Removing Protections for Wolves and the Future of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (1973)
Open accessAbstract
In June of 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing gray wolves ( Canis lupus, Linnaeus ) from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections throughout the conterminous United States. The proposed rule depends on a definition of endangerment that is inconsistent with the legislative history and historical implementation of the ESA, as well as numerous court rulings. The proposed rule also asserts that areas where wolves once existed but no longer exist are “unsuitable habitat” because people in these areas lack tolerance for wolves. That claim entirely ignores a significant body of scientific knowledge that suggests otherwise. By effectively narrowing the definition of endangered species and ignoring the best available science on tolerance for wolves, the proposed rule would set an unfortunate precedent with far‐reaching consequences, including dramatically limiting recovery efforts for other species protected by the ESA.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth
Estes, J. A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., Bond, W. J., Carpenter, S. R., Essington, T. E., Holt, R. D., Jackson, J. B. C., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1205106 · Cited by 4,087 · see citing works
The Practices of Wolf Persecution, Protection, and Restoration in Canada and the United States
MUSIANI, M., & PAQUET, P. C. (2004) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0050:tpowpp]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A continental scale trophic cascade from wolves through coyotes to foxes
Newsome, T. M., & Ripple, W. J. (2015) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12258 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A., Enzler, S., Treves, A., & Nelson, M. P.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Michigan Technological University (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Oregon State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bruskotter, Jeremy T.
- Venue
- Conservation Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-12-26
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 401-407
- ISSN
- 1755-263X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1574009426
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 18.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Conservation Letters (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (Michigan Technological University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
- Social Sciences › Law › Environmental law and policy
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- gray wolf, wolf, Endangered Species Act, delisting, species recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, legislative history, best available science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review