Judge ruling could result in federal protections for wolves in Rockies

A federal judge in Montana ruled Aug. 5 that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service improperly denied a petition to protect gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains under the Endangered Species Act.

The agency must now either appeal the decision or reconsider whether to grant protections to wolves living in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming as well as portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah.

It’s the latest legal ruling in a decades-long battle over wolves in the U.S.

It does not affect wolves in Wisconsin which, since a 2022 judge ruling, remain under federal ESA protections.

The gray wolf once occupied an area spanning most current state boundaries in the Lower 48 but by 1960 was extirpated from all but a portion of northern Minnesota. Given protections, including from the federal Endangered Species Act in 1973, and intentional reintroductions such as in 1995 in Yellowstone National Park in Montana, wolves began increasing in number and geographical distribution.

Approximately 3,200 wolves are found in the northern Rockies and about 5,000 in the western Great Lakes region, according to recent estimates.

But strong disagreements remain about how wolves should be managed or stewarded and how much of its former range the species should occupy. The differences of opinion have resulted in a see-saw between periods of federal protection and state control of the species.

The Montana ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy. It was in response to a lawsuit filed last year by environmental and animal protection groups that submitted the petition in 2021: the Center for Biological Diversity, Humane World for Animals (formerly called the Humane Society of the United States), Humane World Action Fund (formerly called Humane Society Legislative Fund) and the Sierra Club.

Molloy found the USFWS disregarded the potential for wolf recovery across Colorado and the rest of the southern Rocky Mountains including most of Utah, northern New Mexico and northern Arizona, and that the Endangered Species Act required the agency to consider the southern Rocky Mountains region and other portions of the wolves’ historic range.

Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, heralded the decision as an opportunity to provide “true recovery for wolves across the West.”

“The judge rightly found that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s unambitious view of recovery violates the Endangered Species Act,” Adkins said. “Recovery requires that wolves return to places like the vast southern Rockies, where they once lived. They can thrive there if they have the lifesaving protections of the Endangered Species Act.”

The groups filed the petition in part due to hunting and trapping rules in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming that encourage high annual wolf kills, sometimes targeting 50% of the population.

“Gray wolf recovery is at a crossroads in the western United States, so they should not be relegated to the crosshairs of the killing campaigns that pushed them to the brink of extinction,” said Sara Amundson, president of Humane World Action Fund. “The Fish and Wildlife Service’s attempts to deny these animals much-needed federal protection betrays not only the letter of the law, but countless Americans who want to see wolves protected.”

Idaho and Montana also allow “reimbursements” to be paid to hunters and trappers for dead wolves.

In Wyoming wolves are designated as “predatory animals” and can be killed without a license.

Nick Gevock, northern Rockies campaign strategist for the Sierra Club, said wolf recovery is dependent on responsible management by the states and Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have shown “that they’re grossly unsuited to manage the species.”

“Judge Molloy’s ruling means now the Fish and Wildlife Service must go back to the drawing board to determine whether federal management is needed to ensure wolves survive and play their vital role in the ecosystem,” Gevock said.

In support of the USFWS, several hunting groups have already filed a notice of appeal of Molloy’s decision. The Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, Safari Club International and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation took the action Aug. 7.

“We had to appeal this decision,” said Michael Jean, litigation counsel for Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “This decision seems to hold that unless a species is not recovered across its entire historical range, then it has to stay listed, regardless of thriving populations. It’s difficult to see how the wolf, or other listed species, will ever be deemed recovered under that standard.”

Kyle Weaver, president and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, expressed frustration with the legal battles that affect state management of a species he said has recovered.

Population estimates from earlier this year indicated a minimum of 3,200 wolves in western states, with the species naturally expanding its range and increasing in number in California, Oregon and Washington and an intentional reintroduction increasing the wolf population in Colorado.

“This ruling is the latest string of nonstop litigation by environmental groups seeking to frustrate the original intent of the ESA, which is to recover endangered species and return them to state-based management, not keep them perpetually listed and under the authority of the federal government,” Weaver said. “Whether it’s the wolf or the grizzly bear, once an animal receives ESA protections, it becomes nearly impossible to remove them, even if populations meet recovery criteria over an extended period of time. The ESA needs an adjustment to renew its focus on real species recovery.”

Molloy’s ruling did not change the status of the gray wolf in western states; they retain state management authority over the species. However it did vacate the USFWS denial of the petition and the agency must now reconsider its response. The agency also has 60 days to appeal the decision.