Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell: Wyoming Wolves Receive a Warranted Reprieve-But for How Long?

• Date: 01 May 2015

5-2015 NEWS & ANALYSIS 45 ELR 10447

Defenders of

Wildlife v. Jewell:

Wyoming Wolves

Receive a

Warranted

Reprieve—But

for How Long?

by Edward A. Fitzgerald

Edward A. Fitzgerald is a professor of political

science at Wright State University.



In September 2014, a federal district court invalidated

a U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) regulation

delisting wolves in Wyoming. is Article details

the background and history of that litigation, argu-

ing that the court correctly rejected DOI’s conclu-

sion that Wyoming had adequately explained how the

promised wolf population buer would be managed,

and correctly supported DOI’s conclusion that there

is sucient genetic connectivity among wolf popula-

tions in the Northern Rocky Mountains. e court

was mistaken, however, in upholding DOI’s nding

that Wyoming areas outside federal lands and the

state “trophy game” area do not constitute a signi-

cant portion of the wolf ’s range. Defenders of Wildlife

v. Jewell and related federal court decisions have gen-

erated congressional and executive reactions.

I. Introduction

e reintroduction and recovery of the gray wolf in t he

Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) under the Endan-

gered Species Act (ESA)1 has been controversial.2 L ive-

stock and hunting industries, western state and local

governments, and environmental groups have challenged

the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) implemen-

tation of the ESA through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), which is the agency in DOI responsible

for managing endangered and threatened species. Federal

courts have been called upon to dene the statutory man-

dates and decide whether DOI complied with the law.

One of the central issues in the NRM wolf litigation

has been DOI’s approval or rejection of various Wyoming

wolf management plans from 2004-2014. ese issues

were most recently addressed in Defenders of Wildlife v.

Jewell,3 which invalidated DOI’s regulation delisting Wyo-

ming’s gray wolves as an endangered species, and which

this Article analyzes in detail. Responding to the court’s

decision, the U.S. Congress is considering delisting Wyo-

ming’s wolves and amending the ESA. e Barack Obama

Administration has also proposed delisting the wolf across

much of the United States.

II. Background on Wyoming’s Wolf

Management and DOI’s Role

A. Wolves in Wyoming

Wyoming has str uggled to ma nage wolves in the state. In

2003, it pa ssed a law that treated wolves, once delisted,

as “trophy game” in Yellowstone National Park, Grand

Teton National Park, J.D. Roc kefeller Park way, and U.S.

Forest Service wilderness areas. A trophy ga me designa-

tion allows state a gencies to regulate the method, season,

and number of wolves taken. Most of the named area wa s

useless to wolves because of unsuitable habitat, including

factors such as high elevation, deep snow, and low ungu-

late productivity. Under the state law, wolves in other

parts of Wyoming would only be considered trophy game

if there were fewer than seven pack s outside of national

parks and fewer than 15 pack s in the entire state. Oth-

erwise, wolves outside federal land would be designated

as predators a nd could be taken anywhere without limit

by any means without a license. is posed a signi cant

risk to many packs south and east of Yellowstone, which

1. 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544, ELR S. ESA §§2-18.

2. , Edward A. Fitzgerald, Delisting Wolves in the Northern Rocky Moun

tains: Congress Cries Wolf, 41 ELR 10840 (Sept. 2011); see generally E

A. F, W, C,  P P: T C 

 N R   N R M (2015).

3. No. 12-1833 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2014).

Copyright © 2015 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.