When Congress updated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1982, it added Section 10(j), which allows for the designation of “experimental populations.” This change made it easier to reintroduce endangered and threatened species and reflected a simple lesson: conservation works best when it brings people together, not when it regulates them. That idea is at the center of PERC’s amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit court case, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project v. Burgum.
More than 25 years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced the Mexican gray wolf into eastern Arizona and western New Mexico as a “nonessential experimental population” under Section 10(j). That label matters. Congress created 10(j) to give states, ranchers, and local communities more flexibility, so they wouldn’t face the full force of ESA restrictions simply for agreeing to help bring a species back.
Those assurances helped make this reintroduction a success. Since the first 11 wolves were released, the population has grown to around 200 animals, spread across a larger recovery area, and spurred similar conservation efforts in Mexico.
Now, the Plaintiffs in Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project v. Burgum argue that because the wolves have increased in number and expanded their range, the Service must reclassify the population as “essential,” which would trigger tighter regulations. In other words, they claim that recovery success should lead to heavier federal oversight. That argument flips Section 10(j) on its head.
The ESA requires the Service to decide whether an experimental population is essential before it is released. Congress made that choice on purpose. That up-front decision sets the regulatory ground rules that states and communities rely on when deciding whether to support a reintroduction. If those rules can be changed decades later—after communities agreed to accept wolves based on promises of flexibility—then the credibility of every future 10(j) reintroduction is at risk.
Conservation depends on trust. If success becomes a reason for stricter regulation, states, landowners, and communities will think twice before cooperating in future reintroductions. The likely result: fewer species brought back and less collaborative conservation overall.
The ESA already gives the Service tools to adjust how experimental populations are managed through tailored, species-specific rules. What it does not do is require constant second-guessing of whether a reintroduced population should now be considered essential simply because it is doing well. Reading that requirement into the law would undercut the incentives Congress created and weaken the cooperation conservation depends on.
