Judge denies Wyoming suit over wolf rules

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – A federal judge here has dismissed Wyoming’s lawsuit against the federal government over its decision to reject the state’s plan for managing the descendants of wolves reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park.

U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson denied the state’s claim that the federal government violated the Endangered Species Act in rejecting the plan. The act didn’t come into play because the rejection didn’t determine wolves’ status under the act, Johnson said in a ruling dated Friday.

“The federal defendants were not compelled by statute or regulation to approve the Wyoming plan, nor did the ‘best science available’ mandate attach to their decision-making process,” Johnson wrote.

Wyoming had wanted wolves considered a potential nuisance, allowing them to be shot with little oversight if they left the Yellowstone region.

Johnson said the Endangered Species Act’s requirements for scientific review only would come into play with delisting, or when wolves come up for status review under the act in 2008 – five years after they were downgraded in parts of the West from “endangered” to “threatened.”

Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank said Monday the state is reviewing its options, which include appeal, legislative action and filing a petition for delisting. He said he expected it would be a week or so before a final decision on the state’s next step was made.

Crank said the state was disappointed with Johnson’s ruling and dismissed the notion that federal officials had tried to work with the state to come up with a plan acceptable to both.

Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said he agreed with the judge’s decision.

“We do believe the wolf population is recovered. We do believe the best place for management is in the states’ hands and we will continue to work toward that,” he said.

Wyoming’s lawsuit made three claims. One was that the federal government relied more on “litigation risk management” and political concerns in rejecting Wyoming’s plan than on the best available science, as the Endangered Species Act requires.

The state also claimed that rejecting the state’s plan for managing the carnivores harmed livestock and other wildlife in violation of Interior Department rules and that the federal government had violated the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states powers that aren’t given to the federal government by the Constitution.

Johnson found against the state on all counts.

Johnson said Wyoming’s claims might have held up if the state had filed a petition to remove wolves from the Endangered Species Act. Attorneys for the state had said they didn’t seek delisting because they believed that the result – continued listing – was inevitable.

But Johnson said a delisting petition would have brought the Endangered Species Act into play, requiring the Interior Department to make decisions according to the “best available science” and to meet deadlines set by federal law.