Groups Bring Lawsuit To Restore ESA Protections For Wolves

A lawsuit was filed Thursday in a bid to reverse the Trump administration's decision to remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in the 48 contiguous states.

The groups that brought the action -- Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association, Oregon Wild, and the Humane Society of the United States -- maintain the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made its delisting decision "despite the science that concludes wolves are still functionally extinct in the vast majority of their former range across the continental United States."

The delisting was made in October, when Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said "the gray wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery. Today’s announcement simply reflects the determination that this species is neither a threatened nor endangered species based on the specific factors Congress has laid out in the law.”

But the groups that brought the lawsuit (attached below) in the U.S. District Court for Northern California said wolves are far from recovered in the country.

“This is no ‘Mission Accomplished’ moment for wolf recovery,” said Kristen Boyles, an attorney for Earthjustice, which brought the lawsuit. “Wolves are only starting to get a toehold in places like Northern California and the Pacific Northwest, and wolves need federal protection to explore habitat in the Southern Rockies and the Northeast. This delisting decision is what happens when bad science drives bad policy.”

When he announced the removal of wolves from the ESA list, Bernhardt said state and tribal wildlife management agencies would assume responsibility for managing gray wolves in states with gray wolf populations, while the Fish and Wildlife Service monitors the species for five years to ensure the recovery stands. According to Interior, there are more than 6,000 wolves in the lower 48, "greatly exceeding the combined recovery goals for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Western Great Lakes populations."

“The delisting we've challenged today represents the latest chapter in the sad saga of the Fish and Wildlife Service's failure to do its duty to protect and ensure the recovery of wolves under the Endangered Species Act,” countered Nicholas Arrivo, managing attorney for the Humane Society of the United States. “We're confident that the court will strike down this illegal decision and restore the federal protections needed to give America's wolves a genuine opportunity to recover.”

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s decision to remove Endangered Species Act protection from gray wolves in the lower 48 states threatens populations just beginning to make a comeback in national parks,” added Bart Melton, wildlife program director for the National Parks Conservation Association. “After decades of absence, gray wolves are starting to re-inhabit park landscapes in Oregon, Washington, California and Colorado. However, these populations are far from recovered. Rather than working alongside communities to support the return of wolves, the administration unlawfully said, ‘good enough’ and removed ESA protections. We are hopeful the court will reinstate these protections."

Once found nationwide, gray wolves were hunted, trapped, and poisoned for decades; by 1967 there were fewer than 1,000 wolves in one isolated part of the upper Midwest, according to the Center for Biological Diversity. The Fish and Wildlife Service protected gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act in 1978. Today there are recovering wolf populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho; wolves have begun to inhabit Washington, Oregon and California; and unclaimed wolf habitat remains in states like Maine, Colorado and Utah.

Last year, according to the groups trying to reverse the Fish and Wildlife's decision, 1.8 million Americans submitted comments opposing this delisting. Additionally, 86 members of Congress (in both the House and Senate), 100 scientists, 230 businesses and 367 veterinary professionals all submitted letters opposing the wolf delisting plan. Even the scientific peer reviews commissioned by the Fish and Wildlife Service itself found that the agency’s proposal ignored science and appeared to come to a predetermined conclusion, with inadequate scientific support.