Federal judge: Fish and Wildlife Service broke law in petition denial

POWELL —- Montana District Federal Judge Donald Molloy has ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service broke the law last year when it denied a petition to protect gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains under the Endangered Species Act and to take another look at whether Montana and Idaho can be trusted to manage wolves within their states’ borders. 

Now the Service will once again be required to investigate whether wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah are due federal protection. 

The authors of the petition, including Center for Biological Diversity, Humane World for Animals, Humane World Action Fund and the Sierra Club, filed suit in April last year claiming the Service “thumbed their nose” at the Endangered Species Act when they denied their 2021 petition. 

Molloy ruled the ESA requires the Service to consider the southern Rocky Mountains region and other portions of the wolves’ historic range. 

He also concluded that the agency unlawfully disregarded the potential importance of the wolf’s fledgling return to Colorado, through natural dispersal and historic reintroductions, when the agency denied the petition. 

“The Service failed to consider its historic range in its assessment of whether the Western [Distinct Population Segment] gray wolf population meets the definition of either “endangered” or “threatened” through “a significant portion of its range,” Molloy said. “It also made numerous unfounded assumptions regarding the future condition of the gray wolf despite recognizing either limitations on those conditions or bias in the population estimates utilized.” 

He ruled for the plaintiffs, saying the deficiencies are “serious and pervasive” and weighing in favor of vacating the portion of the 2024 finding that determined gray wolves in the Western United States do not meet the requirements of an endangered or threatened species under the ESA. He faulted the government for disregarding 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. 

Molloy also relisted grizzly bears in 2009, citing the loss of whitebark pines which have suffered widespread damage from forest fires and climate change as the reasons. 

The consequences of vacating the Service’s Western distinct population segment findings, because the gray wolf is not currently uniformly listed across the Western DPS and the agency’s decision did not alter the current status of the wolf, leaving the 2024 ruling in place, “provides no greater protection for the gray wolf than that which would exist if the findings were vacated.”

This decision does not alter existing protections for the gray wolf outside the northern Rocky Mountains, according to the ruling. 

Winning organizations spoke of hope, immediately claiming victory after the ruling was published. 

“With this court ruling comes the hope of true recovery for wolves across the West,” said Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The judge rightly found that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s unambitious view of recovery violates the Endangered Species Act. 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.” 

Kitty Block, president and CEO of Humane World for Animals, said the ruling “offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act.” 

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the petition submitted by the conservation groups was filed amid escalating hostility toward wolves in several northern Rockies states. 

“In Idaho, recent changes to state law allows the state to hire private contractors to kill wolves, lets hunters purchase unlimited wolf-killing tags and allows them to kill wolves by chasing them with hounds or all-terrain vehicles. Idaho and Montana allow bounties to be paid as “reimbursements” for dead wolves,” the Center wrote in a Tuesday press release.

In Montana, state law allows wolves to be killed by bait and strangulation snares and recently proposed regulations, if finalized, would allow a single hunter to kill 15 wolves and trap an additional 15.

In Wyoming, wolves are designated as “predatory animals” and can be killed without a license in nearly any manner at any time [outside of the state’s trophy zone which is just outside of the national parks]. 

“Hunters in Wyoming have killed several wolves just a few miles from the border with Colorado, where wolves are finally returning to the state through dispersals and restoration efforts,” the release 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,” said Nick Gevock, Sierra Club northern Rockies campaign strategist. 

The 2021 petition said one of the reasons the lawsuit was necessary was because “the states of Idaho and Montana have just passed legislation to drastically reduce their wolf populations. “Hunters, trappers and private contractors in Idaho can kill up to 90% of the state’s estimated 1,500 wolves, using new — and highly effective — methods of hunting that were previously unavailable,” the petition said. “In Montana, new rulemaking may pave the way for killing approximately 85% of the population, currently reported to be at 1,200 wolves.” 

Wyoming was omitted from the opening complaint in the petition. 

Last year the Fish and Wildlife Service pledged to develop a nationwide gray wolf recovery plan. It said the plan would be completed by the end of this year to “provide a vision for species recovery that is connected to site-specific actions for reducing threats and conserving listed species and their ecosystems.” 

“Recognizing that the national discussion around gray wolf management must look more comprehensively at conservation tools available to federal, state and tribal governments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced a path to support a long term and durable approach to the conservation of gray wolves, to include a process to develop — for the first time —– a National Recovery Plan under the Endangered Species Act for gray wolves in the lower 48 states,” the agency said in an early 2024 press release. 

The results of its efforts are in question now, as well as the timeline. The original deadline for the one-plan-fits-all was mid-December later this year. 

Critics of the rulings to relist the apex predators say Service directors appointed by both Democrats and Republicans have tried to have the gray wolf legally removed from the list of threatened and endangered species but were challenged with politically motivated lawsuits by “extremist organizations hoping to fundraise on keeping the species listed for an eternity,” as Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-Minn) said last year in a press release from her office. 

“State governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage gray wolf populations and are better able to meet the needs of local communities, ranchers, livestock and wildlife populations. We cannot let an activist judge thousands of miles away decide what is best ...,” she was quoted as saying in the release.

In some new attempts in fighting species listings, including other species of concern in Wyoming, legislators like Sen. Cynthia Lummis and Rep. Harriet Hageman are now adding specific language in wildlife bills that make decisions exempt from judicial review. 

The Service now has 60 days to appeal the decision.

This story was published on August 7, 2025.