Some of us are the kind of people who would unironically order that Three Wolf Moon tee from back in the day. For you guys, we’re celebrating a legal victory. A Montana federal court just handed a partial win to conservationists challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s refusal to relist gray wolves as endangered across much of the Western United States.
Montana's Big, Bad Past
Once upon a time, gray wolves roamed freely across the state’s forests and mountains, with many in Montana. But as settlers moved in and livestock became big business, the relationship soured fast.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, when settlers were carving out ranches across the state, wolves got a reputation as Public Enemy Number One for anyone with a herd to protect. Wolves are predators, after all, and cattle and sheep are basically an all-you-can-eat buffet if you’re a hungry carnivore. So, ranchers (with plenty of encouragement from government bounties) trapped, poisoned, and shot the majestic creatures. By the early 20th century, there were hardly any wolves left.
But then came the age of ecological enlightenment, which brought a change of heart even toward wolves. The passing of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) played a big role, basically giving wolves a legal shield and making it a federal priority to bring them back. This wasn’t just a pipe dream cooked up by armchair conservationists. It was a full-on, boots-in-the-mud operation led by biologists, park rangers, and wildlife managers who were determined to see wolves running wild again. The plan was to trap wild gray wolves up in Alberta and British Columbia, load them into crates, and release them into certain areas.
In 1995, the first batch of fourteen wolves arrived in Yellowstone National Park (mostly in Wyoming), followed by another sixteen the next year. The same thing happened in Idaho, with similar numbers. By the mid-2000s, Montana’s wolf numbers had shot up from zero to several hundred. Biologists tracked them with radio collars and kept careful records of births, deaths, and territory squabbles. The return of wolves even set off a cascade of ecological changes. As apex predators, gray wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals, and their populations are generally limited by prey availability. Wolves are crucial in driving the evolution of their prey and balancing ecosystems.
But if you thought this was going to be a happily-ever-after for Montana’s wolves, we’re sorry to disappoint. These wolves didn’t exactly get a hero’s welcome. There were protests from ranchers and hunters who saw them as troublemakers for their businesses and no longer in need of protection. In 2021, the state legislature decided it was time to shake things up. New laws made it dramatically easier to hunt and trap wolves. They allowed for longer seasons, higher bag limits, night hunting with spotlights, and even bounties for harvested wolves.
USFWS Makes a Controversial Finding
Needless to say, conservationists found the situation far from copacetic. They sounded alarms about what could happen if too many wolves were killed too quickly, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found itself back in the hot seat. Conservation groups demanded that USFWS reconsider whether Montana’s wolves needed renewed federal protection under the ESA.
USFWS did a “12-month finding” on the matter, and it wasn’t just some bureaucratic box-checking exercise. The agency did a formal review, sifting through all the available science, public comments, and policy arguments. After a year of deliberation, USFWS concluded that listing the wolves as endangered or threatened was not warranted.
This decision did not sit well with the conservation organizations that had been clamoring for change. Several, including the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sierra Club, joined forces to challenge the USFWS’s decision by filing a lawsuit in federal court. Many other conservation groups, including Western Watersheds Project, would later join in as co-plaintiffs.
The Lawsuit
These groups argued that USFWS ignored the best available science. According to CBD and friends, there’s a growing stack of peer-reviewed studies and expert warnings showing that the new hunting laws in places like Montana and Idaho pose a real threat to wolf survival. Scientists have flagged that the new policies that make it easier to hunt the wolves could lead to sharp population drops, disrupt pack dynamics, and make it hard for wolves to recover if things go south.
The plaintiffs say USFWS also underestimated how these state policies could wipe out local wolf populations altogether. Wolves don’t care about state lines—they roam where they please. So if one state decides to go all-in on wolf hunting while its neighbor is more restrained, you could see entire subpopulations vanish from certain areas. That’s not just bad for wolves; it’s bad for the ecosystems that rely on them as apex predators.
Then there’s the issue of cumulative impacts. The plaintiffs insist that USFWS failed to step back and look at the big picture: multiple states rolling out similar anti-wolf laws at the same time. Maybe one state’s policy wouldn’t spell disaster by itself, but when you add up Montana’s new rules with Idaho’s and Wyoming’s approaches, you get a perfect storm that could threaten the species across the entire region. According to CBD and its allies, federal law requires agencies like USFWS to consider these cumulative threats, not just look at each state in isolation.
The plaintiffs say all of this adds up to a decision that is “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). USFWS tried to defend its actions, but the court wasn’t buying it.
Wolves Get Another Bite
District Judge Donald W. Molloy essentially agreed with the plaintiffs and called USFWS out in an elaborate, 105-page opinion.
He pointed out that the agency relied on shaky population estimates and made a slew of optimistic assumptions about future wolf connectivity and state management — without grappling with what might happen if those assumptions fell apart. Even more glaring? The Service ignored key parts of the Endangered Species Act by looking only at where wolves live now, not where they historically ranged. That’s a big deal: under the law, you have to consider whether a species is in danger “throughout all or a significant portion of its range”—not just its current strongholds.
Judge Malloy then went on to toss out part of USFWS’s decision, sending it back for a do-over. What does this mean for wolves? Well, federal officials now have to take a much harder look at whether state-level hunting sprees and shrinking habitat could push wolves back toward extinction, not just in their current territories, but across their historic stomping grounds.
So while wolf-lovers shouldn't be howling for joy just yet, the ruling brings a lot of hope.
Related Resources:
- Is It Legal to Rescue Farm Animals From Cruelty? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Puppies Banned for Public Health as Court Upholds CDC Import Rule (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Exotic Animal Laws by State (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
