COLUMBIA, N. C. – After three decades of federal- and state-funded population growth and recovery, the future of the red wolf is uncertain.

This week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced red wolves will be restricted to federal lands and removed from private properties in the eastern part of North Carolina. The move would drastically reduce their current habitat, and Kim Wheeler, executive director of the Red Wolf Coalition, warns the agency is undoing years of progress.

"This is really not a path forward for the red wolf, but in essence, it's a step back, with not any clear pathway for recovery," said Wheeler.

On Wednesday, attorneys from the Southern Environmental Law Center – representing the groups Defenders of Wildlife, the Animal Welfare Institute and the Red Wolf Coalition – asked for a preliminary injunction at a hearing in federal court, to prevent removing the animals from their home habitats.

In recent years, landowners have complained about the presence of red wolves on their land. But statewide, 70 percent of respondents in a recent poll released by Defenders of Wildlife said they support recovery of the animal.

Ben Prater, southeast program director for Defenders of Wildlife, said according to USFWS studies, moving the animals from their familiar habitat could bring the population to extinction within 10 years.

"It could be devastating," Prater stated. "I mean, the Fish and Wildlife Service has very clear obligations to recover species in the wild, and they're turning their back on that obligation."

Wheeler added that proposing relocation for the fragile population and disrupting red-wolf packs could be catastrophic, and goes against what scientists know about the animal.

"We're going to remove wolves from the wild and put them in captivity, and that somehow animals can move back and forth," she said. "You take an animal from a pack, you're disrupting pack dynamics. You can't take one animal and take it out of the pack and put in another, and think that animal is just going to be accepted."

USFWS has said within the next year, the agency will identify potential new sites for additional, experimental wild populations.




get more stories like this via email

Monarch butterflies could be on the federal Endangered Species list by year's end.

Eastern monarchs found in New York and other northeastern states saw an 80% population decline between the 1980s and 2020. Their Western counterparts have seen a 90% population drop. Environmental groups petitioned for them to be listed as "threatened" back in 2014 and the monarch became a candidate species in 2020.

Rebeca Quiñonez-Piñón, monarch recovery strategist and climate resilient habitat director for the National Wildlife Federation, said monarch butterflies face many threats.

"The main threats that we have identified for the monarch butterfly are habitat loss and fragmentation of the remaining habitats," Quiñonez-Piñón outlined. "Climate change is at the top of the list, definitely, and the excessive use of pesticides."

She called monarch butterflies a "canary in the coal mine" for pollinators and the ecosystem, a warning more needs to be done to help the environment. A dozen species of bumblebees are also candidates under the Endangered Species Act. They also fall victim to the same threats of monarch butterflies.

Home gardeners can play a role in helping monarch butterfly populations, by planting milkweed and goldenrod, which are helpful to the species. Milkweed is the only plant on which monarch butterfly caterpillars can eat and survive.

Mary Phillips, head of native plant habitat strategy for the federation, said there are some mistakes people make in trying to help monarchs thrive.

"Don't worry if, you know, you see the various predators," Phillips advised. "There's also a milkweed bug that sometimes goes on these plants. People get nervous about that. It's OK, it's natural, it'll go away. It will not harm the milkweed overall."

She added another common mistake is spraying garden or systemic pesticides which can harm monarchs. Some states are taking action to end the use of certain pesticides harmful to bees, butterflies and other pollinators. New York passed a law banning some uses of neonicotinoids because of their harmful effects on pollinators and other species.

A federal court in Montana has held a hearing more than two years after a coalition of environmental advocates sued the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service over expanding cattle grazing in the Paradise Valley, part of the Custer Gallatin National Forest.

The coalition, which includes Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Western Watersheds Project, sued the agencies for extending the cattle grazing season by a month on nearly 1,400 acres of forest land.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said the plan will mean more interactions between young, unattended cattle and grizzly bears, which would not end well for either one.

"Putting calves out a month early when they're very small just provides a 'fast food snack' for a grizzly bear," Garrity pointed out. "A small calf makes an easy target for a grizzly bear. They can't defend themselves. They're not very big."

Garrity noted ranchers then complain about bear activity to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which traps and kills the grizzlies. The Forest Service said the new policy does not increase grazing because it is counted by plots of land rather than acreage.

Garrity pointed out groups are working to restore the grizzly bear, which is currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. He added the Forest Service is not doing its part to help achieve balance.

"There's about a thousand grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem," Garrity reported. "There's hundreds of thousand of cattle. We don't have a shortage of cattle in this country but grizzly bears are threatened with extinction."

The federal judge could overturn the new grazing rules or order a complete environmental review.

From Little Red Riding Hood to the Halloween thriller "Wolf Man," stories often paint wolves as scary creatures but conservationists argued it is the wrong view.

Most gray wolves across the contiguous U.S. are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. An exception includes the Northern Rocky Mountain population in parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, where states are in charge of managing wolf populations.

Eric Clewis, senior Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife, said wolves have proved polarizing in recent years but they do not need to be.

"The preferred outlook really is just wolves as a native wildlife species on the landscape, rather than treating it as either this pure icon of wilderness or this just bloodthirsty animal that's out there trying to reduce elk or deer populations or decimate livestock," Clewis urged.

The gray wolf was one of the first species listed under the 1973 federal Endangered Species Act, when he said the population was "pretty much wiped out." He believes people should "take pride" in the recovery of the wolves so far.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees endangered species, announced a first-ever National Recovery Plan for the species, with an expected completion date at the end of next year. The agency said in a news release it plans to continue to work with tribes and states to "craft enduring solutions."

Clewis argued recent actions by state agencies have been misguided.

"We've had a whole suite of bills passed in all three states that are aimed more at reducing the wolf population than actually managing it based on any biological justification or recent science," Clewis explained.

The Fish and Wildlife Service noted Idaho and Montana had recently passed laws "designed to substantially reduce" the wolf populations there, "using means and measures that are at odds with modern professional wildlife management."