Judge’s ruling suggests wolves may end up back on endangered list
The 13 conservation groups that sued over the delisting of the wolf in Idaho and Montana and sought to stop wolf hunting in the two states lost their bid for a preliminary injunction, but the judge's ruling suggests strongly that they could win their overall case - and wolves could be put back on the endangered species list. "This Order is not a final determination of any issue in the case," U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy wrote in today's ruling. "The Order only addresses the propriety of granting the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction. ... Because the absence of a ruling hangs like the Sword of Damocles, I am issuing this Order which will be followed by a fully reasoned decision on the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction."
The judge goes on to conclude, "Because there is insufficient proof of irreparable harm to the wolf population, as opposed to individual wolves, the request for a preliminary injunction is denied." Scientific proof submitted to the court shows the wolf population can withstand one or two years of hunting at the levels Idaho and Montana have identified, the judge wrote. But the larger issue in the case - whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can legally de-list the wolf in Idaho and Montana while leaving it still listed as endangered in Wyoming - suggests the conservation groups will prevail, the judge indicated.
"The Service cannot delist part of the species below the level of DPS (distinct population segment - in this case, the Northern Rockies) without running afoul of the clear language of the ESA," Molloy wrote. "Though the record here is incomplete, the earlier delisting case gives rise to an inference that the laudable efforts of the Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in a practical determination that does not seem to be scientifically based." He added, "Even if the Service was permitted to delist only a part of a DPS like it has done here, it cannot do so in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The Service has distingished a natural population of wolves based on a political line, not the best available science. That, by definition, seems arbitrary and capricious." You can read the judge's full ruling here.
