U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled on August 5 that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not “consider the best available science” in their February 2024 determination that wolves in the Northern Rockies did not warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act. The decision was made in response to a lawsuit brought by a coalition of environmental groups (including the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project and Animal Wellness Action) that argued that the Service failed to consider the “best available science” on wolf populations including regarding the full extent of the species’ historical range. In addition, they highlighted decisions made by the Idaho and Montana state legislature that liberalized methods of take with the overall intent to reduce the wolf populations. However, state intervenors argued that these actions did not eliminate state fish and wildlife agency management authority.

In his decision, Molloy wrote “Here, the Service failed to… consider historic range in its assessment of whether the Western DPS gray wolf population meets the definition of either ‘endangered’ or ‘threatened’ through ‘a significant portion of its range. 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. Because these deficiencies are serious and pervasive, they weigh in favor of vacating the portion of the 2024 Finding that determined that the gray wolf in the Western United States does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the ESA.”

With this argument, Molloy vacated and remanded part of the 2024 Finding sending it back to the FWS. However, his decision keeps in place the finding “that the Northern Rocky Mountains do not represent a valid DPS for gray wolves and that the Western United States is a valid DPS.” The judge’s decision does not change the status of wolves in the Northern Rockies, which remain under state management, but calls on FWS to revisit its 2024 ruling that denied relisting wolves.

A day after the court decision, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), Safari Club International, and the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation submitted their notice to appeal the decision. In a press release, RMEF noted that not counting pups born this spring, the minimum population of wolves in the West is at least 3,200, with growing populations and expanded ranges.

“This ruling is the latest string of nonstop litigation by environmental groups seeking to frustrate the original intent of the ESA, which is to recover endangered species and return them to state-based management, not keep them perpetually listed and under the authority of the federal government,” said RMEF President and CEO Kyle Weaver. “Whether it’s the wolf or the grizzly bear, once an animal receives ESA protections, it becomes nearly impossible to remove them, even if populations meet recovery criteria over an extended period of time. The ESA needs an adjustment to renew its focus on real species recovery.”