Wolf Downlisting Challenge

Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Norton


Case Background:

In July 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released a proposal to reduce protections for gray wolves by "downlisting" the wolf from "endangered" to "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) across much of the country, and eliminate federal protections completely in other areas. In response, more than 20,000 comments were submitted to the agency during the public comment period on this plan, a vast majority of which supported efforts to provide additional protections for wolves. Many of the people that commented, including Defenders of Wildlife, viewed the downlisting largely as a politically-based decision and noted that it was improper to claim that the species had made progress toward full recovery since gray wolves are currently found in only a handful of states.

Ignoring these comments, the service published the final plan in April 2003, which reduced protections for the species in Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, northern Utah and northern Colorado, despite the fact that wolves are not present in six of the nine states. In addition, in 21 states, ranging from the Dakotas east to New England, the service reduced protections for the species, even though wolves are only present in three of these states. The rule also delisted the wolf in fourteen southeastern states by claiming that the original listing was in error because that region was not part of the gray wolf’s historic range.

Case Description:

In October 2003, Defenders and 18 co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit arguing that the service’s decision to downlist the wolf was not based solely on the best available science, as required by the federal ESA.

On January 31, 2005, the court ruled for Defenders, specifically finding that the service’s actions were illegal because the agency reduced protections for wolves without determining that the species occupied all of the areas of its historic range that are required to ensure that the species will effectively recover. Moreover, the court also held that the service violated the ESA by reducing protections without first addressing the threats that might still exist against the wolf -- such as habitat loss, disease or predation, overuse for scientific or commercial purposes, and whether there are other regulations in place to protect wolves if federal protections are reduced or eliminated. As a result of these failures the court rejected the rule, returning the full protections of the ESA to the species. Therefore, the gray wolf will remain classified as an endangered species throughout most of the United States.

Through this litigation, Defenders again successfully blocked an attempt by the Bush administration to deprive a critically imperiled species the protection it needs as it struggles to return from the brink of extinction.  As a result of the court’s decision, the service will be required to follow the ESA’s guidelines in any future attempts to downlist the gray wolf, ensuring that the species is no longer facing extinction throughout its historic range. Furthermore, this ruling should send a message to states where wolves could disperse that appropriate wolf management plans will play a key role in the service’s future evaluation of the threats facing wolf populations in the absence of federal protections.

Related Documents:

Status:


Victory - 01/31/2005

Co-filers:


American Lands Alliance, Animal Protection Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of Animals and Their Environment (FATE), Forest Watch, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Help Our Wolves Live (HOWL), The Humane Society of the United States, Indigenous Environmental Network, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Minnesota Wolf Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), RESTORE: The North Woods, Sinapu, and the Wildlands Project