On August 5, the United States District Court for the District of Montana issued an order overturning a determination made by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) during the Biden administration that listing the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the western United States is not warranted and remanded the issue back to the Service for further consideration. The Service made the determination in response to two petitions to list separate wolf populations: one covering the Northern Rocky Mountains (the Northern Rocky Mountain population) and one covering the western United States (the Western population). The history of the wolf in the United States could be celebrated as a conservation success story in light of the substantial increase in the wild population and in its range over the last few decades. But environmental groups have consistently challenged delisting efforts.
In 1967, the Service listed two populations of wolves—the timber wolf in the northern Great Lakes and the red wolf in the Southeast—under the Endangered Species Preservation Act, the predecessor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). In 1978, the Service listed the entire population in the continental United States but differentiated between the population in Minnesota (listed as threatened) and all other populations (listed as endangered). At the time, the Service noted that the only major wolf population in the continental United States was in northern Minnesota with small numbers of wolves in remote areas of the Rocky Mountains and northern Michigan and Wisconsin and an "occasional wanderer" crossing from Mexico into the Southwest. By 2020, when the Service sought to delist the wolf other than the Mexican wolf population in the Southwest, the distribution and abundance of the species had increased significantly. The agency estimated at the time that in the Great Lakes region there were over 4,000 wolves and in the western United States there were over 2,000 wolves. Both of these metapopulations were connected with substantially larger wolf populations in Canada.
Against this backdrop, the Service responded to the two listing petitions that were the focus of this case. The Service concluded that the Northern Rocky Mountain population is not discrete from other wolves in the western United States and, therefore, is not a valid distinct population segment. (A distinct population segment, or DPS, is a population that is discrete from other populations of the species and significant in relation to the entire species.) On the other hand, the Service concluded that the Western population does qualify as a valid DPS but determined that the Western DPS is neither threatened nor endangered.
The district court held that the Service erred by failing to consider the entirety of the wolf's historical range when determining whether the population is in danger of extinction "in a significant portion of its range," as required under the ESA. The court also held that the Service erred by failing to use the best scientific and commercial data available in making its determination. For example, the court held that the Service improperly relied on population estimates provided by Idaho and Montana and failed to adequately respond to criticism of the methods used by the two states to arrive at those estimates. Finally, the court held that the Service failed to consider the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms in Idaho and Montana, and specifically, how negative public attitudes in those states would impact regulatory mechanisms to maintain minimum wolf populations.
On August 6, the defendant-intervenors in the case, a group of sport hunting organizations, filed a notice of appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It is a safe bet that, on appeal, the Trump administration will re-affirm the position taken by the Biden administration.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
