The plan could have led to public
hunting of some 1,300 wolves in the two states.
In the 24-page decision, U.S.
District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont., cited the court's lack of
authority to put part of an endangered species population under state management
and expose that population to hunting, noting "Congress has clearly determined
that animals on the ESA (Endangered Species Act) must be protected as such," and
the court couldn't "exercise its discretion to allow what Congress
forbids."
He also said he couldn't approve
the settlement proposed in March because not all the parties involved in the
case agreed with it. Part of the argument for the settlement was that it could
end litigation, but Molloy noted that was unlikely given the opposition by some
to the proposed settlement.
The court decision came on the
same day as Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester and Idaho Republican Rep. Mike
Simpson announced wolves in
One of the reasons the 10
conservation groups entered into the settlement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service was because of growing political pressure and potential Congressional
action to reduce wolf numbers in
So the groups not only lost in
court on Saturday, their fears concerning lawmakers removing federal protections
for wolves also became more real.
"The congressional threat was
very much on people's minds when we negotiated the settlement," said Andrew
Wetzler of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "In light of the court ruling,
it's going to make it more difficult to derail the rider that may well be
attached to the budget deal that will provide much fewer protections for wolves
than the settlement would have."
The proposed settlement
effectively asked Molloy to reverse his previous rulings on the matter. Last
August he faulted the Fish and Wildlife Service for a 2009 decision that took
wolves off the endangered list in
The federal government appealed
that decision, leading to the proposed settlement agreement that has now been
rejected.
"I can't blame Molloy for the
ruling," said Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the
10 conservation groups favoring the settlement. "It's a very tortuous situation.
We entered into a settlement agreement we didn't love but thought it was the
lesser of two evils."
The
"We think the fastest way to
remove (wolves) is for everybody to work together so they can be legally removed
from the endangered species list," Garrity said.
Suckling said the center wouldn't
appeal Molloy's decision, but planned to work to stop the wolf rider on the in
the budget bill pending before Congress. Wetzler said his group would do the
same, but was reserved about the possibility of success.
"
Garrity called the rider "bad
news for wolves."
"We don't think congress should
gerrymander the Endangered Species Act," he said.
An official with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press on Saturday.