This story was originally published by Daily Montanan.
A federal judge in Montana on Tuesday vacated the federal government’s determination that gray wolves in the Western United States do not need increased federal protections under the Endangered Species Act.
Several coalitions of conservation groups filed lawsuits in federal district court last year against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in an attempt to force the agency to reapply ESA protections to the species.
The groups praised the decision from the federal district court as a step forward towards providing greater protection for the iconic species.
“The Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consider the best available science, and that requirement is what won the day for wolves in this case,” Matthew Bishop, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center, which represented some of the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “Wolves have yet to recover across the West, and allowing a few states to undertake aggressive wolf-killing regimes is inconsistent with the law. We hope this decision will encourage the Service to undertake a holistic approach to wolf recovery in the West.”
In 2021, more than 70 organizations, led by the Western Watersheds Project, submitted a petition asking the Fish and Wildlife Service to relist gray wolves as a threatened species in the Northern Rockies, where they are managed by state governments, or to create a larger Western Distinct Population Segment for the species with added protections.
But in a February 2024 determination, the agency declined to make any changes to gray wolves’ protected status, but said it would develop a National Recovery Plan for wolves in the lower 48 states.
“We concluded that the gray wolf in the Western United States is not in danger of extinction, or likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of its range,” the federal finding stated. “Therefore, we find that listing the gray wolf in the Western United States as an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act is not warranted.”
In the subsequent lawsuits, combined into a single suit before U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy, the conservation groups argued that Fish and Wildlife erred in its decision by failing to consider the “best available science” on wolf populations and the impacts of hunting and trapping; the full extent of the species’ historical range; and the threat posed by inadequate state and federal regulations that often bow to political headwinds.
In his Aug. 5 ruling, Molloy wrote that “for the most part, plaintiffs are correct.” His ruling vacated most of the Fish and Wildlife finding, and sent the decision back to the agency for further consideration.
The agency “made numerous unfounded assumptions regarding the future condition of the gray wolf despite recognizing either limitation on those conditions or bias in the population estimates utilized,” Molloy wrote. “Because these deficiencies are serious and pervasive, they weigh in favor of vacating the portion of the 2024 Finding that determined that the gray wolf in the Western United States does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species.”
Officials in Montana — which joined the lawsuit with the federal government — decried the ruling as yet another ruling by an “activist” judge.
“Montana has a healthy, sustainable population of wolves. While we are reviewing the decision, it will not implicate our state’s management efforts or our wolf season,” said Kaitlin Price, a spokesperson for Gov. Greg Gianforte’s office. “Unfortunately, we’re not surprised to see another activist decision in favor of environmental extremists. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appeals the decision, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks will be there to support them.”
Bad science
Gray wolves were almost entirely eliminated from the lower-48 states by the 1970s, leading to their listing under the Endangered Species Act.
In 2009, the species was delisted, leading to litigation, and in 2011, congressional action officially turned management of the species over to the states of Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and the eastern thirds of Oregon and Washington.
Currently, gray wolves are listed as a threatened species in Minnesota and endangered in the remaining 44 states.
According to a 2022 report by Fish and Wildlife, which formed the basis for its later determination, there were approximately 2,797 wolves in the western U.S. — including roughly 1,000 wolves in both Montana and Idaho, fewer than 400 in Wyoming, and around 200 in Oregon and Washington. The federal agency estimated an additional 20 wolves in California and Utah and two in Colorado.
In 2023, Colorado began relocating wolves to the state, with four established packs reported as of this month.
In the lawsuit, the conservation groups claimed Fish and Wildlife was not using adequate scientific research in estimating population data, and cast doubts on the methods utilized by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Idaho’s wildlife agency.
Montana uses an integrated patch occupancy model, or iPOM, to estimate wolf populations using hunter surveys and three different models to determine wolf distribution, wolf pack mean territory and average pack size.
iPOM has been criticized by researchers in the past for not using direct data or population counts, and thus, overestimating the state’s wolf population.
Idaho Fish and Game, meanwhile, uses a model that utilizes trail cameras to estimate population density, which has also been criticized for overcounting the species.
Molloy wrote in his order that Fish and Wildlife is required to “meaningfully account for uncertainty and address substantive criticism,” in data used for Endangered Species assessments, and that the “failure to do so was arbitrary and capricious.”
“Ultimately, the Service failed to use the best available science in violation of the ESA when it relied on Montana’s and Idaho’s population estimates without addressing the criticisms,” Molloy wrote.
State-mandated reduction
Montana’s Legislature has long sought to reduce the state’s wolf population closer to a “sustainable level” mentioned in the federal government’s delisting rule — roughly 450 wolves.
The state’s population of roughly 1,100 wolves has remained steady for the last several years, despite decreased limitations on hunting and trapping in Montana.
In 2025, the Montana Legislature considered several laws to dramatically curtail the wolf population, including enacting an unlimited quota until roughly half the state’s wolves were eradicated, but only one major bill became law.
House Bill 259, brought by Montana Rep. Paul Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, requires the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission to apply different management techniques based on the population conditions in each region — with additional emphasis put on those with the highest populations. The bill also clarified that on private lands, hunters may use infrared and thermal imagery scopes outside of daylight hours.
Those changes to state law are reflected in a recently released proposal from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks outlining changes to the upcoming hunting and trapping season.
Under the proposal, Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ new regulations would create a statewide hunting and trapping quota, rather than stricter regional quotas. Up to 500 wolves could be killed during the next season, up from a quota of 334 during the 2023-2024 season.
During the 2024-25 wolf season, which ended on March 15, the take totaled 297 wolves, including 178 by hunters and 119 by trappers. The number was the highest since 2020, when 326 wolves were killed.
Changes in state management were cited as another reason for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider putting wolves under federal protections, according to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Fish and Wildlife failed to consider “politically motivated, legislative interference with agency discretion and management authority,” according to the plaintiffs, which creates a “manmade factor affecting [the gray wolf’s] continued existence.”
Molloy wrote that negative public attitudes are “undisputedly expressed in the legislative bodies governing Montana and Idaho,” and said Fish and Wildlife did not consider how those attitudes would impact state commitments to maintaining minimum populations of wolves needed to prevent relisting.
“Management of Canis lupus must not be by a political yo-yo process,” Molloy wrote.
According to court filings by the state of Montana and Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Legislature’s “liberalized methods of take with an overall intent to reduce the wolf population,” did not remove the ability of the wildlife agency to set its own rules based on scientific data.
The state and Fish, Wildlife and Parks also highlighted the fact that the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission has maintained bag limits and required a single license per wolf for hunters, and one license per 10 wolves for trappers. However, the new 2025 proposal from Fish, Wildlife and Parks significantly increases bag limits, allowing hunters and trappers to kill up to 15 wolves on a single hunting or trapping license, for up to 30 total wolves.
In the 2024 decision not to apply endangered species status to wolves, Fish and Wildlife acknowledged that high harvest rates in Idaho and Montana could reduce state populations by 80% to 90%, resulting in “fewer than 100 wolves in each state.”
Ultimately, Molloy agreed with the plaintiff’s arguments that Fish and Wildlife did not adequately consider the future of the gray wolf under the most drastic human-caused mortality scenarios, nor the political climate that could add pressure to states to continually increase hunting and trapping opportunities. Those changes could lead to the species requiring federal protections again, Molloy wrote.
“Wildlife management agencies are likely to find themselves in a Catch-22 as they cannot escape from mutually conflicting dependent conditions: If the federal agency succeeds in restoring the gray wolf, leading to delisting, then the state agencies will depredate the wolf, leading to relisting, engendering a fruitless cycle of delisting and relisting,” Molloy wrote.
He also agreed that Fish and Wildlife did not consider the extent of the wolf’s historic range — which includes a majority of the western states — in considering whether it met the ESA definition of endangered or threatened in “a significant portion of its range.”
The ruling sent the decision on the petition to relist gray wolves back to the agency.
The Daily Montanan asked officials at Fish and Wildlife about a timeline for reconsidering the petition, or a possible appeal of Molloy’s ruling, but an agency spokesperson said the agency does not comment on litigation.
The conservation organizations that sued the federal government included the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, International Wildlife Coexistence Network, Predator Defense, Protect the Wolves, Trap Free Montana, Wilderness Watch, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and others.
“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,” Nick Gevock, Sierra Club northern Rockies campaign strategist, said in a press release. “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.”
Editor’s note: This article was updated to clarify the bag limits under the new 2025 FWP wolf hunting and trapping proposal.
Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com
Good old Judge Molloy. The “environmental”, anti-hunting animal rights group’s favorite judge. How they get to pick and choose Molloy every time a crucial decision is made is still a mystery to me. But that’s American justice, I suppose.
I find it hilarious that Molloy accuses USFWS of backing (“inadequate”) regulations that often (quote) “bow to political headwinds”, while he himself bows to political headwinds. He also says that wolf management must not be (quote) ” a political yo-yo process”, while doing an “around the world” on his own finger. Furthermore, Molloy goes on to say (quote) wolf management cannot be “a fruitless cycle of delisting and relisting”, while at the same time trying to do exactly that.
Aren’t judges supposed to be non-biased? Why does this guy retain his judgeship for decades while showing obvious bias? He ALWAYS rules in favor of these anti-hunting animal rights groups that WyoFile refers to as “conservation” groups.
ALWAYS. Isn’t that bias? How can these groups continue to cherry-pick the judges they want to hear the case?? Why is it ALWAYS Molloy???
If there is 1000 grey wolf in Montana and Idaho that pushing what the ego system can support with out causing extreme conflicts with people. We need a balance not swinging to far to left or right. Remember this issue has to be met with honesty and integrity. The grey wolf is longer endangered to extinction. Rather it needs to be managed .
Wolves are not being hunted like they were prior to the 1970s. They’re reintroduction to certain areas are creating a problem for cattle farms. The government is giving the wolves a license to kill cows with impunity and allowing them to greif other local wildlife. The wolf population will survive even with a few being put down for cattle killing. All the inaccurate numbers that conservation groups point to could easily be wrong in the opposite direction. Wolves are beautiful and cool to see in nature but the culture of conservation is a value of the modern hunter. The new wolf population isn’t in danger.
What would be hopefully encouraging is a workable consensus between all parties to how most wildlife is already managed. The predator nature and expansion for Coyotes is unstoppable and there huntable year-round. You can YouTube them taking pets in any class of neighborhood and humans have learned to live with them ,with the choices not too. Do the Wolf advocates want the same expansion knowing they will go wherever the Coyotes have had to go do to there territorial behaviors the same. Just thoughts.
You can’t preach about living on the range and how resilient you need to be to do so while also being incapable of living with the wildlife that calls it home
Government published Wolf ranges and populations are necessarily lagging information. There are, in fact, many more Wolves dispersed far more widely than published. The Lower Penninsula of Michigan for example has had a resident Wolf population for at least a decade, despite the DNR official zero count. Modern regression based statistics should be used when determining Wolf (and other species) populations. Unfortunately government’s tend to be unsufisticated, nonlearning, and corrupt in many regards, leading to poor decisions, like this one.
The wolves and the grizzlies are NOT endangered in any way.
Political agendas seem to be status quo for the judicial system in 2025 USA.
There are only an estimated 5500 grey wolves in the lower 48 states, and this article raises many concerns about counting methods leading to over counting. They are critical to maintaining herbivore population, and preventing overgrazing from turning forests into meadows.
The wolves have destroyed the herbivore population in the entire GYE. Calf survivability is at numbers so low populations are collapsing.
The wolves are also completely protected in the GYE with meaningless hunting quotas of 2 wolves per unit which do nothing to manage their numbers.
Elk hunting in the GYE is nearly gone with handfuls of tags allocated in each unit.