 52 now for Mexican grays (protected, yet killed) will lead them down the same path of near death.

Comparing this to the historic range of.. how do I say... 2,000,000... you can see how crazy 5,000 is compared to their past.

And so you know, I think it is sick you allow hunters to kill wolves, any animal for that matter, for "fun."

In my thoughts, death is NOT a game to play with. And don't you dare say "They are just animals."

Unless 100% Just, DON'T KILL! ONLY IN DEFENSE! Not even encounters. They won't hurt you, they'll love/play

Quote:"[You are] confident that one day we’ll be celebrating their full recovery just like we are, today, with the gray wolf."

HOW IS 5,000 A FULL RECOVERY? And then what? Celebrate, and time to SHOOT AGAIN?

# Posted By Joshua Camputaro | 11/3/13 7:37 PM

Thanks for saving our beautiful Wolves. Wolves have been misunderstood for such a long time.
Keep up the good work.
# Posted By Barbara Bussell | 11/3/13 7:52 PM

We know that wolves are key to the health of the environment at a whole. They have already proven how much better any ecosystem is when they are healthy. We also know that when wolves are delisted, there are those who see to remove them, rather than do everything they can to ensure they are a viable species, essential to they health of the system. Oregon has proven that there are plemty of non leathal approaches, which help farms and wild life while maintaining a healthy wolf population. To delist wolves has already proven to be fool hardy in states where wolves have been delisted. It is your responsibility to protect and maintain wolves for the good of us all. They are an essential part of the natural resources taht belong to us all, not to a few. With out federal protection, this right is being stollen from us all.
# Posted By Terry Eaton | 11/3/13 7:59 PM

Finally. Wolves were 'recovered" years ago, and it's time to save the only threatened wolf in North America, the Mexican. I always laugh when I hear about the 'endangered" grey wolf. We have almost 10,000 in BC alone, another 10 in Ontario, and 70,000 in North America, but once they cross the 49th, they're "Endangered"?!!?? Don't listen to the bunny huggers, they want a million wolves in a sterile landscape of nothing else. Maybe once these 'Endangered" wolves start eating each other in public, like they do in private, they will wake up.
# Posted By Wolftracker | 11/3/13 8:05 PM

I notice the dog cowering behind your leg-perhaps emblematic of your mis-directed leadership of wildlife 'resources'. You are ignoring both the science of the majority of independent and government wildlife biologists... and what has transpired in states allowed to exercise leadership in wolf 'management'. In each example, the fealty of your organization and the local counterparts to the hunting and ranching lobbies is a sad commentary on the ability of shrill and well-financed organizations to commandeer policies that are inimical to the interests of most of the nation and run counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans.
# Posted By Jeff R. | 11/3/13 8:51 PM

For far too long decisions to decide which animals live or are nearly wiped out have been made by the wrong people. The people with the most money do not have the will of the people behind them. They represent big business and the wrong will. It is time fish and wildlife reverse their ideas. And protect Fish and wildlife not ruin their chance for survival.
# Posted By | 11/3/13 9:00 PM

Incredible twisting of the facts concerning the "recovery" of the gray wolf! Nothing could be further from the truth. And, as we're witnessing first hand, states with wolf populations are proving that their "management" of these animals caters to the moneyed special interests i.e. ranchers and hunters residing in their state. Wisconsin, in less three weeks, has already wiped out 180+ wolves and plans to hunt whatever wolves remain with dogs in December. Wyoming has effectively declared wolves in most of the state completely unprotected and can be shot on sight no questions asked. Yellowstone wolves wandering over the invisible border into either Montana or Wyoming wearing collars are gunned down or trapped. Yes, the agency HAS given up on the gray wolf...and if they are further de-listed, no future expansion of wolf range will ever happen. Clearly, you have catered to special interests and have tried to put some sort of "spin" about how gray wolves have recovered! Baloney.
# Posted By Elizabeth Huntley | 11/3/13 9:34 PM

I do not think restoration of the Gray wolf can be correctly labled successful. There are a growing population of gray wolves in the wild. However, the eco-system of which the gray wolf is a part is still grossly out of balance. Many more gray wolves are needed to control the deer and rodent population so it will not devastate the vegitation and crops on these lands.

I urge you not to remove the Gray wolf form the endangered species list.
# Posted By Royal Graves | 11/3/13 9:59 PM

Wolves are a vital part of our environment. Fish and Wildlife need to remember the organization is to provide a balance for the environment, not the killing of a species for the sake of a few ignorant people .
# Posted By Mary | 11/3/13 10:47 PM

Please protect these magnificent animals.
# Posted By | 11/3/13 11:28 PM

Wolves are more valuable than being living targets. If greedy, irresponsible special interests have their way, wolves will be slaughtered, and endangered again. Building a viable population only to have it slaughtered is irresponsible.
# Posted By David Parker | 11/4/13 12:13 AM

Far from being recovered in the lower 48, the grey wolf cannot be found in the majority of its previous range. Those that are already delisted are being hunted to a horrendous level. Numbers are diminishing as is the gene pool and Consideration should be given to put all grey wolves back on the ESA. Some LE in Idaho have publicly endorsed the three S's as have elected Senators and Congressmen. Science says USFW SERVICE are wrong to delist the grey wolf. Notice SERVICE is in capitals as that is what you are meant to be , a service to fish and wildlife, not hunters and trappers.
# Posted By Sian j | 11/4/13 1:24 AM

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree that gray wolves no longer require Endangered Species protection. Most of the states that have instituted so-called "management" plans have in fact instituted "kill them all" plans. At the rate we're going, they'll soon be extinct in the areas where they've been recovering. Gray wolves definitely still need protection under the Endangered Species Act.
# Posted By Martha Spencer | 11/4/13 2:18 AM

Why do you agency mouth-pieces continue to try and pass off these falsehoods as facts??? Your professional opinions fly contrary to what is being observed all over the country by the people who pay your salaries. Your words are crafted to present a facade that conceals your catering to the NRA and hunting lobbyists. Stop pandering, and do your jobs...conserve the land and its wildlife for future generations, not for the miscreants who stand in line for licenses to destroy them both.
# Posted By Patrick Sheeran | 11/4/13 7:48 AM

If wolves are delisted there will be no control over their slaughter. Let's face it, there are many irresponsible irrational governors who simply ignore science and want to cater to the wealthy. Delisting wolves is not about science, it is about politics!
# Posted By | 11/4/13 9:36 AM

I might be able to support a partial delisting of the gray wolf, with restoration implemented by each state, as long as each state's separate plans were monitored by the USFWS for compliance of the broader terms of the ESA. But ranchers and hunters in some states carry undo weight and influence over public agencies, and several already chafe to launch aggressive control measures over the wolf. For gosh sakes, in Idaho, the responsible agency is called Fish and GAME, and Wyoming minces no words with respect to the emphasis, and names its agency GAME and Fish. Wolves do not respect state lines, nor do they obey human laws. How about this for an alternative: start charging ranchers a more reasonable tithing to graze their flocks and herds on public lands, and dedicate the revenue to protecting those flocks and herds.
# Posted By Scott Hays | 11/4/13 9:44 AM

Shame... the last time grey wolves were near extinction and were slowly re-introducing using canadian wolves. Seems that you are doing the same mistake again. When you sell 6000 licences to kill at $19 each and there are only 600 wolves left in a state such as Montana, it is call a massacre. Maybe next time we should sell you our wolves very very expensive so you have an appreciation for tehir value. And I mean very very expensive.
# Posted By Emile Guitard | 11/4/13 11:09 AM

In Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin, where FWS already allows hunting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in just two years. We've seen photos and video of wolves maimed and left to suffer in steel traps, only to be shot point blank. That's not the type of long-term care the wolves need.
# Posted By Riff Millar | 11/4/13 11:13 AM

So let me get this straight: because, in your opinion, wolf populations in the aggregate are no longer threatened, we should allow them to be threatened? How did wolves get threatened and endangered in the first place? By the very wholesale hunting and trapping practices you are now permitting.
# Posted By Michael Ankelman | 11/4/13 11:40 AM

Personally I cannot see the real benefits to society of de-listing Wolves from the ESA. Their numbers are up - So much the better. From what I can gather livestock losses are still miniscule - So that aergument doesn't really make any sense. Wolf hunters (or potential wolf hunters) make up a very tiny percentage of the overall population as a whole and it seems to me to be an unacceptably selfish position to take - that it is OK to kill such an iconic animal (not for survival's sake) but purely for self gratification reasons. To put the US lower 48 wolf population at risk once more based on this latter reason is at best a very questionable decision and at worst totally unacceptable stewardship of what is still a very scarce natural resource.
# Posted By D J Graves | 11/4/13 12:12 PM

DO NOT DELIST!! They are a beautiful animal and are "True" to their mates and families. They may run in packs but they do so to provide for their family members. I have never been nose-to-nose with a wolf but admire their beauty and right-to-survive. They are not a sport to be shot and killed/maimed. God help them!
# Posted By Gerrie | 11/4/13 1:00 PM

# Posted By Beth Norwood | 11/4/13 3:20 PM

we've already seen what happens to the patient when FWS hands them off to the states: wolves get killed. In Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin, where FWS already allows hunting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in just two years. Even worse, we've seen photos and video of wolves maimed and left to suffer in steel traps, only to be shot point blank. That's not the type of long-term care the wolves need.

The feds believe that, thanks to almost four decades of protection as an endangered species, there are more than enough gray wolves now, and hunters can return to killing them. Of course, hunters are the ones who had driven the gray wolf nearly into extinction, leading to Congress' decision in 1978 to add them to the Endangered Species List.
# Posted By Miss Arielle Bernstein | 11/4/13 4:07 PM

Wolves have NOT recovered...Stop the killing!!
# Posted By annie C | 11/4/13 4:09 PM

Here we go again, more unscientific data being used to please the ranchers. Why can you not get anything correct. Keep the endangered classification.
# Posted By J T Musgrave | 11/4/13 4:33 PM

Wolves are being shot,gassed and exterminated. Bison are not wanted in any state. What world do you live in?
The slaughter/murder of our animals MUST stop!!
# Posted By Phyllis | 11/4/13 5:53 PM

Wolves should not be delisted by Fish and Game. The amount of wolves being slain is disgusting. Are the wishes of hunters and ranchers more important than the rest of us who wish these creatures to be protected? Wolves are an important part of the ecosystem and with all the pressure they are under that ecosystem is also under attack. Will the next generation never experience a wolf in the wild? I hope the agency reconsiders it's decision so future generations can experience a true wilderness.
# Posted By L Knuth | 11/4/13 6:04 PM

You might like the analogy of the ESA being an ER for species but that is an abdication of responsibility since there is no long term care provider to hand them over to.
# Posted By Chris C | 11/4/13 6:23 PM

Your programs gutting the protections once provided is based on bogus predatory kill statistics that Earth Justice factually shoed that of the 1400 predatory kills in the 4 State Wolf area only 26 were due to wolves. These Lying public land abusers will kill every wolf in the rockies. You're gutless. Relist all wolves and ban state sanctioned Slaughters.
# Posted By Laurence & Christine Taylor. | 11/4/13 7:08 PM

Please note that these comments do not count. You must go to www.Regulations.gov and search for docket # FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073. Then submit your comments to the Federal Register.
# Posted By Chris C | 11/4/13 7:11 PM

Unlike bison wolves are a necessary facet of the health of herding animals such as deer and elk. Wolves keep the herds healthy by killing the sick, disabled and weaker members of the herd thus ensuring only the healthiest animals breed. We can't perform that function as hunters can't identify the sick and weak animals. Actually hunters usually kill the biggest and healthiest animals. There are no documented cases of wolves killing livestock, though there are many documented cases of dogs killing livestock. Let's give wolves the full protection they need to really recover.
# Posted By Catherine | 11/4/13 7:48 PM

PLEASE save the wolves. They were here first. They are beautiful intelligent creatures and should not be subjected to massacre by guns with which they cannot compete.
# Posted By | 11/4/13 8:02 PM

Wolves kill in order to eat, as do humans. However, when wolves kill we demonize them; when humans kill we praise their hunting skills.
Fifty years ago, elk in Yellowstone park were starving because there were too many
for the amount of grazing acreage. If wolves had been around, young and old elk would have been killed but they would not have starved.
Wolves maintain the numbers of prey; yes there will be fewer elk or deer for hunters but wolves are part of the ecosystem.
# Posted By Victoria McDonald | 11/4/13 9:08 PM

Hi, I live near Yellowstone in Montana and I do not think that the gray wolf has been "recovered." I think that there is a lot of evidence that the wolves need more protection and that their care should be in the hands of ecologists and biologists and not in the hands of non-scientific USF&W who appear to be in the pockets of hunters and ranchers.
# Posted By Sarah Stewart | 11/4/13 9:22 PM

You will never justify the brutality you have shown these animals. You hide behind platitudes and logic, but if the public ever could see the results of these "management plans", you would hide in shame.

VERY VERY SAD...........
# Posted By Stephen Purciello | 11/4/13 11:03 PM

# Posted By ROBERT&MARY SWAIN | 11/4/13 11:07 PM

Wolves, like bison and bears, are part of this country's heritage. Your job is to secure areas for their protection, and then actually protect them.
# Posted By Marilyn K. Coats | 11/5/13 5:07 AM


# Posted By Joanne | 11/5/13 9:56 AM

I strongly disagree with any decision to de-list grey wolves. It would only be a matter of time before ranchers, hunters, "sportsmen" and anyone with a gun would again reduce wolf populations to the point of near-extinction. These animals, as well as others, need protection from uncaring self-satisfying man.
# Posted By Joan | 11/5/13 11:10 AM

No one has the right to kill wilderness and you should be protect it! The wilderness is a sacred place with sacred powers and the heart of a mortal world. We need to protect this planet and everything on it or we will fail to meet our moral obligations to the generations that follow us.
# Posted By Dorene Randall | 11/5/13 12:05 PM

Wolves are an important part of the ecosystem and de-listing them will lead to an imbalance of the system. Not to mention, the cruel ways in which they would be destroyed. You should be protecting them, not de-listing!
# Posted By Sarah | 11/5/13 2:52 PM

It will be an egregious error if the gray wolves are delisted, unleashing the hordes of hunters eager to claim their 'prize' of gray wolf skins and bragging rights. Hunting is what resulted in the gray wolves being federally protected in the first place! If you delist them, there will be nothing standing between them and hunters. The states certainly won't do anything to defend them. In fact, a few states have already made statements and policies that state the opposite!
# Posted By | 11/5/13 4:37 PM

Post #1: This blog is rife with platitudes and misleading in the way that it defines “success”. It fails to address the real problem confronting a truly successful repopulation of wolves in the lower 48, demonization of wolves by ranchers and hunters. It does not outline a long-range plan that will prevent a cyclical Threatened listing for wolves, which by nature is unhealthy and puts pressure on the genetic diversity of the wolf population, not everything is about quotas.

For unwarranted demonization, consider this:
NatGeo March 2010

“Wolf predation reported by ranchers in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho (2008 statistics) accounts for a fraction of sheep deaths...Of the cases wildlife agents were called to investigate, 355 were confirmed as wolf kills, eligible for compensation.”

{Predator} Wolf 1% (1,300 sheep), Coyote 25.3 (31,600), Bear 1.8, Cougar 1.4, Dog 1.1, Other (Fox, Eagle, Bobcat) 6.5
{Non-predator} Weather 22.6, Disease 11, Lambing complications 9, Old age 5.8, Other 7, Unknown 7.7
# Posted By Matthew Webb | 11/5/13 5:07 PM

Post #2:

From this blog:?“In fact, we’re proposing to hand over the management of these keystone predators to the professionals at the state and tribal wildlife agencies.”??
Hmmm, really? See below.

Excerpt from Defenders of Wildlife website:
“Fish and Wildlife in the past denied Wyoming the authority to manage wolves due to the state’s extreme anti?wolf laws... the Service has now reversed its position.”

“Wyoming’s plan is a wolf?killing plan, not a management plan...It fails to adequately regulate the kill?on?sight practices that drove wolves to endangerment in the first place.”

It’s so sad to see what should be a scientifically guided management of the wolf population be debased and ultimately squandered by so few.
# Posted By Matthew Webb | 11/5/13 5:08 PM

Mr Ashe, one only needs to look at the unfortunate (to say the least) situation that wolves in Wisconsin are in to realize that wolves need to remain protected. Nearly 200 wolves have been killed in just over 2 weeks. That is what would happen throughout the country if other States were given the opportunity. We cannot "feed" our wolves to the hunters and trappers who treat this wonderful and necessary species as vermin. Wolves are necessary to the balance of the ecosystem. Delisting the wolves would be a massive mistake, one that would take with it our wolves and all the hard work devoted to bringing them back once. Please keep our wolves protected.
# Posted By Paola Michel | 11/5/13 5:09 PM

Here in Wisconsin, wolves are hunted at the behest of our Gov. Walker and his friends. The reason for this is stated that "wolves threaten livestock". Our Wisconsin "livestock" consists of dairy cows in barns, or in close pastures in populated areas where there are no wolves. It is clear that there are a few that want to shoot and trap wolves, because their want is our command.
# Posted By Paul Gregg | 11/5/13 5:37 PM

There are currently more requests for permits to shoot wolves than there are wolves. This does not sound like the fast track to recovery if every wolf is allowed to be shot on sight. I believe that these majestic animals still need protection.
# Posted By Kris Aaron | 11/5/13 6:08 PM

Do not delist this essential keystone species. After years of protecting the wolf and assisting it to recover, you have turned around and appear to be doing everything you can to turn wolf recovery into an abject failure. Let us learn from the terrible mistakes of the past, rather than pursuing the archaic ideas and methods of the past.
# Posted By Nancy Emblom | 11/5/13 8:43 PM

I have attempted to post multiple blogs but they aren't being published for some reason.
This is not a good idea. Ranchers need to find a way to protect their livestock without killing wolves.
# Posted By Concerned Citizen | 11/5/13 8:53 PM

Isn't it 2013? Can't we find a way to satisfy ranchers AND avoid killing animals who have a natural right to the land? I would pay more & purchase from ranchers who advertise they are wolf friendly & do not harm the natural wildlife, then support this. Having wild animals kill livestock is a risk ranchers take by going into the business. Just like farmers take a risk that their "crop" will die. The Thylacine comes to mind here. Extinct due to livestock in Tasmania. Also, there used to be wolves, Elk, Moose in the UK, but due to overhunting and risk to livestock, they no longer exist there. We need to do more to protect the treasures of this world & restore the natural balance of our ecosystems.
# Posted By Mckenzi | 11/5/13 8:57 PM

Why should the wolves be delisted? They are nowhere near their historical numbers or their historical range, so why allow the indiscriminate killing of these majestic creatures?
Please reconsider this plan and keep the wolves on the list for a little while longer, almost 2,000 wolves have been killed in the northern Rockies, this is sad for everyone, except the hunter. Why allow ranchers and hunters to kill a wonderful animal, the parent of all our dogs, for no quantifiable reason?
# Posted By Joshua | 11/5/13 11:26 PM

Wolves are not recovered in the wild. The fact they exist now is due to past protections. Removing protections when their populations are barely stable is equivalent to walking away from the patient when he is declared "stable". Pushing that patient back onto the street to fend for himself will mean returning to critical care or dying. Additionally, allowing hunting of some wolves while some populations are threatened results in deaths in the threatened population because some hunters fail to recognize the difference, or ignore the distinction.

I used to work for US Fish and Wildlife. I know how the political winds determine "research" results. I have known scientists who left the service because their research was ignored or corrupted. I urge you to go back, reexamine the research and do the job US FWS was designed to do, that is to protect the wilderness that America needs, not the convenient wilderness that special interests want.
# Posted By J.Wylie | 11/6/13 1:59 AM

Endanger means there is still time . save the wolves and do not let ranchers kill at will. this would mean the end.
# Posted By | 11/6/13 9:20 AM

My heart just breaks to hear about the proposal
to sacrifice the wolves. It seems that somehow
society is currently experiencing a form of mass
insanity that allows proposals such as these to
be taken seriously. By destroying the wolves we
are setting the stage for our own ultimate destruction as we're tampering with Mother Nature's balanced beauty. Please reconsider
before the wolf vanishes into the mists of history.
# Posted By Mary Dosch | 11/6/13 9:37 AM

Expand wolf protection and pack restorations at all costs. Hunting for profit is a travesty.
# Posted By Shelley R. Green | 11/6/13 12:12 PM

Enough is enough. It is time to stop the kliing of wolves.
# Posted By Joanne | 11/6/13 12:22 PM

Dan, recreational take of wolves makes no sense. The ones killed are rarely the wolves causing a problem. ESA protections and non-lethal deterrents are the best solution. Please don't compromise true recovery by bending to the will of hunting and agriculture lobbies. The job ISN'T DONE and will never be done under a blanket delisting. Further, this move will gravely wound ESA for other species.

Finally, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of continued protections for wolves. You need to listen to THE PEOPLE not just special interests!
# Posted By Oliver Starr | 11/6/13 1:15 PM

In Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin, where FWS already allows hunting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in just two years. Even worse, we've seen photos and video of wolves maimed and left to suffer in steel traps, only to be shot point blank. That's not the type of long-term care the wolves need.

The feds believe that, thanks to almost four decades of protection as an endangered species, there are more than enough gray wolves now, and hunters can return to killing them. Of course, hunters are the ones who had driven the gray wolf nearly into extinction, leading to Congress' decision in 1978 to add them to the Endangered Species List.
# Posted By | 11/6/13 1:53 PM

Given the fact that wolves are still seen as a threat to the economic livelihood of ranchers, it would be a mistake to de-list wolves under the ESA. Wolves are recovering, but populations are not high enough to sustain large-scale hunting, which is what could happen. Wolves are top predators in their ecosystem, and their presence is necessary to keep these ecosystems healthy and balanced.
# Posted By Zoe | 11/6/13 2:03 PM

The recovery of the wolf in the lower 48 states has not been accomplished and removing federal endangered or threatened status will not work toward maintaining healthy populations. The undue influence of Western ranching interests is visible behind this FWS decision. Public lands, such as national forests or BLM lands, have become nearly-free entitlements for ranchers and their paranoia about predators should not guide FWS decisions.
# Posted By Donna Hart, Ph.D. | 11/6/13 2:48 PM

Are you kidding me? have you seen what is going on? 550 wolves have been killed in the last few months because of your inaction. You didn't let the scientists who have the true information speak and be heard, really? I'm sorry but i do not believe a word you say, you are folding to outside pressures from farmers and cattle business… Please admit the truth
# Posted By Greg Hadel | 11/6/13 6:05 PM

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer in 2011 declared he was ready to order state game officials to kill off entire wolf packs in defiance of federal protections under the Endangered Species Act. Idaho Gov. Otter on Wolves: “We Don’t Want Them Here”. These are really the people you propose to hand over the "management" of wolves to. It's shameful!
# Posted By Joe Slaven | 11/6/13 6:24 PM

I am so angry at your proposal to delist the gray wolves and modifying regulations on the Mexican Wolf. I cannot describe what I feel. How can they be removed from ESA when they are not fully recovered. So much is wrong with what you plan to do. A VAST MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT DELISTING. CAN YOU HEAR US!!!!!
# Posted By Lynn Wolf | 11/6/13 9:16 PM

But we've already seen what happens when FWS hands them off to the states: wolves get killed. In Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin, where FWS already allows hunting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in just two years. Even worse, we've seen photos and video of wolves maimed and left to suffer in steel traps, only to be shot point blank. That's not the type of long-term care the wolves need.

The feds believe that, thanks to almost four decades of protection as an endangered species, there are more than enough gray wolves now, and hunters can return to killing them. Of course, hunters are the ones who had driven the gray wolf nearly into extinction, leading to Congress' decision in 1978 to add them to the Endangered Species List.
This idea is ill-conceived and ill-advised. They will just be hunted down to almost extinction AGAIN. Please, please re think this.
# Posted By Jennifer Sams | 11/6/13 9:45 PM

Please protect ALL wolves!
# Posted By SN | 11/6/13 11:47 PM

Some day far in the future we will live with Wolves and Bison in a vastly better eco-system than what we have now Hideous Asiatic Bovine pumped up with GMO waste food and hormones. We owe it to our Native America population and ultimately to us immigrants to return to Pre-European Mega-fauna - Too bad we just missed on all the Ice-age Mega-Fauna. Imagine a Dire-wolf or a Saber-tooth cat taking down some foul smelling Asiatic cow.
# Posted By David G Philleo | 11/7/13 12:04 AM

Although I'm thrilled that wolves have made such a wonderful comeback, I don't think delisting them yet is a good idea. Wolves are apex predators, which means that there will never be all that many of them, and they can easily be hunted down given permission. Additionally, many of them live in areas where absolute hatred of wolves is commonplace, which means that they will immediately be persecuted to whatever extent the law allows, at the very least. Please don't delist them.
# Posted By Brendan McGuire | 11/7/13 10:48 AM

The wolves are being killed because of politics and I think that this is disgusting.There is an ongoing effort to wipe them out. It really makes me ashamed to be a human and I am not alone in this sentiment.
# Posted By Martha Winsten | 11/7/13 3:21 PM

Please, for once and for all, keep the wolves on the endangered species. Haven't we wiped into extinction enough species of animals.

Don't let the hunting begin again and put a stop to it where it has resumed.
# Posted By Carol | 11/7/13 3:27 PM

Gray wolves are not recovered and are at this moment being slaughtered.With humans like the ones killing these poor wolves existing it is no surprise that as a species we are in the mess that we are in. How can we expect our species to be spared when we are so despicable in our treatment of other species?
# Posted By Martha Winsten | 11/7/13 3:28 PM

The job of wolf recovery is not done, not when wolves have only returned to 5% of their historic habitat. The population needs to have enough genetic diversity to be viable. Also allowing hunters to shoot them is destroying the recovery work that needs to be done on a continuing basis to achieve the population needed. The approach of having multiple programs among many states cannot work. They are one population and wildlife cannot recognize state borders. Wolves are an essential species to maintain balance in nature and must be protected at this point in time.
# Posted By Shirley | 11/7/13 3:33 PM

All wild animals need protection in this day and age. Without any protections, they can be killed, their habitat destroyed and they would vanish from the face of the Earth FOREVER. This can happen even with protection, but without the protection they have no chance whatsoever.
It is our responsibility as human beings to protect these animals. Letting a species go extinct is irresponsible, selfish and downright reprehensible.
Lifting the existing protections will not be beneficial to the wolves. It would only help those people who desire to eradicate these animals for personal gain.
# Posted By A. | 11/7/13 7:23 PM

La planète n'appartient pas qu'aux hommes. Les animaux ont autant le droit d'y vivre qu'eux. Les animaux méritent cette terre plus que les êtres humains, car ils ne détruisent pas, ne massacrent pas, ne polluent pas, ne salissent pas tout comme les hommes. C'est l'homme qui devrait disparaître de cette planètre qu'ils sont en train de ruiner et d'anéantir...
Laissez les loups vivre en paix !
# Posted By Marie-Anne Lecouté | 11/7/13 7:51 PM

I would bet my last dollar that the anti-wolf folks are just chomping at the bit, with trigger fingers twitching, for the protection to be lifted. Most certainly, there will be on-sight mass shootings under the false pretense that the wolves are threatening livelihoods, and there is no other choice but to trap, or hunt them down, eliminating as many as the non-wildlife "agencies" see fit. You know this is true. There will be little restraint implemented by a person who hates another species so inexplicably, and does it only to satisfy their personal desires, or for financial gain. Sadly, this country has a jaded past when it comes to these matters. We don't need to "manage" the wildlife as much as we need to manage ourselves. There should be such limits on human reproduction. Please, don't throw the wolves to the men. Keep them listed.
# Posted By P. Insignares | 11/7/13 8:48 PM

Here is the translation for the comment in French
(Voici la traduction du commentaire en français)

The earth doesn’t belong only to men. Animals have as much right to live here as they do. Since animals, other than human beings don’t ruin it, slaughter, pollute or sully it, maybe they deserve to live here more than humans. It is men who should leave this planet since they are destroying it ...
Let the wolves live in peace!

La planète n'appartient pas qu'aux hommes. Les animaux ont autant le droit d'y vivre qu'eux. Les animaux méritent cette terre plus que les êtres humains, car ils ne détruisent pas, ne massacrent pas, ne polluent pas, ne salissent pas tout comme les hommes. C'est l'homme qui devrait disparaître de cette planètre qu'ils sont en train de ruiner et d'anéantir...
Laissez les loups vivre en paix !
# Posted By For the Wolves - Pour les Loups | 11/8/13 11:38 AM

We spent decades and untold taxpayer money to bring wolves back from extinction and release them into the wild after allowing them to be slaughtered by zealous hunters, ranchers and farmers. I do not want 30+ years of my money as a taxpayer to be wasted. If it was important to bring the wolves back, and we were told it was because it was good for nature, then it is important to protect them, period.
# Posted By Brian B. | 11/8/13 1:31 PM

I am totally against delisting wolves to be hunted. Humans almost wiped them out at one time. No need to chance it again. And, for what reason? Plus, a wolf is in the dog family. It is just plain wrong!!! Killing wolves is absolutely senseless! So disgusted by this.
# Posted By Laura | 11/8/13 10:42 PM

I agree with above comments that we need to protect all living organisms because of centuries of cruelty and unsustainable behavior. Enough is enough! Delisting wolves does not make sense. They would be endangered again in no time.
# Posted By | 11/9/13 12:57 PM

Just an attempt to justify hunting (murdering) this beautiful creature to protect ranchers profits.
# Posted By Nancy | 11/9/13 3:04 PM

Stop killing God's creatures.They are part of the ecosystem and are related to dogs!
# Posted By | 11/9/13 3:36 PM

I again write to add that self-laudation is scary in reviewing J.Wylie's comments: ".. Removing protections when (wolf) populations are barely stable is equivalent to walking away from the patient when he is declared stable. Pushing that patient back onto the street to fend for himself will mean returning to critical care or dying. .... I used to work for US Fish and Wildlife. I know how the political winds determine research results. I have known scientists who left the service because their research was ignored or corrupted."

What more can be said? That is indeed a fright. I have read the hundreds of concerned comments on this site; almost without exception (I counted 3 and 2 were from the same benighted author), they were avid pleas for FWS restraint. I can only hope you actually read them - and act accordingly. Make us believe you really have Americans' interests at heart. Please.
# Posted By phil johnson | 11/9/13 4:22 PM

For some reason it doesn't seem like any of you listen to the science of whats happening with these wolves! They benefit our echo system & help to keep it going the way its suppose to be. The wolves are NOT fully recovered & at this kill rate they never will be! Turning them over to the states to "manage" was the biggest mistake ever made! All these states "see" is the $$ flow from the sale of hunting license to cruel hunters! You need to take the time to research the "prof" of what the killing of these wolves do to our environment! It's a real shame & black mark on your opinions of these wolves!Do some real research on what you are talking about & you will find out just how wrong & cruel & fooled you are with what you said here! Stop killing them before they are extinct again! They aren't as many wolves out here as you seem to believe!
# Posted By Sheron | 11/9/13 6:22 PM

Turning control over to the states means the total destruction of wolves. It's sad to see a director so out of touch with reality in the field.
# Posted By stan sheggeby | 11/9/13 9:04 PM

As a kindergarten teacher of 34 years, I am always heartened by the response of my young students to their innocent desire to help animals of all kinds. It would behoove you to take a good long look at what is at stake by delisting the gray wolf from the much needed endangered status. It is so evident to the majority of us that these beautiful, majestic creatures need our help and protection. If young children at the ages of five or six can realize the need for mankind to take seriously our duty of stewards of the Earth, then I pray that you and your organization will do likewise. We emplore you to do what the country's citizenry know is right - to continue to protect the wolf population, not give into a small number who have a vested interest in doing otherwise.
# Posted By Heidi Buitron | 11/9/13 10:12 PM

# Posted By CHRISTOPHER C CASE | 11/10/13 8:40 AM

The assertion that the gray wolf is recovered is a highly reductionist, untested hypothesis applied to an extremely complex ecological system. It is not a "miracle". In addition, delisting the gray wolf and turning over its management to agencies such as the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, that derive funding from trophy hunting and use, as MTFWP does, trapping as a wolf management tool is a fundamental flaw of this decision. Trapping of intelligent, apex predators destroys pack structure, and is in simplest terms animal abuse. Turning management over to states that use unethical abusive management tools is being complicit in that unethical behavior. Political pressure from agricultural, livestock, and hunting special interests are the main drivers in wolf management decisions, including that to delist the gray wolf. This decision is not based on the "best science" available, as it is aimed at managing to animal numbers rather than ecological parameters.
# Posted By Duran | 11/10/13 9:05 AM

While the gray wolf may not be in danger of going extinct under current conditions, turning management of gray wolves over to the states will change these conditions, and could jeopardize wolf populations. It is abundantly clear that the state wildlife agencies do not have the best interests of wolves at heart. Many state agencies have publicly stated their intent to decrease wolf populations. This is irresponsible and antithetical to conservation, because wolf populations are nowhere near carrying capacity, and therefore should be expanded, not "controlled". The only way to ensure a long-term future for wolves is to keep them on the Endangered Species List. While it is unrealistic to expect wolves to be restored to 100% of their former range, there are many areas of suitable wolf habitat in this country that are currently unoccupied. Wolves should not be delisted until they have been restored to as much of their former range as possible.
# Posted By | 11/10/13 10:30 AM

Please protect all of the species of wolves. They are a beautiful animal and do not deserve to be exterminated like a rodent.
# Posted By Josephine Wiest | 11/10/13 2:27 PM

We as human beings have the gift of speech and with that gift I will express my voice for those who have no voice, I speak for all animals on this earth including the gray wolf. As the so called higher beings on this planet we call ourselves we are the guardians of this planet and it is our responsibility to protect all of the amazing creatures we co habit with and this amazing place we call home Mother Earth ! Do not put this majestic animal in harms way!
# Posted By Derrelle Gable | 11/10/13 7:10 PM

As an American, I urge you NOT to delist the American gray wolf. These majestic animals are not fully recovered. They need and deserve our protection.
# Posted By LL | 11/11/13 12:48 AM

Please keep protection on these amazing animals; don't bow to corporate ranchers and developers. No blood for profit
# Posted By Rob Sorum | 11/11/13 12:13 PM

We have already seen what happens to wolves when FWS hands them off to the states: wolves get killed. In Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin, where FWS already allows hunting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in just two years. Even worse, wolves are maimed and left to suffer in steel traps, only to be shot point blank. That's not the type of long-term care the wolves need.

Thanks to almost four decades of protection as an endangered species, gray wolves are beginning to recover but no scientists who are experts in wolves think that hunters can return to killing them. After all, hunters are the ones who had driven the gray wolf nearly into extinction, leading to Congress' decision in 1978 to add them to the Endangered Species List.

The highest level of protection must be continued and/or regained.
# Posted By Paulette | 11/11/13 4:55 PM

Please do not de-list the gray wolf! Gray wolves need the protections afforded by the ESA. In Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin, where FWS already allows hunting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in just two years. Even worse, we've seen photos and video of wolves maimed and left to suffer in steel traps, only to be shot point blank. That's not the type of long-term care the wolves need. Wolves need the ESA!
# Posted By | 11/11/13 5:13 PM

Wolves play a crucial part in the balance of our ecosystem. We need to protect the wolf species. It is ignorant for a human being to think they can control the population of a species, especially a species whose population is threatened.
# Posted By michelle Bienick | 11/12/13 10:17 AM

please, that can not be ... wolves are most important to the native balance! as long as the human is wildernd usurps the nature and want to control their microstructure, no ecological balance is possible, it is very surprising that here described reasons to read that borders more on brainwashing!
# Posted By Gina Rueck | 11/12/13 10:27 AM

The most absurd statement in this attempt to justify the killing of wolves is the following: "In fact, we’re proposing to hand over the management of these keystone predators to the professionals at the state and tribal wildlife agencies." These are the same agencies who have pledged in many instances to virtually eliminate the existence of wolves from their jurisdiction. Who determines how many wolves is too many? Wolves should not be dependent on the whims or desires of those who despise them.
# Posted By Lynn Abbott | 11/12/13 2:26 PM

Wolves are a part of the natural world environment. Man is destroying all natural wilderness & wildlife. It has to stop. Governments protect the wolf haters. It has to stop. Wolves need to stay on the protected list.
# Posted By Phyl | 11/13/13 10:24 AM

The absolutely foolish practices of the past; where Wolves and other predators have been 'exterminated' proved wrong by adversely impacted the eco system that was thrown out of 'balance' by the elimination of the Grey Wolves and other predators. That eco system recovered; AFTER the protection of the predators was introduced. Only a fool could or would argue against a practice that proved effective; and argue FOR the one that created the need to protect those predators in the first place. Mistakes are inevitable; repeating them is stupidity at its most repulsive.
# Posted By Husband of Moonlight | 11/13/13 11:37 AM

Wolves are beautiful creatures of our world. Wolves are social compassionate animals that we could all learn something from. I hope you have read "Julie of the Wolves" by Jean Craighead George.
# Posted By Anne Greene | 11/13/13 1:55 PM

Please do NOT delist gray wolves from federal protection. Your decision lacks scientific evidence and will certainly derail wolf recovery efforts in areas around the country where it has barely begun. Delisting would prematurely turn wolf management over the states, and we've already seen what can happen when local anti-wolf politics are allowed to trump science and core wildlife management principles. Wolves in the Norther Rockies have been butchered by trophy hunters in barbaric ways and the interests of rich ranchers and special interests are trumping our wildlife. Other species such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon were declared recovered and delisted when they occupied a much larger portion of their former range. Wolves deserve the same chance at real recovery. As apex predators, wolves are critical to maintaining a healty ecosystem. They bring in millions of dollars in tourism for our parks. Your decision to delist will ultimately cause the extinction of our wolves.
# Posted By Dr Kelly Dunn | 11/13/13 4:02 PM

In Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin, where FWS already allows hunting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in just two years. Wolves maimed and left to suffer in steel traps, only to be shot point blank.

Hunters are the ones who had driven the gray wolf nearly into extinction, leading to Congress' decision in 1978 to add them to the Endangered Species List.

Please do not delist them. Please don't subject them to the same cruelty again.
# Posted By Frances | 11/14/13 10:28 AM

Mr. Ashe, I hope that you will listen to the majority of commentors on your blog. I do not believe that recovery of the wolf is done. When the wolf has only recovered in less than 5% of it's original range, the job is not done. as long as trigger-happy hunters, farmers and ranchers exist (of whom almost all believe the only good wolf is a dead one), there will NEVER be a good time to de-list the wolf. Because as soon as you de-list them, I can assure you there will be an all-out slaugher of wolves. Take the example of Montana recently, where they sold 6,000 licenses to kill a wolf (at $19 each), and there are only 600 wolves left in the state! This is not management, it is all-out slaughter, a massacre and money-making, greedy and bloodthirsty event!!! F&WS is being irresponsible if you allow this to all happen again. We'll be right back where we were in the 70s, just before your agency returned the Gray Wolf to the lower 48 in Yellowstone National Park. Let's not repeat history.
# Posted By Lori Smith | 11/14/13 1:21 PM

the grey wolf 100% should not be removed from the endangered species list. to say that the wolf population is recovered it a complete joke. being on the endangered species list is the only thing keeping this species present in the united states and being present does not at all mean thriving. mange is a serious threat to these animals to this day (a pack in yellowstone basically died out from it just this past year) and park rangers will tell you that the average life expectancy of a wolf that travels outside of national parks is four hours! realistically this species need several decades more on the endangered species list along with serious conservation help. any person who says otherwise is clearly being paid off.
# Posted By | 11/14/13 3:15 PM

This can't be real. Please tell me this is a nasty joke.

Wolves don't have a chance without protected status.

It's bad enough that Texas allows the indiscriminate murder of mountain lions. Should we ever be fortunate enough to secure a Mexican Gray Wolf population they need to be protected.

Delisting any predator is a travesty. They may need management, but they don't deserve annihilation.
# Posted By Alida Lorio | 11/14/13 3:57 PM

How have the grey wolves recovered, they number in the HUNDREDS, not the Thousnads, plus you are allowing the hunting of the very animals you are trying to rescue, that is not sane by any streatch of the imagination.
# Posted By Wolf | 11/14/13 4:44 PM

Gray wolves are no where NEAR recovered. That is an absurd notion. We are here to be stewards of the land and it's inhabitants. We are not here under the assumption that "might makes right" which has been the mentality for too long. We need to care for ALL of our lands creatures. This is something that isn't done enough or to the extent that it should be.
# Posted By | 11/14/13 10:15 PM

The "friendly" animals, as some of you call them, have killed off almost all the moose and elk. In fact elk are down 80%. The largest elk heard in the US, which is located in Lolo, MT, that was around 2,500 heads is now below 800. Is is estimated we have less then 600 moose PERIOD. Fish and Game are protecting ALL the animals, not only the Canidain Gray wolf, which is not native to this area. The native Gary's and timber wolves that had been seen naturally making a come back in 1994 have also been completely taken out by these Canadian Gary's will probably never recover because of this "reintroduction". But they are here now and we will deal with it. This is just one season. If the numbers drop too low we will discontinue hunting them. But something has to be done to safe the moose, elk and deer that also live in this area.
# Posted By I'm sure I'm about to be bashed | 11/21/13 12:28 PM

The gray wolf has NOT recovered
Science not politics
# Posted By | 11/21/13 6:16 PM

Science not only informs us that the Gray Wolf has not recovered, it clearly demonstrates how vital their presence is in preserving a diverse, sustainable, and therefore healthy, ecosystem.

Why should Americans have to come together to oppose a decision that will take away something belonging to all Americans as our right and privilege to enjoy. If our wild lands and wildlife belong to anyone, they belong to all Americans. There is no reasonable, empirically based justification for this disastrous reversal of a policy that is working.

What is underlying FWS (YOUR) wildlife policies? Science, reason, ethics…or is it politics, plain and simple?
# Posted By | 11/21/13 6:17 PM

Please put and keep the wolves on the endangered species list. It is our responsibility to protect them and all other creatures that share this country with us. While I understand ranchers and farmers must make a living, they are also special interest groups. Find a way to protect the wolves so ranchers and farmers can still make a living. AND YES, there should be a way to work this out without killing the wolves.
# Posted By Carol | 11/23/13 10:17 AM

The restoration of wolves has been hailed as one of the biggest successes of the Endangered Species Act since it was passed in 1973. But the important work of wolf recovery is unfinished. Delisting the wolves will halt four decades of progress in its tracks and expose America's wolves to unwarranted and unsustainable killing.This is precisely what has happened in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, where the premature delisting of those states' wolf populations has led to the killing of more than 1,100 wolves. This race to the bottom in wolf management threatens to seriously undermine wolves' hard-won climb from the brink of extinction. Delisting could also derail efforts to restore wolves to more of their historic range that has huge areas of suitable wolf habitat, including Colorado, the Pacific Northwest, Utah and California. Wolves are an iconic, native species that play a vital role in restoring healthy ecosystems by keeping prey species in balance.
# Posted By Dr. TAA | 11/24/13 4:50 PM

This blog post of yours is overwhelmingly dominated by comments from people who appreciate the continuing danger to the gray wolf far better than I and to all appearances far better than you. Just what more will it take to get this proposal reversed?
# Posted By William Todd | 11/25/13 12:42 AM

To refute the "I'm about to be bashed" elk decimation argument:
Montana Standard, Nov. 11, 2013 opinion by Cheryl Kindschy: "I’m writing in response to .. the article of the moose and wolves. .. My response about the wolves is, I am more concerned about the killing of the wolves as we need them to function for a balanced ecology. Only predators, wolves, cats and bears, can create that balance.The modern scientific thinking as a result of the recovery of ecology in Yellowstone is the wolf was totally responsible for that renewal. Too many elk on the land space caused a decline in waters, grasses and trees. When the elk numbers reduced the ecology renewed. And that included fish.Scientists are now in agreement that the Yellowstone renewal is the bar to reach and is the epitome of ecology."
# Posted By Phil Johnson | 11/25/13 4:40 PM

The proposal to remove the wolves from the endangered Species Act is just an opportunity for the hunters to decimate the wolf population because they make it personal and I think that is so unethical !
# Posted By Sylviane Mahaux | 11/26/13 11:34 AM

The only positive thing out of this proposed delisting is reading this blog and learning that there are so many people who truly care about our wildlife and wolves, in particular. That gives me hope. Is Mr. Ashe reading these comments on his blog and is he really listening? We can only hope he is.
# Posted By Ann | 11/29/13 9:39 PM

This is a travesty. The logic and reasoning behind this proposal is greatly flawed. Even as an endangered species, the wolf is still hunted and killed by poachers. By removing the grey wolf from the endangered species list and federal protections you are setting them up for certain annihilation. It will be open season on the gray wolf for ranchers and hunters. To rehabilitate a species, only to remove the protection, creates an unnecessary and vicious cycle. All wildlife in our country deserve to be protected and respected. Please reconsider and rescind this flawed plan and terrible proposal now. Thank you.
# Posted By Jennifer Stone | 12/2/13 3:54 PM

I fail to understand how you came to the conclusion that it is time to remove the grey wolf from the endangered species list. To claim that you are not abandoning the grey wolf by handing over control of their protection to the states is ludicrous. Wisconsin and Montana – eagerly seeking to kill more and more wolves! Wyoming with a shoot on sight policy! What makes you think that the wolf numbers will be sustained with the increased hunting that comes with loss of protection by the endangered species act? Have you not seen the video footage published by wildlife conservation groups that show wolves shot at point blank range after being cruelly snared in steel jawed traps? Can you not imagine the pain, suffering, and fear that these animals experience at the hands of those who are thrilled by this sort of killing? Please would you consider using your power to continue to protect the grey wolf?
# Posted By Simone Nicholson | 12/9/13 1:33 AM

When I read that this may happen it made me sick. I think that this is a travesty! This species of animal needs protection. We should not get to pick and choose what species of animal live, at the convenience of mankind. Where will it end?
# Posted By | 12/9/13 11:10 AM

Please do not change the status of endangered species. We, humans, should be the stewards of all life. Removing the status of endangered species would encourage needless slaughter. Humans have the ability to create a home for all life on this planet. Thanks in advance for your consideration.
# Posted By Madeleine MacIntyre | 12/9/13 12:41 PM

Delisting gray wolves will turn wolf management over to the states. In states where wolves have been delisted ,Idaho, Montana, Wyoming,Minnesota - have become free fire zones. Nearly 1,200 -and counting- wolves have been gunned down,trapped and tortured .
It is clear the states have no desire to manage these magnificent animals but to destroy all of them.Even in Yellowstone ,8 collared wolves were gunned down just outside the park border where these animals should be allowed to roam free. We were successful at bringing these animals back from the brink of extinction now only to kill them. How cruel,illogical and not in any was based on science. Wolf restoration needs to continue.
Gray wolves are not recovered .
# Posted By Felicia Peters | 12/9/13 4:58 PM

Your justification for turning wolf managment over to state officals who are pressured by politics to unscientifically "manage" them is an affront and an embarrassment. I voted for President Obama's reelection because of expected progressive environmental attitudes. Your wolf management decisions are a betrayal to my trust in the current adminstration.
# Posted By Jeff Nadler | 12/9/13 11:31 PM

How spineless of the FWS to not acknowledge that delisting Gray Wolves is a terrible mistake! It is very apparent that the states cannot be trusted with the welfare of wolves. If delisting was met with heartfelt respect and appreciation of all wildlife I think we could all be thankful. However, when immediate hunting is the response to delisting I think we should all question the motives behind such short sighted thinking.
# Posted By Steve Tayler | 12/9/13 11:36 PM

Look how many wolves have been tortured and killed since this unfounded delisting began! Stop this tragedy of politics over science and real wildlife expertise. Wolves are an important piece in our healthy wild environments . Yellowstone is proof of the valuable part wolves play in a balanced natural ecosystem.
This is our wild heritage that is being attacked and destroyed.
Why are wolves being treated differently than other species protected under the Endangered Species Act?
All of the hard work done to increase the wolf population is already being destroyed in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. These states are not managing the wolves,they are bent on annihilation!
Stop this horror of death and hatred now.
Wolves need to totally reinstated to the full protection of the ESA ! Please protect them now!
# Posted By Laura | 12/16/13 8:59 AM

Wolves need to stay on the ESA they cannot survive the horrible humans with out the government protections. Wolves are one of the vital beings that this planet needs to ensure a healthy population of lifeforms.
# Posted By Kimberly Tilley | 12/16/13 9:06 AM

Your reasoning and actions in delisting the Gray Wolf are flawed and erroneously altered by pressure from special interest groups who want nothing more than annihilation of the Gray Wolf from the lower 48...again. Have we learned NOTHING? All one needs to do is look at the states of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Wisconsin to see what will happen. A repeat of history. another all-out slaughter of a magnificent keystone predator that is CRUCIAL for a healthy ecosystem. You know how they reversed the environmental damage that happened in Yellowstone without wolves. So why are we doing this? Pressure from hunters, farmer and ranchers who would rather shoot this beautiful creature than use proven techniques to reduce wolf-livestock conflict. I'm sure the NRA is in there somewhere as well, influencing the politicians in those states that are killing them now. The saddest part. after reading all of the current 460 comments, is that only a handful support you. De-listing will be a travesty.
# Posted By Lori Smith | 12/16/13 2:13 PM

The saddest thing that will happen within this decade is that there will be no viable wolf populations left in our country, and it will be on your watch, with your approval. Idaho just scheduled a “hunters’ rights organization” wolf slaughter whose organizers admit that the purpose of the event is to show the world that no one can stop them from killing wolves – not you, not me, and especially not the federal government. Montana: issued 6000 licenses to kill all 645 wolves there. Wisconsin has already killed 251 wolves strongly encouraging extermination. Wyoming has left one small corner of the state that only has about 100 wolves (not a viable population of genetic diversity for survival long term), and exterminating all others.
If you really think that the cattlemen and killer-hunters that exterminated them before are less powerful and in control now, our wolves are doomed. Stop the delisting now. Please.
# Posted By old lady wolf | 12/17/13 12:40 AM

I suggest we change, the policy to one whereby we leave the wolves alone. How about that? As for the recreational concerns of the hunters, we could allow them to hunt each other if they so desire.
# Posted By Vicky | 12/17/13 2:34 AM

This blog reflects wishful thinking, not strict scientific reasoning. Rancher, hunters, NRA supporters, are all looking for reasons to shoot things. Wildlife management should be about preventing species from being driven to extinction, not aiding & abetting. De-listing any animal given current climate pressure is a mistake. Compound that with extensive hunting for no justifiable reason, and you have a formula for disaster. Politics and ignorance are the powers that be here. Can we taxpayers expect nothing scientific or rational from our appointed government wildlife management service? Please, compassion and sanity should be our default position, not killing for the sake of killing. We are not in danger of driving cows to extinction. Let's enable the wolves to survive as well. Use the ESA to protect them!
# Posted By David A. Mason | 12/17/13 1:02 PM

Bison are hardly a comparable species when a) they are not a large predator and b) they are not historically maligned, scapegoated and reviled. I think there is a good reason for continued protection if only because the mentality of those who want to kill wolves has not changed one iota since the 1800s when most large predators plus the bison were decimated by white settlers with no sense of restraint or of nature existing in its own right. Idaho right now has a "Wolf and Coyote Derby" planned, if killing involved a card box, wheels and hill. One last point: why does the FWS website only have a pro-delisting link? Scientists outside of FWS are just as informed and educated on this subject. It seems this process is in motion only at the behest of hunting groups.
# Posted By | 12/17/13 4:19 PM

Director Ashe, how viable is your decision to de-list wolves?

It's bloody obvious that states are not up to the task of wolf management in any meaningful sense. The torrent of human hatred, violence and sadistic killing of wolves runs too strong for de-listing to result in anything but a bloodbath of extermination. Idaho is just getting started with a wolf killing contest that even encourages kids to take part in the slaughter:



The US FWS desperately needs to reconsider its decision making in regard to de-listing of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies.
# Posted By Charles Fox | 12/24/13 1:37 PM

GRAY WOLVES ARE NOT RECOVERED. Before humans exterminated them from 46 of the 48 states, they ranged in all states. They will only be "reovered," when they are thriving sustainably in AT LEAST 65 PERCENT OF THEIR FORMER RANGE. Per the Endangered Species Act of 1970 CREATED TO PROTECT WOLVES AND EAGLES. You just want to check them off and move on. WE WILL NOT LET YOU. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
# Posted By Elizabeth Rose | 1/8/14 6:29 PM

Oh, and BTW, the wholesale use of traps and poisons does not help your case. Too many other animals are caught, including pets. PROHIBIT THE USE OF TRAPS AND POISONS PERIOD.
# Posted By Elizabeth Rose | 1/8/14 6:34 PM

The decision to de-list wolves is clearly misguided and politically motivated. Wolves have regained only a tiny fraction of their historical range but, where they have, we have seen much healthier more balanced ecosystems. De-listing wolves will open them up to the rampant hunting demonstrated by Montana, Wyoming and Idaho where wolves are exterminated left and right to increase the elk population. A study just came out on the critical importance of large predators in ecosystems. Please let wolves continue to expand and regain their historical range so that we can see those benefits throughout more of the lower 48 states.
# Posted By Michelle M. | 1/11/14 11:14 PM

I find it interesting that you don't cite the numbers of gray wolves in the lower 48, nor their range- only say they are part of a 12,00 strong canadian wolf population. the fact that over 1000 wolves have been killed since beginning to "hand over" to the capable state wildlife agencies- in the very areas they have been re-introduced, in a wholesale slaughter reminiscent of how they came to be extinguished in the lower 48 to begin with. What a bunch of bunk. Shame on you!
# Posted By AW | 1/14/14 2:03 AM

For states like Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, wolf recovery means another chance to exterminate the wolf. With states' intentions so clear and so hostile to wolf recovery, federal ESA de-listing can not reasonably proceed.


The wildlife management professionals in Idaho don't have any realistic sense of what recovery means and they make extremely irresponsible partners in the recovery effort. The state-funded extermination program undertaken in Idaho stops wolf recovery in its tracks.

Delisting = Wolf Extermination 2.0
# Posted By Charles Fox | 1/21/14 3:14 PM

Over 2,500 wolves killed in U.S.'s lower 48 since 2011


Close to 50% of the wolves in the lower 48 have been killed in the last three years and this is called "recovery"?

The decision to de-list wolves is consistent with extermination, not wildlife management in any sane or sustainable sense.
# Posted By Charles Fox | 2/3/14 12:19 PM

# Posted By JEAN | 2/8/14 4:17 PM

Dear Director Ashe; Please base your decision to remove wolves from the ESA on sound science, not politics. As you are aware, a scientific panel determined UNANIMOUSLY last Friday(02/07/14) that it is premature to remove the gray wolf at this time. Please also take into consideration the 70% of our population who SUPPORT wolf recovery efforts in our country.
# Posted By | 2/12/14 11:33 PM

Animals are not criminals but those who are killing them are! You can't blame wolfs for searching for food when they are left to starve with barely any space to exist in! People have choices animals don't! Animals have the right to exist just as humans! Only severe law can protect them from EVIL! Please do the right thing…for animals and bring balance to the already fragile echo system for future generations.
# Posted By Rosa | 2/13/14 8:39 PM

As I understand it, the idea that the gray wolf has recovered is not an objective fact - but only by virtue of an abstruse definition of what recovery means. Please do not de- list this creature, as it still needs our protection!
# Posted By Denise Kovnat | 2/21/14 2:19 PM

After watching a recent program showing a Montana rancher killing wolves on his land because one killed a calf in his herd, I think that delisting the gray wolf is a huge invitation to wolf killers everywhere to declare open season on the species. It would make more sense to have a regulated program that tags pack members, and removes them when they stray onto ranch lands, or pays ranchers to report sightings so they can be " recovered" for future generations. I would support penalizing hunters who employ traps and other instruments of torment and allow euthanization of select wolves to prevent over population if that ever truly became a problem. I am far more concerned about coyotes who are frequently seen in populated areas killing household pets and now following small children and hikers than the gray wolf.
# Posted By | 2/28/14 2:42 PM

I believe in finding ways to achieve the interests of the majority without ignoring the concerns of the minority. In this case, with so much emotion, and the welfare of the species being targeted at stake, I would suggest that this issue be placed on the 2016 national election referendum so a true public vote on delisting the gray wolf could be taken. Prior to that, perhaps the science could be debated by those who support delisting and those who oppose it on CNN...like the discussions that addressed the myths and truths around the use of marijuana. Delisting the gray wolf has only one outcome...elimination of a defenseless species that poses a limited risk to the majority of US citizens. Special interst groups with political connections are the champions of a very questionable policy move. I'd like the chance to hear all of the science, and to see a national vote on this as the final word.
# Posted By Personette | 2/28/14 3:17 PM

Sir, the assessment asserting the recovery of the wolves has been hastily drawn. Please get back to work. Examine the questions raised by the scientific review panel which requested the need for further clarification and work. The change required to proclaim wolf reintroduction a sucess must be comprehensive, and serious issues still remain to be addressed; to do that we need your support and leadership.
# Posted By Susan Brewer | 3/1/14 12:42 PM

I do not understand why the gray wolf is used as a political toy,if a wolf is damaging property there is always someone with a gun ready to put it down,as in the LOLo area that Wildlife Services hired gun took out 25 so the hunters would have elk,but why the delist when you already murder at will ....
# Posted By Rick Meier | 3/3/14 3:35 AM


Please go to this page and join the cause.
# Posted By KB | 3/4/14 10:14 PM

With the way things are going, I'm not only concerned with the complete lack of science regarding the viable numbers and gene pool, but I fear the wolf will soon be a candidate for an endangered species again before we know it. Only this time, reintroduction will not be an option. The blood thirsty slaughter of wolves in wilderness areas is not only unnecessary, but shows how truly ignorant the state leadership is in regards to ecosystem health and basic ecological concepts. Stop messing around with the balance and let nature work. This world was not created just for man to use and abuse, other creatures exist for a reason and not all of them need to be hunted or eaten.
# Posted By | 3/11/14 3:24 PM

"Gray Wolves are Recovered; Next Up, the Mexican Wolf."

I am in favor of maintaining federal protections for Gray Wolves and Mexican Gray Wolves. We've learned several valuable lessons with the issue of wolves since the partial delisting in 2011. If we are going to protect organisms we need to be prepared to teach others on how to coexist. Many Americans perceive wolves with undeserved fear and loathing. If continued to perpetuate in future generations, this misperception may serve as a permanent roadblock to achieving healthy wolf populations and ultimately healthy ecosystems.
# Posted By Carla Porter | 3/11/14 3:27 PM

Your attempt at sugar coating the success of the recovery is pathetic. The numbers are not there, for each state to be systemically removing the few remaining ones. If the cattle ranchers were removed from the equation, we would be having a totally different conversation. When the wolves, bisons, and the horses are on public lands, there should be no question that they are protected. Get the cattle ranchers off the public lands. President Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave in disgust at the total disregard for wildlife that should have more rights to these lands then the cattle ranchers.
# Posted By Cindy Miars | 3/11/14 5:55 PM

The days of the state and federal agencies' motto or "command and act" have outlived their usefulness. Although USFWS believes the wolf is ready for delisting, managing agencies are attempting to eradicate the wolf due to pressure from special interest trophy hunters and an uncooperative ranching community. The secretive aerial gunnings, hired trappers and wolf derbies all the more prove that the wolf needs the protection of the ESA until better cooperation exists between pro and anti wolf factions.
# Posted By Sara Summers | 3/23/14 8:38 AM

USFWS: Wyoming Game & Fish Dept.'s press release highlighting "banner year" for elk hunting season.

Uninformed hunters falsely claim that wolves are responsible for elk attrition.

Broadcast the FACTS: Wolves, a keystone species initiate Trophic Cascade, balancing ecosystems

"For the second year in a row, Wyoming elk hunters had a banner year with the elk harvest for 2013 topping more than 25,000 animals. Estimated harvest was 25,968 elk for the year, surpassed only by the record 26,365 elk taken in 2012. By comparison, in 1995, elk harvest was 17,695 elk, more than 8,000 fewer than the Wyoming harvest of the past few years.According to the Game and Fish harvest surveys, elk hunting in Wyoming is as good now and over the past five years as it has ever been. During that time period hunter success was consistently greater than 40 percent. Elk hunters experienced 45 percent success in 2013 and enjoyed more than 461,000 recreation days afield."http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001959.aspx
# Posted By Michele Chandler | 3/26/14 2:53 PM

You sir are a liar! Wolves are not recovered, they are only recovered in a few places and that won't last long with the current amount of slaughter that is going on. That's right, slaughter and inhumane slaughter at the hands of people with no respect for wildlife. It's been proven that politics not science is what you base your stats on. How much did the Koch brothers pay you for your lies?
# Posted By Kathy | 3/26/14 3:16 PM

Director Ashe, your comments about wolf recovery as well as USFWS' proposed delisting plans have now been found to have failed to represent the best available science. Wolf biologists, taxonomists and geneticists unanimously agree that the plan your team put forth makes assumptions about wolf taxonomy that fail to agree with their research.I just spent several days in Idaho and have seen EXACTLY what happens to wolves under state management. States are not capable of acting in the interest of the public that paid for wolf recovery.You claim that your decisions are to be made based upon the best available science. Given this commitment by you and Secretary Jewell, it is now patently obvious that if you push forward with your horribly flawed delisting plan it is not because you are a scientist or are listening to the people that pay your salary, but because you are pandering to special interests.
# Posted By Oliver Starr | 3/27/14 3:44 PM

Director Asche you need to research your information on the Mexican Wolf.....there are only 73 in existence.If de-listed they will become extinct within a year.Myself..I will not live on a planet where wolves are extinct.Thank you.
# Posted By Denise Aldrete | 4/16/14 1:46 AM

Recovered? even if that were the case its not anymore. Endless trapping, snaring and persecution is what this delisting did to wolves. USFWS made a terrible mistake giving wolves back to the states where they use slaughter and maim interchangeably with management. Spin spin spin we are not stupid.
# Posted By Louise Kane | 4/18/14 11:10 AM

Dear Director Ashe,
I still believe the most work you need to do is in education. Browsing the comments above mine it's obvious to anyone following the issue that many have been subjected to a lot of disinformation. For instance recently your agency reported that wolf populations in the N Rockies have remained at the same level despite high levels of human caused mortality. Obviously culling will need to remain at current levels or increase to achieve state level population goals. Yet look at the three comments directly above mine. Please. You need to work on a very public campaign of education.

# Posted By somsai | 4/22/14 11:35 AM

hi wolves are so cool i like to smell them lol hi
# Posted By cece | 5/1/14 8:13 AM

We all know you used flawed science to make this decision and rejected inputs from top wolf biologists, while giving undo credence to an in house study which, controversially and almost certainly incorrectly, claimed eastern gray wolves were a different species. You're a politician and you want to placate the far right nut cases.
# Posted By Roger M. Williams | 7/23/14 2:00 PM

Sickening! Lies! Ending protection means the end of wolves! Ridiculous to work so hard on recovery only to hand them back over to all the people who wish them eradicated! Also, comparing them to Bison is not really fair, is it? Bison are not loathed and hated so unnecessarily as wolves are! Why the sudden change? Looks like ranchers will get there way again. Most will not be happy until all wolves are gone and they can take over the world with their cattle. Delisting just gave them and blood thirsty hunters another excuse to maime and kill wolves that rightfully belong here anyway. Call Delisting what it is please, not a success, but open killing season on wolves and a failure after all the hard work that has been done to save these majestic creatures. What a huge disappointment! Please reconsider! Wolves must be kept on the Endangered Species List if they are to survive the relentless hunting and hatred of man.
# Posted By Valerie W. | 8/9/14 12:40 PM

This is outrageous rubbish.
Who exactly does Dan Ashe work for?
No honest or even marginally ethical person would say "wildlife professionals" in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho have the best interests and long term survival of the wolves at heart".
The latest Ashe outrage, which I just heard about, is the decision to delist Wolverines against even internal recommendations. Maybe ~300 left in the USA and as one might expect mostly in Montana and Idaho. Why am I NOT surprised.
Reprehensible is being kind.
How can Dan Ashe look himself in the mirror??
I voted for Obama but too many issues like Ashe's appointment is making me regret that decision.
One I will not repeat in November..
# Posted By BobA | 8/14/14 6:19 PM

Yes, the decision to essentially allow wolverines to be trapped to extinction appears to be inconsistent with the FWS mission. it's a darn good question: Who does Dan Ashe work for? It's the pwer of a pension and a paycheck to subvert the primary intention of an entire federal agency. Don't mess with Montana, because we need senators like Tester who want to exterminate all wolves. Never mind the rule of law and the will of the people. It's easy to victimize populations with no voice and no power (i.e., wildlife).

And then of course there was the recent proclamation from the Whitehouse that the Atlantic Ocean will be blasted with sound so loud it causes seismic shockwaves so that more oil can be found so we can collectively kill the climate even faster.

It's like there's no future for these policy makers, as if they had some other planet to live on after this one is totally ruined.
# Posted By Charles Fox | 8/18/14 11:45 AM

Charles Fox, you hit the nail on the head. Who does Dan Ashe work for? Certainly not for the American People who believe F&WS main directive should be the preservation and protection of Fish and Wildlife. Not eradication.

I know this is another subject, but don't forget to mention that all this sonic blasting is killing whales, dolphins, sea turtles and other marine life. All for oil and the accelerated destruction of our planet.
# Posted By Lori Smith | 8/21/14 3:46 PM

This is a very sad article that made me stop and think about what we should do to save this animal, and all animals from extinction. It is important that we protect the world we live in, for it protects us. I am doing a research project on the Mexican Gray Wolf, and this source provided me information that could be useful in my argument to help save them. I hope that everybody understands the importance of animals in our community, and why it is important to save them. Thank you U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for helping people realize this importance
# Posted By Anonymous | 12/11/14 8:17 AM

Yes, when you have the Governor of Idaho, Butch Otter shouting and proclaiming he wanted to be the first to kill a wolf, I truly believe NO science or common sense is behind ANY decision these maniacs would make regarding wolves!! With almost 2800 wolves killed since they were delisted, which is 3 years, I would call that a slaughter and systematic plan to eradicate them once again! SHAMEFUL, we spend millions to restore them and they have proven to be VITAL to the ecosystem, helping bring back the willow and elm, beaver, and other species, even helping the rivers! SHAMEFUL that the people we pay-our government agencies continue to cater to mining, log gin, oil, gas and ranchers and hunting lobbies! It's sickening and NOT a Democracy anymore! I resent what the Fish & Wildlife Service is doing and hope they are audited and reformed and most everyone is fired and people who are true to the oath of protecting and preserving our wildlife and places are put in their place!!!! SHAMEFUL!
# Posted By Lisa Scharin | 12/13/14 11:29 PM

People who rave about the attributes of the wolf and worship its presence obviously don't have to live with them. They are totally out of touch with reality, living in a naive Disneyland-induced selfish childlike La La Land. They are first class hypocrites who kill the rats and cockroaches on their turf but demand the wolf's presence,..on someone else's turf. None of these immature unrealistic spoiled crybabies have ever offered to have the magnificent noble wonderful wolf relocated to their neighborhoods. If they want that "good feeling" they get protecting the wolf they can come and get them from my area and put and protect them in their area. I will even help them do that. (Furthermore, it is sickening to hear these hypocrites extol the merits of the "natural world" which they left for the paved over cities and suburbs to have a soft secure life in a man-made environment. where they don't have to deal with hard physical work varmints and other "natural world" realities)..
# Posted By Minnesota Food Producer | 12/27/14 11:24 AM

Minnesota Food Producer seems confused: rats and cockroaches are by no stretch of the imagination endangered species, while wolves are sufficiently endangered that they have been not only protected but actively reestablished in attempts to restore them to viability. People who don't like that should move to locations more to their liking, locations outside the natural habitats of wolves or where endangered species are not deemed important to protect - simple as that.
# Posted By William Todd | 12/29/14 9:46 AM

Hello William Todd. Sorry you missed my point.. points that wolf protectors often ignore (and maybe that was your intent?) But your comments do serve to epitomize my assertions. Where I live wolves are NOT endangered so they should not have legal protection which prevents me from protecting my property just like you protect your property from cockroaches/rats. (Not a confusing comparison if you know wolves.) You further epitomize my argument by saying I should "simply move". Get realistic! Moving ain't simple. And lots of people who like where they live and just want to protect themselves from a viable bloodthirsty varmint, should "move"!?! Wonderful solution=La La Land=Selfish. The next 2 points make you an authentic hypocrite: YOU are living where wolves once lived. But YOU won't bring them back so YOU can protect them IN YOUR AREA. And YOU won't move so they can return. Hypocrite = Preaches one thing, does another.. (But now you're certainly confused even more.. Sorry).
# Posted By Minnesota Food Producer | 12/31/14 1:38 PM

People far better qualified than you or I are the ones who can properly evaluate whether wolves should be protected where you or I live, Minn. If you don't like the result of that (and no one is asking you to like it) you have three choices: put up with it, move somewhere more to your liking, or become a criminal and take your chances with the consequences (the same choices that you, or I, have with any other laws we may disagree with: that's the price we pay for living in a country of laws, and why it's good that we're free to move somewhere else, inconvenient though that may be, if neither of the other two choices is more acceptable to us). Why you seem unable to comprehend this is not clear, but that and the arguments you have put forth don't change the situation one whit. We've already had to take action to restore the gray wolf after we nearly obliterated it, and it seems fairly stupid to go through that cycle again so soon.
# Posted By William Todd | 1/6/15 1:06 PM

What Minnesota Food Producer is saying is that since humans aren't endangered they don't deserve legal protections either. It's remarkable how little consideration is afforded to native wildlife even in the 21st century. The culture is still "conquering" a now ruined continent with extreme prejudice. It would probably be better for you to move away from wolf habitat than to spend the rest of your life hating and killing. It makes no sense to live near something you hate and fear.
# Posted By | 1/6/15 4:06 PM

To 1/6/15 4:06 pm. You write, "What Minnesota Food Producer is saying is that since humans aren't endangered they don't deserve legal protections either." NO WHERE in my comment do I even come close to saying that! This is another perfect example that epitomizes the assertions I made in my above comments about "wolf worshipers" For you to make your fantasyland points about wolf protection, you must be totally disingenuous and duplicitous, utilizing trickery and basically being detached from reality. The rest of your comment supports this too. You re-package my position to fit YOUR SELFISHNESS....and then based on your created fantasy, offer me advice. What a sad joke. I never said I "hate and fear" the wolf. (But I do the people who behave like you). If you do not want to take a responsible position on the wolf, fine. But at least try to get a rudimentary handle on basic ethics and the English language.
# Posted By Minnesota Food Producer | 1/26/15 1:21 PM

Respectful discussion is definitely something we want to encourage on topics that inspire many different opinions. Please take a moment before you post and consider whether what you are saying is truly a helpful comment or if it is meant to be hurtful. Please structure comments as a perspective and not an insult. By respectfully disagreeing you more effectively argue your case.
# Posted By U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | 1/27/15 7:42 AM

"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
# Posted By KATHY KONRAD | 3/27/15 12:00 PM

Dan, you are no doubt in with the big cattle and other corrupt interests that want to kill all the wildlife you can and have no interest in protecting Our AMERICAN WILDLIFE. yOU SHOULD BE FIRED AND PROSECUTED FOR YOUR LIES AND BETRAYAL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OUR LANDS,WILDLIFE AND WATER. 2.7 Million Creatures Killed Last Year In U.S.'s Secretive War On Animals
For the love of animals. Pass it on.
# Posted By Shari Welsh | 7/22/15 6:43 PM

Untitled Document