Judge rules Fish and Wildlife broke the law in denying wolves federal protections

MISSOULA, Mont. — A Montana federal judge has ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act when it removed protections from the gray wolf last year.

In a 105-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy vacated a prior finding by the agency that the Northern Rockies gray wolves were a valid "distinct population segment," whose populations had recovered so well that it no longer needed federal protection.

The Center for Biological Diversity and the Western Watersheds Project argued that the Fish and Wildlife Service had not considered a significant portion of the wolf's range, limiting the scope of its study to just the distinct population segment, or DPS; did not use the "best available science" to determine gray wolf population sizes, nor the impacts of human caused death; nor did it fully review the "inadequate regulatory mechanisms" that the states with wolf populations have in place.

"For the most part, the plaintiffs are correct," Molloy wrote. But, "the 2024 finding remains in place to the extent that it finds that the northern Rocky Mountains do not represent a valid DPS for gray wolves and that the western United States is a valid DPS; it is otherwise vacated."

That means the ruling does not restore protections for the wolves at the moment, and there will be no legal imperative for Montana, Idaho and Wyoming to change the way they are managing their wildlife populations in the short term. It does vacate the Fish and Wildlife Service's determination that the wolves do not need further protections and requires a follow-up review.

The federal agency now has to reevaluate the wolf's status and what is included within the wolf's distinct population segment, according to "best available science" and the "spirit of the ESA (Endangered Species Act)."

"Really boiled down to its essence, what Judge Molloy said is that the state management in Montana and Idaho of recent years is unacceptable and a serious threat to long-term wolf recovery and conservation," said Nick Gevock, the northern Rockies' campaign strategist for the Sierra Club.

"What the judge said is the larger picture here is that the state's actions jeopardize wolf recovery throughout the Rocky Mountain West."

Never-ending battle

The battle over how to coexist with wolves goes back hundreds of years, even thousands of years, depending on the continent in question. Wolves have been considered everything from pests to the foundations of civilization.

For many years in the United States, wolves were considered a scourge that threatened western expansion. Today, the pendulum of what to do with them swings widely between total conservation and state management.

In recent years, the legal fate of the wolves has been tumultuous.

In 2020, the Trump administration agreed to remove protections not for all gray wolves, but those that fit within the carved-out boundary of the North Rocky distinct population segment.

The following year, several conservation groups wrote and gathered 70 different nonprofits to sign a petition seeking to overturn the delisting of the population of wolves in Montana and Idaho.

After review, that petition was denied by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2024, which declined to make any changes to the 2020 decisions. Then, in response, the group of nonprofits from the lawsuit sued the agency at the end of last year.

What were the arguments to delist wolves?

Molloy wrote that because the distinct population segment boundaries are man-designated and do not take into account the natural boundaries of the wolves, wildlife managers would be in an endless state of protecting and not protecting the wolves.

"Wildlife management agencies are likely to find themselves in a catch-22 as they cannot escape from mutually conflicting dependent conditions: If the federal government succeeds in restoring the gray wolf, leading to delisting, then the state agency will predate the wolf, leading to relisting, engendering a fruitless cycle of delisting and relisting," Molloy wrote.

"Ultimately, management of Canis lupus must not be by a political yo-yo process. As the law intends, a science-based approach negates this management dilemma."

A defendant in the lawsuit, the Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation, has already appealed the decision.

It argues that there would be no way for species to ever be considered fully recovered if numbers from outside the scope considered were included in the full review.

"They asked FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) to use the wolf's recovery against it," Michael Jean, litigation counsel for the Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation, said in a statement. "They want to push the boundaries of the recovered population to include the areas where it is currently expanding to dilute the overall recovery."

"We had to appeal this decision," Jean said. "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."

Another named defendant was Safari Club International. In a joint statement given to Bloomberg, it wrote that "the court's ruling deserves appeal because it demonstrates significant bias against state management."

Molloy wrote that, "The ESA (Endangered Species Act) is not a routine solution for ruinous wildlife management. Here, the service has found that because the gray wolf population in the western United States has 'recovered' in the eyes of the ESA, it may now once again be reduced to the minimum number of animals required to avoid complete extirpation. The states are happy to oblige."

Referencing the 2,500 wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming — the area of the distinct population segment — the Safari Club pointed out that the numbers are far greater than the initial goals of 300 wolves stipulated in the Endangered Species Act.

What's next?

With the appeals pending and no requirement for the Fish and Wildlife Service to make any immediate changes to its wildlife management plans, the actual result of the ruling is yet to be seen.

While those who have successfully argued for removing Endangered Species Act protections from the wolf in the past prepare for future legal battles, conservationists see this ruling as a major victory.

"With this court ruling comes the hope of true recovery for wolves across the West," Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.

"The judge reasoned that the Fish and Wildlife Service's unambitious view of recovery conflicts with the Endangered Species Act. Recovery requires return to places like the vast southern Rockies, where wolves once lived and can return, as long as they have the life-saving protections of the Endangered Species Act."

Related topics