The Alexander Archipelago wolf first arrived in Alaska sometime between 7,000 and 8,000 years ago, after the end of the
Wisconsin glaciation period. The species was likely following the
migration of the Sitka deer as they traveled north because of geographical and
climate change in the area.
Endangered Species Act petition – 1993 to 1997 A petition was presented to the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in December 1993 by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and an independent
biologist, requesting the Alexander Archipelago wolf to be listed as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. The agency published a positive 90-day finding in the Federal Register on May 20, 1994, but near the end of the year, issued another finding that a "listing is not warranted at this time", but that if the logging was not reduced or reservation areas created, the "long-term viability of the Alexander Archipelago wolf is seriously imperiled." To better assess the status of the species, the FWS ordered a conservation assessment to be made in terms of specific data of the species and its
viability for the future. In 1994, the FWS issued a memo stating, "not protecting the wolf would be the 'least controversial option'". This was in regards to the logging companies and lobbyists that opposed restrictions on logging in the area, which protecting the Alexander Archipelago wolf would create. In 1997, the petition was denied due to the findings that wolves in southeast Alaska would not be in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. The Tongass Land Management Plan (forest plan) was revised in 1997 after immense pressure from environmental groups to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf as threatened. The plan included a standard and guideline to sustain a habitat
carrying capacity of least 18 Sitka deer per square mile to provide adequate prey and to limit the density of roads (i.e. miles of road per square mile). The forest plan also established a system of habitat reserves. On the basis of the new plan, shortly afterward, FWS made a final determination that listing the wolf as threatened was unwarranted.
Endangered Species Act petition – 2011 In 2011, a 103-page petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act was filed with the US Fish and Wildlife Service by the Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace on August 10, 2011. The petition requested consideration for a separate listing of the Prince of Wales Island population because it is believed to be a distinct population segment, as well as a listing for the subspecies as a whole. The finding was positive on three of the five factors that the Endangered Species Act requires the agency to consider. but 3 days after the finding was published, the petitioners notified the agency they intend to sue to expedite the process. The FWS would prefer to leave management of the wolf with the state, if the state will create a viable plan for wolf conservation; however, the service will list the species if it determines doing so is necessary to protect the species' existence. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Division of Wildlife Conservation does not believe the Alexander Archipelago wolf is at risk now or threatened with the risk of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Litigation in 2008 Greenpeace and the Cascadia Wildlands Project pointed out in 2008 the wolves' primary prey. Furthermore, the
conversion factor, known as the "deer multiplier", used in the calculations was incorrectly applied, causing a 30% overestimation of carrying capacity and corresponding underestimation of impacts. The sales are on Prince of Wales, Kupreanof, Mitkof, and Revillagigedo Islands. The suit challenged the agency's method of calculating the impact of logging on habitat carrying capacity for deer. In a radio story, the plaintiff's spokesman explained that the data being used to represent habitat quality are actually uncorrelated to habitat quality, and that the deer multiplier mentioned above was misused according to the science under which it was derived. The story points to the Forest Service's underestimation of impacts not only to wolves but to subsistence deer hunters. In May 2010,
US District Judge Ralph Beistline denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, saying he "found no wrongdoing on the part of the Forest Service" and it was a "scientific disagreement". The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the
9th US Circuit Court of Appeals (case 10-35567). A three-judge panel (
Arthur Alarcón,
Susan Graber, and
Jay Bybee) heard oral arguments in the appeal on May 3, 2011 The panel ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on August 2, 2011, reversing in part, vacating in part and remanding the district court's decision. The ruling says, in part: :"We do not think that USFS has adequately explained its decision to approve the four logging projects in the Tongass. ... USFS has failed to explain how it ended up with a table that identifies 100 deer per square mile as a maximum carrying capacity, but allows 130 deer per square mile as a potential carrying capacity. 'The agency is obligated to articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made,' which the agency has not done here. Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fisherman's Ass'ns v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2005)..." He also said, "The purpose of the lawsuit is to make the Forest Service go back and do its analysis right on these timber sales. And we believe that when the Forest Service does that, that it can't justify the volume of the timber that it decided to log in these projects."
Litigation filed in 2010 In January 2010, the Forest Service was sued over its 73 million-board-ft Logjam timber sale on Prince of Wales Island, by Tongass Conservation Society, Cascadia Wildlands, and Greenpeace. At issue is the impact of excessive road density on wolf mortality and further loss of habitat for the primary prey (deer), among other issues. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgement was denied by the US District Court, Alaska, in September, and the case has been appealed to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The court scheduled oral arguments before Judges
Betty Fletcher,
Andrew Kleinfeld, and
Consuelo Callahan for July 29, 2011, sitting in Anchorage.
Endangered Species Act petition – 2023 The petition was filled by environmental groups concerned about wolves on Prince of Wales Island where they are subject to legal hunting and trapping. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found in 2023 that it was not currently warranted. ==See also==