Gray wolves are once again under attack — and their survival depends on us speaking out.

Members of Congress, led by Rep. Jack Bergman, are pressuring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to strip gray wolves of protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

At the same time, the USFWS has abandoned its plans for a nationwide recovery strategy, falsely claiming that wolves no longer need federal conservation support.

But the science is clear: gray wolves are not fully recovered.

Across much of their former range, wolves are still absent or exist only in fragile, fragmented populations. In places like the Northern Rockies, state “management” plans allow aggressive hunting, trapping, and even the use of cruel snares. These are not the signs of a species that has rebounded — they are the signs of one still fighting for survival.

Removing ESA protections now would have devastating consequences:

• It would allow states to expand lethal control, even in regions where wolves have just begun to reestablish.
• It would fragment recovery efforts across the country, making coordinated conservation impossible.
• It would ignore overwhelming public support for protecting wolves — including among rural residents in wolf-range states.

Gray wolves are not political pawns. They are keystone predators that help ecosystems thrive by controlling overgrazing, supporting biodiversity, and maintaining natural balance. When we protect wolves, we protect the health of our wild landscapes.

We call on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Secretary of the Interior to:

• Reject all efforts to delist gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act
• Reinstate a national recovery plan that reflects current science and long-term genetic and geographic goals
• Ensure that wolf conservation remains guided by evidence, not political pressure

Our nation made a promise when we passed the ESA: to protect species on the brink. That promise must include wolves — now, and for generations to come.

Add your name if you believe gray wolves still deserve federal protection, and that wildlife decisions should be based on science, not politics.