print page | send as email | email editor

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used disingenuous arguments and clever wording to justify delisting gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains, according to a federal judge who granted a preliminary injunction that reinstated protections for wolves Friday.

In his 40-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy, of Montana, said Fish and Wildlife officials “flip-flopped” on problems they found with Wyoming’s wolf management plan, including the state’s predator area. Molloy also said Fish and Wildlife ignored its own guidelines when it delisted wolves without evidence of genetic exchange between populations in Greater Yellowstone, central Idaho and northwestern Montana.

The legal imbroglio comes as no surprise to state wildlife managers, federal officials, and sportsmen groups in favor of the delisting. Officials with one group, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said they would likely appeal to stop the injunction.

Molloy’s decision comes after the wolf delisting went into effect in late March. Since then, 123 wolves have died in the three states, most as a result of management removals and hunting. There are currently about 1,500 wolves in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, well over the original recovery goal of 300 animals set in 1994.

Molloy’s injunction means the three states can no longer plan for wolf hunting seasons this fall. Further, hunters are not allowed to kill any more wolves in Wyoming’s predator area.

In his decision, Molloy said the 12 conservation groups  that filed for the injunction – including Defenders of Wildlife, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance – have a strong case for a permanent injunction.

“In my view, plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the majority of the claims relied upon in their request for a preliminary injunction,” Molloy said, referring to a shift in Fish and Wildlife policy with regard to the lack of genetic interchange between populations and the flaws with Wyoming’s management plan. “In both instances, the Fish and Wildlife Service altered its earlier position without providing a reasoned decision for the change.”

Malloy also said the states’ proposals for hunting and liberal defense of property laws would allow too many wolves to die while the conservationists actual lawsuit is being heard if an injunction were not enacted.

More wolves will be killed under state management than were killed when Endangered Species Act protections were in place, he said. “Idaho, Montana and Wyoming each have public wolf hunts scheduled for this fall.

“Additionally, the states’ defense of property laws permit the killing of wolves in more circumstances than defense of property regulations under the [Endangered Species Act],” Molloy continued. “The killing of wolves during the pendency of this lawsuit will further reduce opportunities for genetic exchange among subpopulations. Genetic exchange that did not take place between larger subpopulations under ESA protections is not likely to occur with fewer wolves under state management. Absent genetic exchange, the viability of the wolf will be threatened by future environmental variability and stochastic events.”

Molloy spent a lot of time discussing the lack of connectivity between the three populations of wolves and its effects on genetic diversity, citing a 2007 study of wolf genetics in Yellowstone National Park.

In the 1994 environmental impact statement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified specific recovery criteria of “thirty or more breeding pairs comprising some 300-plus wolves in a metapopulation ... with genetic exchange between subpopulations,” Molloy said. “Plaintiffs point to a 2007 genetics study commissioned by the Fish and Wildlife Service ... that confirmed a metapopulation does not yet exist because wolves in Yellowstone National Park have remained genetically isolated from wolves in the northwestern Montana and central Idaho recovery areas.”

The study suggested that, without an influx of new genes, the population will demonstrate substantial inbreeding effects within 60 years, Molloy continued. “Nevertheless, the service now takes the position that documented proof of DNA exchange is not required. ... The Fish and Wildlife Service’s assertion that the 1994 EIS requires only the potential for genetic exchange, not actual genetic exchange, is disingenuous.”

Molloy also took Fish and Wildlife to task for accepting Wyoming’s management plan in 2007 after rejecting a similar plan in 2003. Molloy pointed to the plaintiffs’ arguments that “the service rejected Wyoming’s earlier 2003 wolf management plan because, among other things, (1) the plan failed to clearly commit to managing for at least 15 wolf packs in Wyoming; and (2) the predatory status of wolves under the plan did not  provide sufficient management controls to assure the service that the wolf population [would] remain above recovery levels.”

Molloy said the plaintiffs would likely “succeed on this claim as well.”

The service’s contention that the 2007 plan corrects this deficiency by clearly committing the state of Wyoming to manage for 15 breeding pairs is “once again disingenuous,” Molloy continued. There is “nothing clear” about Wyoming’s commitment to maintaining 15 breeding pairs in its geographical area, he said.

Molloy pointed to sections of the plan on the protection of big game and the protection of livestock that seem to contradict the commitment. Molloy also implied that the state is relying too much on Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks to maintain eight of the 15 breeding pairs in Wyoming.

It was precisely this reliance on national parks that was previously rejected by the service as unrealistic, he said.

Fish and Wildlife “compromised its earlier thinking” by accepting a predator area in Wyoming that covers roughly 90 percent of the state, Molloy also said. The trophy game boundary in the northwest corner of the state is “malleable” and “problematic,” he said.

“At oral argument, the service clarified that the trophy game area is ‘fixed, but not permanent,’” Molloy said. “Clever wording aside, it is clear that Wyoming law permits the Wyoming Fish and Wildlife Commission [sic] to alter the parameters of the trophy game area.”

Molloy also said Wyoming’s plan provides less protection for wolves in livestock and big game conflicts than the 10(j) rule under the Endangered Species Act.

“Wyoming law does not limit its reach to wolves that are attacking or harassing persons, livestock or domestic animals,” he said. “Instead, it reaches wolves that are, in someone’s subjective view, damaging property.”

The preliminary injunction is a “stunning victory for wolves and science,” said Louisa Willcox, spokeswoman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Willcox said environmental groups have raised similar issues about connectivity and its effects on genetics among populations of grizzly bears in the Rockies in another lawsuit before Molloy. “This is a very significant decision, not just for wolves, but it also has implications for the grizzly bear case too,” she said.

“Recovering wolves in the Northern Rockies is fundamentally achievable,” she continued. “We are close to number that could be considered recovered, but not if the states take a large step backwards and kill hundreds and hundreds of wolves.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf recovery coordinator Ed Bangs said the injunction is disappointing. “We thought the science was pretty clear,” he said.

Bangs said Molloy’s contention that there is not enough genetic diversity among populations was particularly surprising and said Fish and Wildlife documents will vindicate the decision.

“It’s clear that we carefully considered that,” he said. “He, I think, confused a study in Yellowstone National Park with the larger wolf conservation issues in the Greater Yellowstone area.”

As for Wyoming’s plan, Bangs said, “Everybody knows Wyoming was the weak link from day one.” But he called the plan “biologically and scientifically sound.”

Bob Wharff, executive director of Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said his group will likely sue over the injunction. In the meantime, he said he is encouraging his members to refrain from killing wolves out of frustration over the decision.

“I can’t condone the ‘shoot, shovel and shut up’ mentality,” he said. “Even if we don’t agree with the law, we have to find ways to operate within the law.”

“I’ve talked to guys and they’re very angry,” Wharff said. “We worked hard to make sure that we conformed within the rules and regulations and had a plan that basically protected the sportsmen who live in this state and the people who live here. To have one individual pull the plug is frustrating.”

“It’s hard not to feel like the process isn’t fair,” Wharff continued.  Molloy “chose to believe the scientists on the other side of the aisle that said we need more wolves. What I’m fearful of is that this is going to cause people to lose faith in our system.”

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal said he was disappointed in the decision.

“I am not surprised, given the judge’s previous comments,” he said. “but I’m confident that the attorney general will continue to litigate on the state’s behalf.”