No national recovery plan for gray wolves, says U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – KNPR

U.S. Gray Wolf Management and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Policy Reversal and its Impact on SDG 15 (Life on Land)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has reversed its position on creating a national recovery plan for the gray wolf. In a finding dated November 3, the agency stated that a national plan is no longer required, asserting that federal protection for the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is “no longer appropriate.” This decision directly challenges the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 15: Life on Land, which calls for urgent and significant action to halt biodiversity loss and protect threatened species. A national recovery plan is a critical instrument for achieving these targets, as its purpose is to analyze all threats to a species and formulate comprehensive conservation actions to mitigate them. The cancellation of this plan for a keystone species like the gray wolf represents a significant setback for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity in the United States.

Legal and Political Context: A Challenge to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The FWS decision is the latest development in a long-standing and volatile legal and political conflict over gray wolf management. This persistent instability undermines the principles of Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which emphasizes the need for effective, accountable, and stable governance. The goal of a unified recovery plan was to establish a durable strategy that could withstand legal scrutiny and provide a clear path for the species’ recovery. The ongoing disputes highlight a failure to build such an institutionally sound framework.

1. Policy Whiplash: The current administration had previously announced its intention to release the first-ever nationwide recovery plan by December 12, a commitment that has now been rescinded.
2. Litigation: Conservation groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, intend to sue over the decision, viewing it as a precursor to broader attempts to delist the wolf from the ESA. A recent court ruling in Montana had already determined the FWS was wrong to deny protections for wolves in the West, a decision the agency is currently appealing.
3. Political Pressure: On October 31, a group of 25 conservative members of Congress submitted a letter urging the FWS to delist the gray wolf entirely and grant management authority to states and tribes.

Current Protection Status and Regional Conflicts

The legal status of the gray wolf is currently fragmented across the United States, complicating conservation efforts and exacerbating human-wildlife conflict, further impeding progress on SDG 15. This patchwork of regulations underscores the need for a coherent national strategy that can be implemented effectively at the local level, a key aspect of sustainable development.

• Endangered or Threatened: Gray wolves are listed as threatened or endangered in the majority of the lower 48 states.
• Not Federally Protected: Protections have been removed in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and in designated parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah.

The tension between conservation and local management is highlighted by recent events, including a case in Wyoming where a man faces a felony charge for allegedly running down a wolf with a snowmobile. Such incidents demonstrate the critical need for robust and consistent policies that protect wildlife while addressing the concerns of local communities.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 15: Life on Land
  • The article’s central theme is the conservation and protection of a terrestrial species, the gray wolf. It discusses the debate over federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the development of a “national recovery plan,” and threats to the species. This directly relates to SDG 15’s goal to “protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems… and halt biodiversity loss.”
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
  • The article details a significant conflict involving legal and governmental bodies. It describes a “legal battle” with lawsuits, court rulings, and appeals involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and conservation groups. It also highlights the role of institutions like Congress, with members urging policy changes. This connects to SDG 16’s aim to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.
     • The article is entirely focused on the protection of the gray wolf, a species currently “listed as threatened or endangered in most of the country.” The debate over delisting the species and the FWS’s decision to abandon a “national recovery plan” are actions that directly impact the goal of protecting and preventing the extinction of a threatened species.
   • Target 15.7: Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products.
     • This target is relevant due to the mention of a Wyoming man who “faces a felony charge for running down a wolf with a snowmobile and bringing it into a bar.” This act of animal cruelty and illegal harm to a protected or managed species falls under the scope of actions this target aims to prevent.

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
     • The article highlights the use of the legal system to address conservation disputes. The Center for Biological Diversity “plans to sue over the… decision,” and a “Montana judge ruled FWS was wrong to not protect wolves in the West.” This demonstrates how legal institutions and the rule of law are being utilized to challenge governmental decisions and enforce environmental protections like the Endangered Species Act.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for Target 15.5: The article implies the use of a national species protection list as an indicator. The status of the gray wolf as “threatened or endangered” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a key metric discussed throughout the text. Progress towards this target could be measured by the number of species with a stable or improving conservation status. The existence and implementation of a “national recovery plan” is another implied indicator of action being taken to protect threatened species.
• Indicator for Target 15.7: The article points to legal enforcement actions as an indicator. The mention of a man who “faces a felony charge” for harming a wolf serves as a specific example of an indicator for this target, which could be formally tracked as the number of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for crimes against wildlife.
• Indicator for Target 16.3: The article implies that the number and outcome of legal challenges related to environmental law can be an indicator. The text explicitly mentions that a conservation group “plans to sue,” a “judge ruled FWS was wrong,” and the “service is currently appealing that decision.” These legal actions are measurable events that reflect the functioning of the justice system in upholding environmental laws.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wyomingpublicmedia.org