Heated debates sparked by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) proposal to remove the endangered species status of the gray wolf continue to intensify. The proposal was put in question after the matter was reviewed by an independent panel of experts.

Gray wolves were first added to the list of endangered species back in 1976 when gray wolf populations dramatically shrank due to state sanctioned trapping and hunting programs. However, the wolf populations gradually grew in number prompting the FWS to submit its proposal. Many scientists are, however, worried that the current number of gray wolves are still a cause for concern and the animals should not be removed from the endangered list.

Conservationists are particularly concerned regarding the science behind the FWS proposal. The five member peer review report was submitted by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) from the University of California in Santa Barbara.

"The purpose of this review is to provide an objective, independent, external scientific peer review of the information in the proposed rule," said the NCEAS in its final review. "The proposed rule is 246 pages long and synthesizes the existing best available scientific and commercial information regarding the status of various gray wolf populations and subspecies that occur within portions of the lower 48 States where the species is currently listed."

The NCEAS review focuses on four major issues plaguing the FWS proposal. First of all, the reviewers are questioning the veracity of the scientific data presented by the FWS to back their proposal. Secondly, the NCEAS has inquired whether the most accurate and comprehensive information was taken into consideration to come up with the FWS' conclusions. Third, whether the proposal included scientifically sound conclusions from the 2012 study. Lastly, whether the said conclusions were drawn using the best available scientific information.

The FWS said it takes the peer review seriously and has reopened the comments period to hear the concerns of the conservationists. 

Starting Feb. 10, Monday, interested parties will get 45 days to provide information and express their views before a final determination is made. More details on FWS' proposals, the peer review submissions and additional details on submitting comments to FWS are available here. 

"Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision on our proposal to delist the wolf is based on the best available scientific and technical information," FWS director Dan Ashe said. "We thank the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for conducting a transparent, objective and well-documented process. We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input."

The review is spearheaded by Dr. Steven Courtney, a scientist well versed in issues regarding endangered species. Working with NCEAS director Prof. Frank Davis, the two scientists were responsible for designing the parameters of the review.

"The science used by the Fish and Wildlife Service concerning genetics and taxonomy of wolves was preliminary and currently not the best available science," Dr. Courtney told the Associated Press.