Various populations of wolves have been listed as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act since the 1970s. But no listed species has aroused, and continues to arouse, so much controversy as the Northern Gray wolf. “Wolf law” is unique, odd, and often counterproductive—at least if the goal is to ensure the species’ survival and revitalize damaged ecosystems upon which healthy human communities depend. This Article identifies some of the unique characteristics of wolf law, analyzes how and why it has developed in this strange way, and proposes some more sensible ways for healthy human communities to coexist with healthy wolf communities.

We analyze how politics and human needs—rather than the needs of the wolves—have driven the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s approach to wolf management, often to the detriment of the species it is legally obliged to protect. After reviewing the fundaments of the Endangered Species Act, we trace the history of Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves and highlight the unique, controversial, and often unhelpful (at least if we wish to ensure the species’ survival) ways the USFWS has managed the species. We illustrate the tensions between the clear statutory mandates of the ESA and the political pressures shaping wolf conservation around human wants. We outline some of the themes that set “wolf law” apart from the pack. Finally, we suggest a path forward to manage wolves in a sensible manner that better fulfills the needs of the species—and thus, inevitably, the needs of our own species—as the ESA requires.