Northern Great Lakes Wolf Recovery Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill legislatively mandates the delisting of the gray wolf in the Northern Great Lakes Region by expanding the definition of a previously delisted population and requiring a new monitoring plan and subsequent delisting rule.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to update the Post-delisting Monitoring Plan for the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf within one year. Crucially, it legislatively expands the definition of the gray wolf population in the 1978 Rule to include the entire Northern Great Lakes Region (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan's Upper Peninsula). Following this update, the Secretary of the Interior is required to issue a rule delisting this expanded population under the Endangered Species Act.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill provides much-needed regulatory certainty for wolf management, reflecting the successful recovery of wolf populations in the Northern Great Lakes Region. They contend it returns management authority to state and tribal governments, who are best equipped to address local needs, including concerns from agricultural communities regarding livestock depredation and the desire for regulated hunting opportunities.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that legislatively mandating the delisting of a species bypasses the established scientific review processes of the Endangered Species Act, setting a dangerous precedent for political interference in wildlife management. They argue that such an action could prematurely remove critical federal protections, potentially jeopardizing the long-term recovery and genetic viability of gray wolf populations, and leading to inconsistent or less protective state management.
The bill is short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its core provisions and their immediate implications.
Section 1
Short Title: Northern Great Lakes Wolf Recovery Act
This section establishes the official short title of the bill as the "Northern Great Lakes Wolf Recovery Act." This title provides a concise and publicly recognizable name for the legislation, clearly indicating its focus on gray wolf management and recovery efforts within the specified geographic area.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that a clear, descriptive short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, signaling the bill's focus on wolf recovery and management in the specified region.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short title provisions, as they are administrative in nature and do not alter substantive policy.
Tradeoffs
None apparent for this provision itself, as it is purely definitional.
Section 2
Key Definitions for Wolf Management
This section defines several key terms used throughout the Act, including the "1978 Rule" (a previous federal regulation concerning gray wolf reclassification), the "advisory committee" (to be established by this Act), the "Director" of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the existing "Monitoring Plan" (from 2008), the "Northern Great Lakes Region" (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan), and the "Secretary" of the Interior. These definitions are crucial for understanding the scope and application of the bill's mandates.
Section 3(a)
Mandate to Update Post-delisting Monitoring Plan
This provision requires the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in consultation with a newly established advisory committee, to update the 2008 Post-delisting Monitoring Plan for the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf. This update must be completed within one year of the bill's enactment and specifically pertains to wolf populations in the Northern Great Lakes Region.
Section 3(b)
Expansion of Gray Wolf Population Definition for Delisting
This section legislatively expands the definition of the "Minnesota population" of the Gray Wolf, as described in the 1978 Rule, to now include the entire "Northern Great Lakes Region" (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan's Upper Peninsula). This redefinition is explicitly for the purposes of the 1978 Rule and the subsequent delisting rule mandated by this Act, effectively broadening the geographic scope of the population to be delisted.
Section 3(c)
Requirement to Issue Delisting Rule
This provision mandates that, upon updating the Monitoring Plan as required by subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the advisory committee, shall issue a rule delisting the Gray Wolf population within the Northern Great Lakes Region under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This makes the delisting a non-discretionary act once the monitoring plan is updated, effectively removing federal protections for wolves in the specified region.
Section 4
Establishment and Duties of Northern Great Lakes Region Gray Wolf Advisory Committee
This section mandates the establishment of the "Northern Great Lakes Region Gray Wolf Advisory Committee" within 30 days of the bill's enactment. The committee will be composed of representatives from federal agencies (Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Secretary of Agriculture, Administrator of APHIS, Chief of the Forest Service), federally recognized Indian Tribes, heads of applicable State agencies, and other experts. Its duties include consulting with the Director on the Monitoring Plan update and with the Secretary on the delisting rule and during the subsequent 5-year post-delisting monitoring period.
Expands the definition of the "Minnesota population" of the Gray Wolf from the 1978 Rule to include the entire Northern Great Lakes Region (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan) for the purposes of the 1978 Rule and the new delisting rule.
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative technique to modify existing regulations by reference. However, in this context, it's a critical mechanism to achieve a broader delisting than might otherwise be possible under existing FWS administrative procedures for defining Distinct Population Segments, potentially sidestepping scientific debate over population boundaries.
Case for: Supporters would argue this is a practical way to acknowledge the biological reality of a contiguous, recovered wolf population across the region, simplifying management and providing a clear legal basis for delisting the entire area without further administrative delays.
Case against: Critics would contend that this legislative redefinition bypasses the scientific rigor and public input processes typically required for such changes under the Endangered Species Act, potentially setting a precedent for political rather than scientific determination of species status.
Estimated impact: This provision directly impacts the legal status of gray wolves across an estimated 100,000 square miles of the Northern Great Lakes Region, affecting thousands of individual wolves and the ecosystems they inhabit by removing federal protections.