Federal definitions, half empty processes, and recovery goals for threatened and endangered species require social and ecological criteria

Criteria used to assess recovery under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) often fall short when considering social, group-living species. We use novel recent insights on sociality and genetics in gray wolves to illustrate why such definitional failures in implementing the ESA limit the efficacy of recovery efforts. Loss of conspecifics in social species has an enhanced impact on population viability that is not captured by estimates of population abundance. Reproductive skew in social species reduces effective population size and exacerbates threats to genetic health of populations. For group living species like wolves, it is critical that agencies and governing bodies consider species sociality and its genetic effects in recovery guidelines. Biological processes which include social behavior and group structure need to be more fully considered for the ESA to effectively meld with biological reality. Until our statutory legislation carries language that incorporates this, the species we try to protect will lose.