House Committee on Natural Resources
Democrats
I am proud that I have signed onto Reps. Grijalva and DeFazio’s letter to Secretary Jewell urging her to keep appropriate protections for gray wolves in place.
Within Yellowstone National Park, the wolf population has grown into ten separate packs. These packs have had a profound and beneficial impact on the park’s ecosystem, helping to restore the park to its 19th century state. Unfortunately, the recovery of the gray wolves outside the park has been a different story. Inconsistent federal actions under different administrations, federal court rulings, and some bad actors who have purposely distorted the issue for political gain, have all contributed to make the current management of gray wolves in the United States a highly volatile issue among hunters and ranchers in several western states and in Congress.
Science, not prejudice and fear, should guide the federal Endangered Species Act. For that very reason, I joined Reps. Raúl Grijalva and Peter Defazio in urging Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell to retain protections for the gray wolf in the lower 48 states. Protect the Gray Wolf.
Don Beyer, Virginia
As a member of the House Natural Resources Committee and the House Animal Protection Caucus, I am a longtime proponent for and supporter of animal rights and preservation of our wildlife on our public lands. I have signed on to two letters opposing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to delist gray wolves.
Madeleine Bordallo, Guam
I support the gray wolf recovery programs as they continue the successful path of reintroducing gray wolves to their native habitats. In fact, I sent a letter to the Department of the Interior Secretary Sally Jewell last Congress urging the FWS to maintain existing ESA protections for gray wolves using the best science available. Gray wolves play a key role in North American ecosystems and affect a variety of other species including grazing wildlife, songbirds and native vegetation. Rest assured, I will continue working to oppose any misguided attempts to delist gray wolves from ESA protections.
Lois Capps, California
As a congressman and an advocate for environmental protection, I am supportive of efforts to protect our nation’s wildlife and animals from extinction and endangerment. That’s why I proudly cosigned a letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Jewell urging her to keep the gray wolf on the endangered species list. Although the gray wolf populations have shown some signs of recovery, especially at the Yellowstone National Park, there are signs that it has not completely recovered in other regions. Removing the protection to the gray wolf at this point would be premature and damaging to local ecosystems, so I am proud to have sent this letter.
Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
In the 40 years since ESA was enacted, 56 U.S. and foreign species have been delisted, and at least 35 species have been reclassified from endangered to threatened. Certain species, such as wolves, might not exist at all without ESA protection. Preserving the goals of the Endangered Species Act is critical for a healthy, sustainable environment and I remain committed to protecting its original intent.
Debbie Dingell, Michigan
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s focus on removing wolves from the endangered species list not only ignores science but also poses a direct threat to the credibility of the agency and the long-term viability of the ESA. I believe it is time for a new approach for wolves that more closely aligns with those that have resulted in the successful recovery of species such as the bald eagle.
I joined my colleagues in Congress in sending a letter to Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, urging her to end these actions which could cause irreparable damage to our nation’s gray wolf population. As a strong supporter of wildlife protection and a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I am committed to working on a bipartisan basis to raise awareness of this issue and strengthen federal efforts to protect gray wolves.
Ruben Gallego, Arizona
Seen as a menace and threat to agriculture and livestock, wolves became one of the most fragile and endangered species in the American West. Wildlife conservation efforts aimed at protecting biodiversity and preserving our natural heritage have brought many of these once dwindling populations back to viable sizes. The ongoing recovery of wolves throughout the West could eventually lead to a removal of various wolf species from the list of threatened and endangered species. Any attempts at removing protected status must be closely scrutinized and have full backing of the scientific community.
Based on current science, I do not believe that wolf population, including the Mexican Gray Wolf, has made a significant enough recovery to warrant a removal of protected status. In March, I sent a letter to Interior Secretary Jewell urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to rescind or modify the proposed rule to remove Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves and instead reclassify the species as threatened under the Act. This approach is scientifically and legally defensible and ensures that gray wolves will continue their recovery, while affording increased management flexibility to states and Federal agencies.
The efforts to protect the wolves and other endangered species are being undermined by constant attacks on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a landmark piece of legislation that has saved many species threatened by extinction and made the United States a leader in global wildlife conversation efforts, by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Framed as a regulatory burden to economic development, the ESA has seen several attempts at subverting its legislative mandates in just this year alone. Any attempts to amend or alter its framework must be heavily scrutinized. Rest assured that I will continue to work on behalf of endangered species and the integrity of the Endangered Species Act.
Raúl M. Grijalva, Arizona
I do not support removing federal protections for the gray wolves at this time because the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to delist the gray wolves was not based on the best available science. The Fish and Wildlife Service commissioned the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) to conduct an independent peer review of the Services’ 2013 proposed rule to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list. In a 2014 report, the NCEAS concluded that the “rule does not currently represent the ‘best available science.’”
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Northern Mariana Islands
I believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to remove all Endangered Species Act protections for the wolves is too drastic and would counteract decades’ worth of progress. That is why I cosigned a letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell urging her to reconsider this policy and instead down-list the gray wolf to threatened status, which would maintain protections under the Endangered Species Act. If instituted, this alternative would give states greater flexibility in managing local wolf populations, while also helping secure the wolves’ continued recovery.
Alan Lowenthal, California
I oppose any policy that could potentially threaten the status of an endangered animal such as the gray wolf. I have always been an advocate for policies that help enhance and protect wildlife for future generations. As a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I am a strong supporter for the protection and preservation of our natural habitat and have continually voted to protect gray wolf protections.
H.R. 884 directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules relating to listing of the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act.
H.R. 884 has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources where it currently awaits further review. As a member of this Committee, please be rest assured that I will work with my colleagues to oppose the passage of this legislation when it comes before the Committee for consideration.
Grace Napolitano, California
Since its passage in 1973, Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections have rescued dozens of wildlife species from the brink of extinction and helped more than 2,000 threatened species throughout the country recover and thrive. These protections are critical to maintaining the diversity of our nation’s ecosystems and the health of our natural resources, and I am opposed to any bill that attempts to weaken them.
Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a strong supporter of measures to safeguard threatened species of wildlife and protect animals from cruelty. For instance, I recently joined with Representative Peter DeFazio (OR) and 84 other representatives in a letter to officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service urging them to leave intact ESA protections for gray wolves.
Jared Polis, Colorado
Gray wolves have roamed freely throughout North America throughout our known history, but due to a nationwide policy of wolf control, they faced extinction in the United States during the 1960s. In 1973, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, which protected gray wolves under the law and helped to reestablish gray wolf populations in the lower 48 states. Since then, remarkable progress has been made; scientists predict that if gray wolves remain protected, packs could expand into old habitats and resume their vital role as a top predator in the ecosystem.
The recent proposal to delist gray wolves from the Endangered Species List threatens to reverse this progress. Sixteen leading scientists released a report earlier this year stating that the gray wolf population has not fully recovered and requires continued protection from poachers. Recently, I joined my colleagues to send a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, urging her to reconsider the proposed delisting.
Raul Ruiz, M.D., California
Republicans
Having lived in Northern Michigan my entire life, I have a great respect for all of the wildlife in our beautiful piece of the earth, including the wolves. I feel that science plays an important role in determining the health of a species. In my opinion, I feel that the delisting of the gray wolf in the Western Lakes States is a good example of recovery for the species. Careful management by the states will allow this species to exist at appropriate levels for generations to come.
Dan Benishek, Michigan
I believe we must responsibly manage wildlife populations to ensure that species do not become endangered while also protecting our communities from encroachment from those same species.
John Fleming, M.D., Louisiana
Gray wolves, which were first placed on the endangered species list in 1976, are currently found in 46 countries throughout the world. No geographic barriers exist to prevent wolves from traveling between a listed area and a delisted area, creating confusion. As such, the current regulatory scheme is unsustainable. In certain instances, gray wolves that are listed are on one side of the road, and delisted wolves are on the other. This defies common sense, especially as the current listing is not supported by science. For these reasons, I support delisting the gray wolf nationally.
The Mexican gray wolf is a subspecies of the gray wolf. Unfortunately, in its proposed rule to delist the gray wolf, the USFWS also proposed designating the Mexican Wolf as an endangered subspecies. The Mexican gray wolf population has increased by 10% in recent years, including increases in population in each of the last three years. A listing of the Mexican gray wolf and designation of significant critical habitat would negatively impact ranchers, businesses, and residents throughout Arizona by posing increased threats to livestock and forcing our citizens to miss out on substantial tax revenues. Critical habitat designations result in huge swaths of lands becoming blocked off for other uses and in most cases prevent things like energy extraction, mining, timber harvesting, and various other forms of economic development. I do not support a listing of the Mexican gray wolf.
If any conservation measures are taken to preserve the Mexican gray wolf, they should be done at the state and local level in a manner that ensures our ranchers’ cattle are protected and don’t face new threats. There have been numerous accounts of livestock killings and even declines in some big-game herds since gray wolves were first listed under the Endangered Species Act. Much of this can be attributed to failed management by the USFWS as uncontrolled and unmanaged wolf populations have been allowed to roam free and attack at will. Significant attacks by wolves on cattle, elk, moose, and sheep have occurred and negatively impacted hunters and ranchers throughout the country.
Common sense has been lost in the way our country deals with threatened and endangered species as the USFWS continually panders to extremist environmental groups that threaten frivolous lawsuits. Innovative solutions that bring transparency and require these decisions be made on actual science need to be adopted. I am working with my colleagues on the House Natural Resources Committee and throughout Congress on different legislative initiatives that will do just that and will bring much needed reform to the current flawed process.
Paul Gosar, Arizona
I do believe that year after year the increasing number of wolves in the state of Idaho shows that they no longer need protection under the Endangered Species Act, which is intended to be a tool to recover a species, not a program for infinite and never-ending federal oversight. I understand states and their wildlife management divisions are best prepared to determine species management on a case-by-case management rather than by federal bureaucrats.
Raul Labrador, Idaho
As you may know, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) originally listed the Gray Wolf as “endangered” under the federal Endangered Species Act in May, 1974. On December 28, 2011, nearly 40 years later, the FWS delisted the distinct population segment of wolves in the Western Great Lakes region and allowed state authorities to regulate them. Eighteen months later, on June 7, 2013, FWS announced the entire species, outside of the Mexican wolf in the Southwestern United States, would be taken off the endangered species list. In their decision, FWS not only cited a significant and successful recovery of the species, but identified the geographical area where the wolf was listed as historically inaccurate.
However, despite the measurably increased number of the species, the Federal District court in Washington, D.C. suspended the delisting as of December 19, 2014.
I believe that in this instance, lawsuits are inappropriately preventing the delisting of a species that has more than fully recovered, a fact supported by Fish & Wildlife Service population data. Wolves have proliferated across the Northern United States since their initial reintroduction in the Yellowstone region, and one even recently passed through Northern California. Wolves are so plentiful and so destructive to cattle and wildlife that several states have been forced to actively manage their populations, a practice that may need to be halted while the courts decide on the issue.
Furthermore, wolves are without question a danger to human safety; in New Mexico, for examples, school children are forced to wait for buses in what are essentially cages to protect them from wolves, and a wolf was removed from the area after threatening a mother and her child. In recognition that wolf interactions with humans could be dangerous, an effort to reintroduce them to Horn Island in the Southern United States was ended and wolves removed after the FWS recognized that wolves would be a danger to humans in the area.
Doug LaMalfa, California
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was enacted to increase protection for, and provide for the recovery of, vanishing wildlife and vegetation. Under ESA, species of plants and animals can be listed as endangered or threatened according to assessments of their risk of extinction. The wolf was among the first animals protected under the Endangered Species Preservation Act, a predecessor to the current ESA.
I am concerned about America’s wildlife and believe that in some cases, we are obligated to protect species that cannot protect themselves. There must be a delicate balance between prudent protections where they are necessary and allowing development. I am sympathetic to the idea that those closest to the areas involved are in the best position to determine the correct course of action, rather than the federal government in Washington, D.C.
Doug Lamborn, Colorado
I believe that every animal, from the smallest protozoan to the largest blue whale, deserves to be treated humanely and with our respect. I am devoted to ensuring the well-being of all animals. Currently, H.R. 884 has been referred to the House Natural Resources Committee. I am continuing to receive and evaluate comments on this bill from the constituents of the First District and will monitor this issue as it evolves and progresses through the legislative process.
Rob Wittman, Virginia
In 2011, Congress passed legislation to delist the gray wolf in Montana, Idaho, north-central Utah, eastern Oregon, and eastern Washington. I believe directly intervening in this situation was necessary. The gray wolf population continues to negatively impact livestock producers, sportsmen, our elk and moose population, and property owners across Montana. As a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, which has authority over ESA, I will protect Montana’s wildlife while also advocating for the safety of our communities and land users.
Ryan Zinke, Montana
Sponsors or Co-sponsors of HR 843 and/or HR 884
As many families and farmers know all too well, gray wolves now pose a threat in various parts of rural Wisconsin. As an avid outdoorsman, Co-Chair of the Great Lakes Task Force, and proud Representative of Northern Wisconsin, I believe all Americans have a moral responsibility to conserve our natural resources and endangered species. However, federal agencies and courts all too often misuse their responsibilities under the ESA based on philosophical beliefs instead of science-based evidence.
Sean P. Duffy, Wisconsin, R
The delisting of the gray wolf was initiated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service due to population surveys showing the wolves were thriving in the Great Lakes region, exceeding the population and geographic distribution goals of the Endangered Species Act. In response to the delisting, Wisconsin began their own wolf management program to maintain a stable population in the state. Recently, a federal judge ruled the US. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2012 rule delisting wolves in the Great Lakes was incorrect, and reinstated gray wolf on the Endangered Species list.
I believe we have the responsibility to protect all species from extinction. Fortunately, the Endangered Species Act and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources have been very successful in revitalizing the gray wolf population in Wisconsin and nearby states.
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, R
Over the past 14 years, the wolf population in Michigan has increased every year and is approaching three times the minimum population that biologists consider to be viable in the state. State and federal endangered species laws are written to protect species that are in danger of going extinct in the foreseeable future. Wolves clearly no longer meet this definition, and managing wolves as if they are about to go extinct has caused significant problems in the Great Lakes region.
Unmanaged wolves have devastated livestock and indigenous wildlife. Delisting wolves nationwide will enable state wildlife officials to better manage both the wolf population and their prey. Because the overwhelming scientific evidence shows gray wolves are not endangered in the Great Lakes region, I cosponsored the Western Great Lakes Wolf Management Act. This bill would delist the gray wolf under any status of the ESA in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan returning the responsibility for wolf management back to each state.
Bill Huizenga, Michigan, R
In 2012 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) removed protection for gray wolves in the Western Great Lake states. In these states, wolf counts exceeded the population criteria identified by the USFWS for gray wolf recovery continuously since at least 2001.
Gray wolves are well above the USFWS delisting criteria of 1251-1400 wolves for Minnesota and 100 wolves for Wisconsin and Michigan combined. The wolf population in Minnesota, estimated at fewer than 750 in the 1950s, has grown to at least 2,423 the past two years.
Accordingly, I will be reintroducing the Western Great Lakes Wolf Management Act. This legislation would delist the gray wolf under any status of the Endangered Species Act in the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. It would return wolf management to each state, granting states exclusive jurisdiction over the wolves within the borders of that state and does not prevent any state from providing protections to wolves.
This bill ensures the long-term survival of the gray wolf by allowing state experts to responsibly manage their populations, and gives those states negatively affected by wolf populations a reprieve from losses of value to farmers and home owners such as livestock, pets, and even other animals in the wild, preserving the unique and important rural economies of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
John Kline, Minnesota, R
It is important to note that originally, the goal of delisting the wolf as an Endangered Species was to restore 1,400 wolves to Minnesota and Wisconsin – the number generally regarded to be a normal population. The Minnesota-Wisconsin wolf population is now estimated to be about 4,000 – well above the original goal and certainly within the realm where state management is appropriate and necessary. To that end, I recently cosponsored legislation that would restore the previous federal-state wolf management arrangement in northeastern Minnesota. In my view, state management would actually be celebrating the success of the Endangered Species Act, not undermining it.
Richard M. Nolan, Minnesota, D
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) decision in 2011 to delist gray wolves under Endangered Species Act protections was based on sound science and sound policy. I have long supported state-controlled management for wolves which provides a legal avenue to balance safety, economic, and wolf population issues. Minnesota has successfully managed a thriving gray wolf population and it should continue to do so.
However, the recent U.S. District Court decision to reinstate federal protections of gray wolves undermines programs that were designed specifically for Minnesota. I have cosponsored a bill which would reissue the FWS decision to delist wolves in Minnesota and ultimately restore gray wolf management back to Minnesota state officials.
Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota, D
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. recently struck down a 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) decision to remove gray wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota from the Endangered Species List.
Proponents of the court’s decision argue that gray wolves have not reached a high enough population to be removed from federal protection. Critics, however, argue that ranchers and farmers are seeing their cattle herds and other livestock being attacked by these wolves in large numbers.
While I respect both sides of this debate, I am personally opposed to efforts to return the gray wolf to the Endangered Species List. I believe that it is critically important to ensure endangered species are carefully protected, and I recognize that the gray wolf was once in need of such protections. However, this species has made a remarkable rebound across the nation in recent years and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has had a program in place since 2012 to responsibly manage gray wolf populations. For these reasons, I do not believe it is necessary to keep the gray wolf on the Endangered Species List any longer.
Reid J. Ribble, Wisconsin, R
On Friday, December 19, 2014, a U.S. District Judge overturned the November 2011 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes region—including Wisconsin. Since wolves were first provided protections under the Endangered Species Act, unmanaged growth of wolf populations has resulted in harmful effects on farming, ranching and hunting. For these reasons, I do not support the decision made by the court, and will continue to support efforts to delist the wolf.
Paul Ryan, Wisconsin, R
In 1995 and 1996 the federal government took actions to reintroduce the wolf into areas where it had been previously eradicated. Specifically, experimental populations were introduced into the Yellowstone area and central Idaho. This was from the beginning, and remains to this day, a controversial decision. As the species recovered throughout the western United States, wolf populations were delisted in various regions. As you may know, a district court ruling in September 2014 relisted wolves in Wyoming and a December 2014 court ruling relisted the population in the Great Lakes region.
Keeping wolves on the endangered species list is in no one’s best interest but those who benefit from ongoing litigation. On the other hand providing a long-term solution to the management of these animals serves the interest of the states, the federal agencies, ranchers and hunters, and those whose true goal is a sustainable wolf population.
To that end, I raised several questions regarding wolf populations to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Dan Ashe during an Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee hearing. Specifically, I asked Director Ashe if, based upon the best scientific information available to the Fish and Wildlife Service:
-Have wolves in Wyoming and the Great Lakes met their recovery goals?
-Do the states have responsible management plans?
-Should these wolves be delisted?
His response was yes to all three points. Director Ashe said the wolves in Wyoming and Great Lakes have met their recovery goals for many years and the states have responsibly managed the populations.
I recognize that wolves are a valuable part of the ecosystem, and I do not support efforts to eradicate them or drive populations so low that they are again threatened-nor is it my intent to undermine the Endangered Species Act (ESA) itself. I simply believe that the science no longer supports the assertion that wolves are endangered. If the ESA is going to work, then we must remove species that have recovered and let the states manage them, just as they do all other types of wildlife.
The recovery of the gray wolf should be considered a success under the ESA, and I am bothered that some people persist in perceiving that the end goal in this process is to simply keep wolves on the endangered species list instead of recover the species so that it can be properly managed. Here in Idaho, the Department of Fish and Game is well prepared to manage this species through legalized hunts and other forms of predator control, and I believe it would be wise to leave this issue in the hands of the state. Based on my conversations with the USFWS, I believe this to be the case in Wyoming and the western Great Lakes as well.
Mike Simpson, Idaho, R
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a decision to remove gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes area – including Michigan – from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Such action was taken only after careful consideration by a team of experts has carefully studied the latest available scientific and taxonomic information. Then Acting Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rowan Gould determined, “wolves in the Western Great Lakes had achieved recovery.” I believe that individual states will be able to monitor the population within their own borders and appropriately manage recovery efforts of the species while striking a balance of local needs and national protection efforts.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources regards the gray wolf as a low concern for extinction; the population has regained a foothold into the Northern Rocky Mountain habitat and other regions throughout the country. With this new progression, the threat of extinction is not nearly as great as it was in the 1970s when the Endangered Species Preservation Act was initially passed. It is encouraging to see this law fulfilling its purpose.
Fred Upton, Michigan, R
In the past, based on information released from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, I have favored the removal of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List. One of the reasons I support delisting is that predators such as the gray wolf threaten our livestock industry. With that said, I support a science-based management strategy that establishes a minimum population and monitors the stability of the population in order to ensure long-term survival of the species.
I am proud of the progress we have made to restore wolf populations and I believe issues like these, as in the case of Minnesota, should be in the hands of the individual state to decide how to best protect their local wolf populations.
Tim Waltz, Minnesota, D
Wolves are abundant in the West and Midwest. With a population growth rate of 24%, wolf overpopulation is now endangering wildlife populations throughout the West and Midwest by significantly decreasing the amount of caribou, moose, elk, and other wildlife populations that are essential to maintaining a balanced ecosystem. For example, wolves have been the lead predator of Lolo elk in Idaho since 1995. It wasn’t until May of last year that the state could finally manage wolves. Unfortunately by then, the extreme predation on adult elk females and calves meant not enough calves survive to replace the number of adults that die annually. This abundance of wolves threatens both livestock and game animals. Additionally, hikers and other outdoor recreation enthusiasts have been threatened by wolf overabundance.
The State of Alaska is experiencing wolf overpopulation. Alaska’s predator control program includes the aerial management of wolves. A population of predatory Arctic Gray Wolves, currently estimated at over 11,000 wolves, threatens wildlife populations on which many Native and rural Alaskans depend for survival. The state’s science and abundance-based program is designed to ensure that these species remain at levels sufficient to feed the thousands of Alaskans who depend on them, while maintaining a healthy, viable, and reproductive population of wolves.
While many of the issues regarding wolf management are similar across the West, those areas where the formerly endangered gray wolf resides had the added challenge of managing a wolf population protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
In 2011, former Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) introduced H.R. 509, to prohibit the treatment of the gray wolf as an endangered or threatened species. Biologists have met the original wolf recovery goals, but Courts have continuously expanded the target numbers thanks to numerous lawsuits from extreme environmental groups. I would not stand for this in Alaska, and I don’t expect my friends across the West to either, which is why I was an original cosponsor of this legislation. However, this legislation stalled and did not receive a vote on the House Floor.
Instead, a provision much like H.R. 509 was included in H.R. 1473, the continuing resolution that funded the federal government through the end of Fiscal Year 2011. This provision codified the original determination by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist wolves in states with approved management plans in place, such as Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah. Wolf populations in the West have vastly exceeded recovery goals put into place in the 1990’s and are rightly delisted through this bill. For the first time in history a species has been Congressionally delisted from the Endangered Species Act. H.R. 1473 was signed into law by President Obama on April 15, 2011.
Don Young, Alaska, R