By Tanya Mulford

In a resounding victory for the Endangered Species Act and gray wolf recovery, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Jones of Oregon ruled that the Bush Administration could not reduce federal protections under the ESA for gray wolves in large portions of the eastern and western United States. 

The 35-page ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of 19 conservation and animal protection groups (including The Humane Society of the United States, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Biological Diversity) against the U.S. Department of the Interior. The lawsuit challenged the Final Rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency within the Interior Department, which reclassified or "downlisted" most of the continental U.S. population of gray wolves from endangered to threatened. The reclassification, which went into effect on April 1, 2004, reduced federal protections for wolves and authorized more opportunities for lethal control of wolves by private citizens.

In downlisting the majority of gray wolves in the lower 48 states, the USFWS argued that the gray wolf, whose numbers have dropped from hundreds of thousands to an estimated 3,700, had rebounded from near extinction sufficiently to warrant more "flexible" (i.e. more lethal) management. This premature downlisting was the first step towards "delisting" or eliminating all federal protections under the ESA for the gray wolf; in fact, the USFWS has already released its delisting proposal for wolves in the eastern United States. The judge's ruling has made it more difficult for the federal agency to attempt to delist these wolves now.

Members of the coalition were jubilant about Jones' ruling. "It's a great victory for wolf populations within the United States, as well as for other endangered species that are currently listed under the ESA and struggling to make a recovery," said Patricia Lane, senior attorney in the Animal Protection Litigation Section of The HSUS.

The Renewed Spirit of the ESA

The coalition's attorneys successfully argued that USFWS's reclassification violated the spirit of the ESA, whose overriding goal is the preservation and promotion of endangered and threatened species and habitats on which these species depend for their survival.

A species is "endangered" if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; it is considered "threatened" if the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. While the main purpose of the ESA is to promote the recovery of both endangered and threatened species, the level of protection offered the species varies, with a much greater protection offered the endangered species as opposed to a threatened species. The classification of a species is, therefore, critical, and the science behind that classification must be valid.

Judge Jones agreed with the plaintiffs that the USFWS's science had been anything but accurate. His ruling stated, "[t]he Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because USFWS downlisted major geographic areas without assessing the threats to the wolf by applying the statutorily mandated listing factors." The judge went on to note that the downlisting was significant because, "a threatened species receives substantially less protection than an endangered species" and that, by downlisting the wolf, the USFWS was able to implement special rules allowing for "takes" (including killing) of wolves under certain circumstances by landowners and by livestock producers leasing public lands. Jones wrote that prohibiting the downlisting was "necessary because the [special] rules in the Final Rule permit lethal and non-lethal harm to the gray wolf. The death or injury of endangered wolves due to the [special] rules is irreparable injury."

HSUS legal staff interpret the ruling to mean that wolves who had been previously classified as "endangered" before the enactment of the special rule are now once again considered "endangered," and are afforded the greater protection under the ESA. Management of wolves in the United States had been affected by the reclassification Final Rule; their full protection under the ESA has been restored by this week's ruling. 

Certain wolves were not affected by USFWS's reclassification, and are not affected by the ruling; the wolves not affected include those in Minnesota and wolves deriving from the wolf reintroduction areas of the Northern Rockies. The red wolf is a separate species listed as endangered, and is not affected by the Final Rule or the court's ruling.  

The Opposition: The Gloves Are Off

The USFWS released a terse statement in response to Jones' decision, declaring itself "disappointed with the court's ruling," defending the science behind downlisting, and stating that it was "studying the court's opinion and working with the attorneys at the Department of Justice to&determine our future course of action." The USFWS wolf recovery coordinator for the Northern Rockies, Ed Bangs, sounded a hollow note of calm: "It's premature to push the panic button&Let's give this a little bit of time."

But some pro-downlisting parties have already responded to the ruling with fighting words. Colorado Woolgrowers Association Executive Director Bonnie Klein told the press that Jones had administered "a stab in the back," and declared her "willingness to work together and be proactive and work outside the box has just plummeted to zero because of this."

Former president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association Sharon Beck blamed Jones for making law-breakers of those ranchers who are intolerant of wolves, because she claimed the ranchers would continue to kill wolves on the sly, a practice known as "shoot, shovel and shut-up." Killing an endangered species can bring on a fine of $100,000. (Incidentally, some wolf advocates marveled at Beck's audacity in speaking for law-abiding farmers and ranchers, many of whom are tolerant of wolves and other native wildlife.)

The Slow Return of the Gray Wolf

The gray wolf, which once called much of the United States home, was nearly exterminated by the 20th Century, primarily as a result of government-sponsored eradication programs. The species received protection under the ESA in 1973, and is still crawling back from the brink. After 30 years of protection, the gray wolf remains absent or exceedingly rare throughout most of its historical range, even in areas where suitable habitat exists. 

"Even in those 'core' areas where wolves have begun to make a comeback, they continue to face threats to their survival, primarily because of the extreme negative attitudes of some people residing in current wolf range," notes HSUS Wildlife Scientist Bette Stallman. Those attitudes have been reflected in the state wolf management plans that will guide wolf management after the animals are delisted. Most plans drafted to date include provisions for recreational hunting and trapping of wolves, as well as unnecessarily liberal lethal control to address conflicts.

For this reason, protection under the ESA continues to be essential to the survival of the gray wolf in the United States.

Tanya Mulford is the web editor for The HSUS's Wildlife and Habitat Protection section.