Wolf lawsuit on Monday. By Cory Hatch. Jackson Hole News and Guide.
Eric Keszler, who speaks for Wyoming Game and Fish, says the following in the article above: “Keszler said the current [Wyoming] population can withstand the recent wolf shootings in Sublette County. He pointed out that roughly 90 percent of Wyoming’s wolves live in the trophy game area, and that Wyoming’s wolf population has continued to grow despite losing between 60 and 80 wolves per year due in control actions resulting from livestock depredations.”
Kesler’s remarks are not true when we consider last year. In the past Wyoming’s wolf population outside Yellowstone Park grew despite fairly heavy “control” killings. Last year, however, the wolf population in Wyoming barely grew, just 7%, because official and other killings were so high.
The non-national Park Wyoming wolf population (official count) follows.
2003 82 wolves
2004 101 wolves
2005 134 wolves
2006 175 wolves
2007 188 wolves
Comments
Doug,
Forum selection is a critical aspect of litigation. Although I do not know Judge Molloy, nor Judge Winmill, I am not certain that trail court selection was as important as circuit court selection. However, trail court selection could be important for an immediate injunction, which will likely be requested once the complaint is filed. Perhaps, Molloy will be more likely to issue an injunction requiring the states to suspend their current management plans.
Another factor that may have influenced the decision to file in Missoula is location. I believe that lead counsel in this case is Earthjustice’s Doug Honnold who is the managing attorney at the Northern Rockies office, which is located in Bozeman. I imagine that Doug and his staff have a budget for this case and do not want to allocate too much of that budget to travel expenses.
What I would be interested to know is how the division of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming between different districts and circuits will affect this case. Suppose that Judge Molloy grants a motion for a temporary injunction? Will that decision be binding in Idaho? In Wyoming? What happens if this case is heard by the Ninth Circuit? If the Ninth Circuit holds that the wolf’s delisting was contrary to the ESA is that holding binding in Wyoming?
In Idaho, which has the most wolves (700 in 2007 according to agency figures) of the three N Rockies states, the Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game has classed wolves as a big game animal and will manage them like black bear and mountain lion. This means a lengthy hunting season (September through December, or maybe even longer so “lion hunters” get to pursue and kill wolves during winter).
I hope Earthjustice can prevail. And if anyone knows how to convince the Idaho Dept of Fish & Game that wolves are different than black bears and mountain lions, have at it.
The latest March 2008 IDFG newsletter says: “SAME PHILOS0PHY IS USED IN MANAGING ALL HUNTED WILDLIFE SPECIES”. So, IDFG is lopping wolves with species like turkeys, elk, badgers, pronghorn, marmots, mountain goat, moose, squirrels, coyotes, fox, black bear and sage grouse?
The bottom line is that in order for an animal to have worth with Idaho decision makers — keeping in mind we are the most Republican “conservative” state in the nation — an animal has to be hunted and killed.
Have you been out in the field today Lynne??
Heather,
Yes, of course, every morning at daybreak. Some interesting observations that I’d best not go into here.
But, will say this. When I returned to the cabin, I soon heard a commotion outside. Opened cabin door. Wolf and coyote were having a vocal standoff out by the old barn. My dog, Bo, leaped passed me and raced toward wolf and coyote. All three canines disappeared over ridge. I started loading my shotgun in order to fire rounds into the air, so Bo – an abandoned mutt who must have once been shot at – would hear and return to cabin.
Bo came back before I had to fire off shotgun blasts. Then I heard the wolf and coyote having another round of wolf-coyote talk, then all was quiet. Skiied up to check out things and tracks said that wolf went one way, coyote another. Doggone, I wish Bo hadn’t chased away wolf and coyote. I’d liked to have watched them and maybe got a photo.
wow what an event. wish I could have that. I should move to the country… while there is something left to be watched.
I saw your photo from this blog on another blog… someone must have just cut and pasted. if you want to know where I’ll have to dig and remember where I saw that…
Mike says:
My understanding is that if Molloy grants a temporary injunction that decision would indeed hold in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. If the Ninth Circuit holds the delisting is contrary to the ESA that is indeed binding in Wyoming.
Problems that arise like is suggested happen when there are contrary decisions issued in different districts or circuits. The decision holds until losing party petitions for higher review, is granted such review, and then prevails with such review – unless petitioning party is able to demonstrate just cause for an injunction of lower decision. So, if Earthjustice, Defenders, NRDC, WWP, et al prevail on the merits of a 9th Circuit decision, Wyoming could use 10th Circuit decisions to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Basically, in Idaho, if Winmill issued a decision that could be perceived as contrary to an interpretation of law that Lodge issued (both same district decisions), that fact makes the decision ripe for review in the circuit court, but the decision holds across all of the land unless the higher court is willing to enjoin it, a willingness that must compelled by tests of harm to petitioning party.
So, let’s say Wyoming loses at the Ninth Circuit, but an existing decision out of the 10th Circuit compellingly suggests that Wyoming would have won in the 10th Circuit ~ Wyoming could use that discrepancy in petitioning for review at the Supreme Court.
BUT – the specific decision holds until the higher court issues an injunction, or the case is heard and decided at the higher court.
remember, this is a federal action to delist. If the delisting is enjoined, the feds decision to delist is gone – the decision affects the feds’ course, not the states. the federal agency can’t release management to Wyoming.
Brian I have a question for you I am hoping you can answer re: Wyoming Farm Bureau v Bruce Babbitt 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, filed 1/3/00. Do you know why plaintiffs like the WY Farm Bureau and Predator Project, Sinapu, and Gray Wolf Committee were joined together against Bruce Babbit, FWS? Was it judicial economy? Plaintiffs were against the reintroduction but for very different reasons….
yes heather they joined the plaintiffs suits under one umbrella as being against re-introduction. the different reasons as to why was not a determining factor
Thanks Jeff E but I am looking for more legal information besides judicial economy…. there must be something else.
Unfortunately, I think that was the beginning of the end of the success of recovery right there. Those reasons should have been 2 different lawsuits.
I wonder if the EarthJustice et al at the time had to give in in the end, just to get recovery on the table… and if that could have been bypassed somehow. Because now we are back where we started. No offense to anyone who worked on this, I am just stating what I think.
It almost seems as if the 9th circuit would be better than the 10th for the current suit.
I think it is in the Fed rules (regarding parties)book but I dont remember the number and how that rule applies.. anyway thanks for answering.
Heather,
i am unsure but will see if i can find any declarations or info tomorrow.
Will this affect all delistings?
This just in….
MONDAY
4/28/08
[color=blue]Earthjustice files its legal challenge to the wolf killing[/color]
Just moments ago, Earthjustice attorneys filed our case to stop the wolf slaughter in the northern Rockies.
And we aim to win!
Earthjustice has been called upon by a coalition of environmental and animal rights groups — including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Humane Society — to use our legal expertise to stop the killing now and compel the federal government to reinstate Endangered Species Act protections for wolves until true recovery is achieved.
As soon as the federal government officially delisted the northern Rockies gray wolf from Endangered Species protections, we filed a mandatory notice of intent to challenge the decision. Our notice went unanswered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Now it’s time for our day in court.
The USFWS failed to take into account basic principles of conservation biology, disregarded its own policies, and departed from past practice in delisting the wolf.
As we go to court today, Earthjustice will argue that the Service:
--used an outdated and biologically inadequate standard for determining the number of wolves that must be protected in order to maintain a genetically viable population;
--ignored the agency’s own requirement that wolves in the northern Rockies’ core recovery populations must be connected and interbreed before they can be deemed recovered; and
--failed to take into account that state laws that currently govern the fate of the wolves in the absence of federal protections allow unregulated wolf killing.
At this moment, at least 20 wolves have already been killed in the northern Rockies and around Yellowstone National Park.
Earthjustice is using all the legal tools at our disposal to stop this tragedy as quickly as possible. Now that the Service has issued its final decision, the courts are the best way to stop the slaughter and get adequate protections reinstated for the wolves.
Learn more about what we’re doing
http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/campaigns/wolf-delisting.html
to save these magnificent, iconic animals.