With the USFW Service stating that two distinct Wolf species exist in the Great Lakes Region(Gray wolf C.lupus and Eastern Wolf C.lycaon), delisting will potentially become challenging if the Feds declare that Gray wolves are recovered and merit delisting and Eastern Wolves are recovering and should not be delisted...............How do Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan distinguish between the two species when in this region, they are nearly physically identical to the naked eye?...............I vote to delist intelligently (not the kill baby kill plans that Idaho and Montana have instituted) with current levels of wolves to be allowed to roam the region ............Additionally, immediate reintroduction plans should be put into effect for Eastern Wolves to be released into the Adirondacks, New England and the Southern Appalachians(beyond the Carolina barrier islands where a small population of Eastern(red) wolves exist)

Federal recognition of 2 wolf species will hinder DNR's management efforts

Wisconsin Natural Resources Secretary Cathy Stepp said her agency wants federal protections removed for the gray wolf, but said Thursday that a proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that recognizes two wolf species would hamstring Wisconsin's efforts to manage the animal's burgeoning population.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to issue new regulations this fall that would attempt, for the third time, to remove gray wolves from the list of species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.

Removing the protections would affect Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan.
The federal government's past efforts have been met with legal challenges by groups who say the wolves need protection, especially in areas where wolves have not yet experienced a resurgence.
These groups also say advocates for controls place too much emphasis on lethal means, and less on nonlethal controls such as the use of livestock guard dogs.

Wolves have been an emotional issue - especially as the population has risen - and Stepp appeared in Minocqua to underscore the DNR's resolve that it wants to control wolf numbers. Many residents of northern Wisconsin have been vocal about the need to control the state's wolf population.
Stepp appeared with wolf biologist Adrian Wydeven, staff attorney Tim Andryk, and Bill Horn, legislative director of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.

Wisconsin officials have pushed to remove the wolf from its endangered status and replace the status with a state plan that would provide the state more authority to control the wolf population.
Wisconsin's wolf population is conservatively estimated at 782 to 824, figures from a winter survey show. The population zooms to nearly double that figure in the summer as pups are born. But with a low survival rate and the death of about 25% of adults, the population drops again by winter.
Wisconsin's management goal for wolves is 350, and as numbers have grown, conflicts have arisen.
Officials report a growing number of cases of wolves killing livestock and pets. Wydeven said the agency has paid more than $1 million in reimbursements to those who have had livestock and pets killed by wolves since 1985. Eight dogs have been killed by wolves this year. Most were hunting dogs.

In Minocqua, Stepp said the DNR is opposed to aspects of the proposed rule that recognizes the presence of two distinct species of wolves in the Midwest: the gray wolf, or Canis lupus, the wolf species currently listed under the protection act, and the eastern wolf, or Canis lycaon, which has a historical range that includes portions of eastern Canada and the northeastern United States.

DNR officials said the agency would have great difficulty managing wolf populations if the gray wolf was delisted and the eastern wolf was protected because genetic testing has shown Wisconsin's wolves are a mix of both species.

Andryk said the DNR has managed wolves as a single population since 1978. "They are physically indistinguishable," he said.

Horn said the federal agency's conclusion that a new species exists in the Midwest is a "low hanging curve ball" that opponents will use in a new lawsuit to challenge the law.

Groups that want to ensure the protection of wolves have said wolves are still largely absent from their historical range, and the Fish and Wildlife Service should use its authority to protect the newly discovered species.