SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gray wolves
Judge Rules Rocky Mountain Wolves Wrongly Denied Endangered Species Protections
One advocate said the ruling "offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act."
Aug 05, 2025
Conservationists cautiously celebrated a U.S. judge's Tuesday ruling that the federal government must reconsider its refusal to grant protections for gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains, as killing regimes in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming put the species at risk.
Former President Joe Biden's administration determined last year that Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for the region's wolves were "not warranted," sparking multiple lawsuits from coalitions of conservation groups. The cases were consolidated and considered by Montana-based District Judge Donald Molloy, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.
As the judge detailed in his 105-page decision, the advocacy groups argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) failed to consider a "significant portion" of the gray wolf's range, the "best available science" on their populations and the impact of humans killing them, and the true threat to the species. He also wrote that "for the most part, the plaintiffs are correct."
Matthew Bishop, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC), which represented one of the coalitions, said in a statement that "the Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the best available science, and that requirement is what won the day for wolves in this case."
"Wolves have yet to recover across the West, and allowing a few states to undertake aggressive wolf-killing regimes is inconsistent with the law," Bishop continued. "We hope this decision will encourage the service to undertake a holistic approach to wolf recovery in the West."
Coalition members similarly welcomed Molloy's decision as "an important step toward finally ending the horrific and brutal war on wolves that the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have waged in recent years," in the words of George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch.
Predator Defense executive director Brooks Fahy said that "today's ruling is an incredible victory for wolves. At a time where their numbers are being driven down to near extinction levels, this decision is a vital lifeline."
Patrick Kelly, Montana director for Western Watersheds Project, pointed out that "with Montana set to approve a 500 wolf kill quota at the end of August, this decision could not have come at a better time. Wolves may now have a real shot at meaningful recovery."
Breaking news! A federal judge in Missoula ruled USFWS broke the law when it denied protections for gray wolves in the western U.S. The agency must now reconsider using the best available science. A major step forward for wolf recovery.Read more: 🔗 wildearthguardians.org/press-releas...
[image or embed]
— Wolf Conservation Center 🐺 (@nywolforg.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 3:30 PM
Sierra Club northern Rockies campaign strategist Nick Gevock said that "wolf recovery is dependent on responsible management by the states, and Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have shown that they're grossly unsuited to manage the species."
Gevock's group is part of a coalition represented by the Center for Biological Diversity and Humane World for Animals, formerly called the Humane Society of the United States. Kitty Block, president and CEO of the latter, said Tuesday that "wolves are deeply intelligent, social animals who play an irreplaceable role in the ecosystems they call home."
"Today's ruling offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act," Block stressed. "These animals deserve protection, not abandonment, as they fight to return to the landscapes they once roamed freely.
While "Judge Molloy's ruling means now the Fish and Wildlife Service must go back to the drawing board to determine whether federal management is needed to ensure wolves survive and play their vital role in the ecosystem," as Gevock put it, the agency may also appeal his decision.
The original rejection came under Biden, but the reconsideration will occur under President Donald Trump, whose first administration was hostile to the ESA in general and wolves in particular. The current administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have signaled in recent months that they intend to maintain that posture.
WELC highlighted Tuesday that Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) "introduced H.R. 845 to strip ESA protections from gray wolves across the Lower 48. If passed, this bill would congressionally delist all gray wolves in the Lower 48 the same way wolves in the northern Rockies were congressionally delisted in 2011, handing management authority over to states."
Emphasizing what that would mean for the species, WELC added that "regulations in Montana, for example, allow hunters and trappers to kill several hundred wolves per year—with another 500-wolf quota proposed this year—with bait, traps, snares, night hunting, infrared and thermal imagery scopes, and artificial light."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Conservationists Sound Alarm as Republicans Take Aim at Endangered Species Act
"We are in a biodiversity crisis, and Congress is playing with fire," warned one wildlife defender. "These bills would accelerate extinction at a time when we can least afford it."
Mar 25, 2025
Green groups warned this week that a pair of Republican-led bills in the U.S. House of Representatives, including proposals to amend the Endangered Species Act and strip gray wolves of ESA protection, would, as Sierra Club said, "radically undercut the ability of the federal government to protect imperiled wildlife."
On Tuesday, the Republican-led House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries held legislative hearings on four bills, two of which involve the ESA.
Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) said his ESA Amendments Act of 2025—which aims to streamline regulatory and permitting processes—is needed because "the Endangered Species Act has consistently failed to achieve its intended goals and has been warped by decades of radical environmental litigation into a weapon instead of a tool."
However, Sierra Club said Monday that the bill would "amend the ESA beyond recognition."
Congress is trying to kill the Endangered Species Act. New bill would amend iconic law's ability to protect wildlife. Today, a House committee held a hearing on a bill that would drastically limit the Endangered Species Act's ability to protect our country's imperiled wildlife.
[image or embed]
— Sierra Club (@sierraclub.org) March 25, 2025 at 10:44 AM
Earthjustice warned Tuesday that the legislation "would gut the critical protections that the ESA provides for thousands of imperiled species, upend the scientific consultation process (which has been the cornerstone of American species protection for 50 years), slow listings to a crawl while fast-tracking delistings, and allow much more exploitation of threatened species and shift their management out of federal hands to the states, even while they are still nationally listed."
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said that the second bill, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025—which she introduced in January with Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.)—would "remove the ability of progressive judges to get in the way of science and allow states to set their own rules and regulations for managing their gray wolf population" by delisting the species from the ESA within 60 days and prohibiting judicial review of the action.
During his first administration, U.S. President Donald Trumpdelisted gray wolves from the ESA across most of the country, a move that was reversed by a federal judge in 2022.
Defenders of Wildlife senior attorney Ellen Richmond said Monday that "this bill is deceptively named and if enacted will directly undermine our nation's landmark conservation laws."
"Wolves play important roles in maintaining healthy ecosystems, and cutting short their recovery not only harms the species but also the incredible landscapes we all love," Richmond added.
Josh Osher, public policy director for Western Watersheds Project, said Tuesday: "We are in a biodiversity crisis, and Congress is playing with fire. These bills would accelerate extinction at a time when we can least afford it."
"The Endangered Species Act isn't just about saving wolves, grizzlies, or sea turtles—it's about protecting the ecosystems that sustain us all," Osher added. "Weakening these protections pushes our planet further into collapse. Congress must open its eyes and reject these reckless attacks before it's too late."
On Monday, dozens of green groups sent a letter to senior lawmakers on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries Subcommittee urging them to reject the two bills, arguing they would "dramatically weaken the ESA and make it harder, if not impossible, to achieve the progress we must make to address the alarming rate of extinction our planet now faces."
The two bills come amid wider Republican attacks on the ESA by members of Congress and the Trump administration, including Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. In a bid to boost logging on public lands, Trump is planning to establish a so-called "God Squad" committee that could veto ESA protections. DOGE, meanwhile, has fired hundreds of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees while ordering a hiring freeze on seasonal workers tasked with species protection.
"The Endangered Species Act is one of the country's most popular and successful conservation laws, and Donald Trump wants to throw it in the garbage to pad the bottom lines of his corporate supporters," Sierra Club deputy legislative director for wildlife and lands protection Bradley Williams said on Monday. "Since day one of his administration, Trump has shown again and again that he wants to hand over control of our public lands and waters to billionaires and corporations. Imperiled wildlife will suffer the consequences."
"For more than 50 years, the United States has made amazing progress bringing species back from the brink of extinction," Williams added. "It's because of the ESA that species like the grizzly bear and bald eagle are living symbols of America and not just photos in a history book. If Trump and his allies in Congress get their way, that progress won't just come to a screeching halt—it could be completely reversed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Helps Explain How Wolf Removal Can 'Unravel' Key Ecological Systems
The lead author expressed hope that the research "will be of use to both conservation organizations and government agencies" amid a legal battle over protections for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains.
Jun 20, 2024
As U.S. conservationists continue to fight for federal protections that would cover gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains, research released Wednesday highlights just how important the apex predators are to the western United States.
The study was published in the journal BioScience and led by William Ripple, a scientist at Oregon State University (OSU) and the Conservation Biology Institute known for his work on trophic cascades and carnivores as well as his demands for climate action.
The paper uses gray wolves to show the trouble with "shifting baselines," which, "in ecology encapsulate the gradual and often unnoticed alterations in ecosystems over time, leading to a redefinition of what is considered normal or baseline conditions."
As the study details:
Gray wolves (Canis lupus) in North America have experienced a substantial contraction of their historical range, at one point almost disappearing from the contiguous 48 United States. However, their conservation is important in part because of the potential cascading effects wolves can have on lower trophic levels. Namely, the proliferation and changes to behavior and density of large herbivores following the extirpation or displacement of wolves can have major effects on various aspects of vegetation structure, succession, productivity, species composition, and diversity, which, in turn, can have implications for overall biodiversity and the quality of habitat for other wildlife.
"By the 1930s, wolves were largely absent from the American West, including its national parks," Ripple said in a statement. "Most published ecological research from this region occurred after the extirpation of wolves."
"This situation underscores the potential impact of shifting baselines on our understanding of plant community succession, animal community dynamics, and ecosystem functions," he continued.
The researchers examined journal articles, master's theses, and Ph.D. dissertations from 1955 to 2021 that involved field work in national parks in the northwestern United States for whether they included information on the removal of gray wolves.
They found that "in total, approximately 41% (39 of 96) of the publications mentioned or discussed the historical presence of wolves or large carnivores, but most (approximately 59%) did not. The results for the theses and journal articles were similar."
While the researchers focused on wolves, Robert Beschta, co-author and emeritus professor at OSU, noted that "in addition to the loss or displacement of large predators, there may be other potential anthropogenic legacies within national parks that should be considered, including fire suppression, invasion by exotic plants and animals, and overgrazing by livestock."
Ripple stressed that "studying altered ecosystems without recognizing how or why the system has changed over time since the absence of a large predator could have serious implications for wildlife management, biodiversity conservation, and ecosystem restoration."
"We hope our study will be of use to both conservation organizations and government agencies in identifying ecosystem management goals," he added.
"Nature is a really complex tapestry... When you start to pull threads out like you remove apex predators, the whole thing begins to unravel."
Amaroq Weiss, senior wolf advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), welcomed the study, telling Inside Climate News that "I think this is a really important paper, because sometimes science advances at a certain rate without a self-introspection."
"Nature is a really complex tapestry," she said. "It's woven together by threads that hold it together and keep it strong. When you start to pull threads out like you remove apex predators, the whole thing begins to unravel."
The paper comes amid a wolf conservation battle that involves Weiss' group. In February, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that Endangered Species Act protections for the wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains were "not warranted."
Two coalitions of conservation organizations, including CBD, swiftly filed notices of their intent to sue over the decision if FWS didn't change course. After the legally required 60-day notice period passed, they filed the lawsuits in April.
Earlier this week, "the cases were voluntarily dismissed and immediately refiled to avoid any potential arguments from the defendants that the plaintiffs failed to give the secretary of the interior proper 60-days' notice under the Endangered Species Act," Collette Adkins, an attorney who leads CBD's Carnivore Conservation program, told Common Dreams in an email Thursday.
"Plaintiffs believe that their case was properly noticed," she said, "but we refiled to avoid any further disruption of the proceedings."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular