Gray wolves get back their endangered species status, for now.

Gray wolves regained endangered-species protections Friday when a federal judge in Montana granted a preliminary injunction to environmentalists, who had challenged the wolves' delisting.

The decision came just months before planned fall hunts in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, which will now be canceled.

U.S. District Court Judge Donald W. Molloy issued a strongly worded 40-page critique of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to delist the gray wolves, calling it arbitrary and capricious. He said the action "demonstrated a possibility of irreparable harm" to the species. The injunction "ensures the species is not imperiled" while the case continues to be litigated, the judge wrote.

The wildlife service "provides no new evidence or research to support its change of course," Molloy wrote. "Congress does not intend agency decision-making to be fickle. When it is, the line separating rationality from arbitrariness and capriciousness is crossed."

Molloy pointed to the recovery criteria cited by the wildlife service in 1994. Those criteria include "genetic exchange between subpopulations" -- crossbreeding among scattered groups of wolves -- so the species would be genetically viable in the long term.

"Genetic exchange has not taken place," the judge wrote. He cited a 2007 study commissioned by the wildlife service itself.

Gray wolves once ranged from central Mexico to the Arctic. But by the 1930s, rampant hunting had virtually wiped them out across the American West. In 1974, gray wolves were listed as endangered.

Since then, the federal government has spent about $27 million to revive the wolves' population.

In 1995 and 1996, officials introduced 66 wolves to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, aiming to establish a stable population of at least 300 animals. When delisted earlier this year, wolves in the northern Rockies numbered 1,513, the judge wrote. Wildlife service officials say the population is increasing by about 24% a year.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials announced in February that gray wolves would be removed from the endangered species list after what they termed a successful 20-year effort to reestablish the wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Environmentalists sued.

--Tami Abdollah

Photo: A gray wolf pup. Credit: Kent Kauden / Associated Press

Comments

[jsens3]

It is ridiculous that the federal government has wasted even one dollar protecting a known vicious predator and that a federal judge has so little to do he squanders time on something like this. Doesn't the judge have anything important to do? I wonder what these folks will do to advance the cause of the brown recluse spider, rattlesnakes cobras, poison ivy, AIDS, dengue fever, river blindness, hookworm, malarial mosquitos, ebola, and other myriad enemies of the human race?

[patty]

thank goodness the federal judge stepped in. we all need to better understand the importance of animals in the chain of life. wolves make many positive impacts

http://www.gatheringhome.com/

[jeff]

F#@% that judge, way should we risk all the other animals to save one that is a proven killer

[anonymous]

Errm, it`s a known predator, but that`s why it`s needed. If you do your research you`ll discover that the Yellowstone ecosystem was collapsing because of the absence of wolves. It`s good to keep 'em around.

[relay]

Proven Killer? the bigger problem people have with wolves is with live stock killing not human maiming. The rare cases are often the humans fault. Wolves generally stay away from humans unless they are cornered or have a great need. The reports of them dragging babies from sleeping bags can have 2 faults addressed, the parents that left the kid unsupervised and the fact that wolves as a pack animal will adopt abandoned pups from other packs. Sorry but I have never really bought that wolves were a threat to humans any more than mountain lions and bears are but were eliminated because they were competition for the buffalo and elk hunters.

[what?]

Jeff and Jsens3 - should we allow ALL species that can kill humans to be hunted into extinction? Before you answer that, remember that we humans are our own worst predator. Just because an animal has the ability to kill doesn't mean it is a threat to humanity.

[Jim Dean]

jsns3: Interesting point about Dengue, actually our government is actively encouraging Dengue Fever to spread through climate change, dengue likes warm hot places where mosquitoes spread it. So yes, our government is greatly encouraging terrible diseases.

By having a complex web of predators, prey, and varied environment we can provide barriers against disease and prevent any one natural problem from taking over our lives. Wolves eat deer, deer carry several major diseases. Many deer farms have a problem preventing nose-to-nose contact between sick, wild deer and healthy captive deer. Even with double fences diseases still spread. By killing off the sickly deer and keeping the overall deer population down those wolves may be saving captive populations from getting sick. Predators can be a bonus, not a problem, for livestock owners.

[anonymous]

I'm very pleased this judge stepped in. I've been following the reintro of grey wolves to Idaho (in particular) since I was a kid, and I was outraged by that state's ranchers and farmers wanting to have them "eradicated". I had planned on boycotting everything from Idaho. I'm vegan so I don't buy meat anyway, but there would be no potato that I'd buy, no passing through Idaho on trips, and none of my money going into the pocket of anyone's Idaho-ian business in protest (including internet business), which I would have expanded to include the other states involved. For now, I don't have to do that. And for the record, I do believe that there have been no records of wolves attacking humans in the U.S. for at least a hundred years, and um, possibly never.

[Caninophile]

YES! Finally some sanity has been interjected into the web of death BushCo. has woven over the world. Wolves are a key predator species. When predators are removed, prey species weaken-- they don't get stronger. The interests of the human race include a healthy ecosystem to live in--and jsens3, there is no record of a wolf killing a human. Ever. Wolves were eradicated to make room for ranchers and human hunters of wolf prey, in addition to irradicating the preternatural fear other top-feeders instill in people (grizzly, sharks, wolverine, raptor) . This planet ain't all about us.

[Ex-Montanan]

Hey guys... don't I know you? Ah yes, you were the first ones to sign up for this fall's wolf kill - now your dreams are on hold (bummer). While you are waiting, why not read up onhow all animalsare inportant in nature's food chain?

Now go back to shooting prairie dogs from your porch and drinking whatever...

[catt napp]

Yes that's my real name. The top preditor of this world is human not wolves. We prey on everything alive and not just for food or because it endangers us. Some people kill just for the fun of it. Few if any animals do that. To those that wish to see the wolves extinct, perhaps it is your thinking that needs to be extinct, you and those like you.

[megan]

The Wolves of Yellowstone have affected the Park down to its very grasses in nothing but a positive direction. The wolves are not Big or Bad, they are only a very much needed link in the food web for the ecosystem. Since the reintroduction of the Wolf, rivers are running cleaner and cooler so more and larger fish, taller trees instead of constantly nibbled brush means more song birds, carrion eaters such as fox, magpie, vultures and bear are increasing, etc. This decision may be late but al least someone had the b&**s to finally take action. This Judge has stepped into a veritable wasp's nest of human discord. Bless him for his stance.
There are funds out there for ranchers who lose livestock to the predation of the wolf.
How can we hate with such vehemence the ancient ancestor of our own best friend the DOG?

[Megan]

http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=animal&Number=628361&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=1&o=0&vc=1Read this thread to see some really good information statistically about those killer wolves we fear so much. The truth is that our distructive ways coupled with our fears of the wilderness usually takes us to the brink of our own distruction. Face it guys... "you's guys are afraid of the big, bad wolf!"

[abaybay]

Wow..I cannot believe that jsens3 would actually consider the wolf to be in the same group as "the myriad enemies of the human race." This person clearly needs to do research before making such a ridiculus statement. I'm surprised that we still have this 1800s "Big Bad Wolf" theory in existance. I have been literally five feet away from a wolf, and it completely ignored my presence. A pet pitbull or rotweiler in one's own home presents a much more dangerous threat than a wolf that tries to avoid humans at all costs. The wolf is a predator, but is in no way a threat to humans. And also, if elk hunters are so worried about elk numbers declining, perhaps they should blame their awesome hunter friends. I mean hmm there are millions of people who hunt as opposed to the maybe 1500 wolves left in the wild that feed on elk. Who do you think is really decimating elk numbers? Similarly, according to the Wisconsin Department of National Resources, wolves kill 5940 deer per year. On the contrary, 40,000 deer are hit by cars annually while another 450,000 are shot by hunters. If hunters are so worried about running out of deer to hunt, maybe we should eliminate cars???...

[Judianna26]

Besides the scientific evidence that Wolves are a primary part of the big picture of mainataining healthy ecosystems, so many critics and wolf haters that would rather see the Wolf extinct forget that this creature was created with a purpose by Our Creator. I see so many of these "haters" go to church and praise God and then turn around and disrespect God by trying to make the decision for their own greed OR fear of what creatures should stay and what creature should go.It is very very unfortunate that so many wolves have already lost their lives to the mindless behind the guns and traps that killed them, but hopefully this is evidence also of how imperil the future of Gray Wolves would be if contine to be delisted.
Thank God for this preliminary injunction by Judge Malloy and Thank God for Judge Malloy for seeing the truth and not riding with blinders on and getting paid for it as so many government officals seem to be doing anymore.

[Jeff Call]

I have lived in Idaho all my life. We don't have the same way of life as you in LA. I have 5 children 2 left at home and have raised them on deer and elk we don't eat beef at our house we prefer the leaner meat. Wolves make that way of life harder. We also have seen government trappers staying in the same motel as us in Challis in 1998 being paid to kill a pack of wolves that was in too much trouble. This has gone on all along but it is not publicly announced. We have used a lot of money on the wolves. Why not let some hunters pay to shoot them instead of us taxpayers paying to have them shot. Also do the math the goal was 300 wolves there are over 1500. Increasing at 24% a year that means in 5 years we would have 4398, 10 years would be 12,893. They have far exceeded their expectations even though silently our government has been killing them from the get go. They do need to be controlled.

[Cassiey]

so sad man i feel bad i think we should have a fundraiser or somthing

[bowhunter]

I live in Montana and hunt elk and deer. I hunt in areas where wolf populations are doing well. The wolves have been a positive on the areas I hunt. The game populations are far more balanced. I still have opportunity for fair chase and do harvest game that gives me a lean, organic, high protein food source for the rest of the year. Seeing wolves in the wild while I hunt just adds to the joy of being outside. People who hate wolves are the same folks who lack the mental capacity to appreciate a fully functioning ecosystem. Hunting is not meant to be easy- that is the grocery store. Hunting is about fair chase, being part of the cycle, respecting the prey and also competing preditors - and that includes wolves. They just make the experience of being in the outdoors more complete.

Hunters are responsible for the vast percent of revenue used for habitat conservation, which is what will ultimately save or destroy all ESA species. Allowing hunters to learn to understand wolves through a fair chase hunt is a good thing, because it means that more people will learn to respect and love these animals. This will create more habitat conservation that will benefit all species.

But the issue is not hunting. Wolves are killed when they interact with livestock. The reason they are attracted to livestock is because many ranchers overgraze their allotments. If there are 1,000 cows in a basin and 100 deer, you can bet the wolves will select cows as prey. THis means they get shot. Ranchers who chose to homestead in wolf country should expect this as part of their operating cost, just as they expect some cows to perish from weather and disease.

The state programs Judge Molloy found arbitrary and capricous were designed to exterpate wolves from the majority of the suitable habitat, as requested by grazing interests. Judge Molloy was correct to make FWP retake control from the states because of this.

Hunting wolves will endure them to the locals of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The key is allowing a sustainable hunt without allowing so many wolves to be killed by the livestock industry.

[epc124]

I cannot believe that people make such ignorant comments in a forum where virtually anyone in the world can read their backwards opinions. If you're still living in your childhood and believing in the teachings of fairy tales like "Little Red Riding Hood" and "The Three Little Pigs", perhaps you should call the seven dwarfs, slide into your glass slippers, hop on your magic carpet and take a ride to Never Never Land, and please stop spreading the ignorance.

[Jay]

Every living creature is a neccessary element in the food chain. Predators are no differant. To say that wolves deserve to be exterminated because it is a killer . Well where does that put man at the top of the list of killer. Man kills destroys the environment even for himself sets his sights on someone elses domain and declares war then he justifies it by what need to what take what isn't his. So now an animal that cannot defend itself is on the table to live or die . I am happy to hear that a judge has given the wolf a chance at living it's own life. Man hunts for pleasure animal hunts to feed. Which one is worse? Which one should go ?

[Jeff Call]

This whole issue about every one of Gods creatures deserve to live is funny because you are defending a creature that will kill How many other creatures a year? What about the poor deer or elk or sheep or cattle don' t they deserve to live too. And have you seen a wolf kill or partially kill something by eating it alive? It is not pretty. I hunt and Kill 1 elk a year to eat. A wolf will kill many many times that a year.

There is a good saying "Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one and they all stink" . If you have 10 people you may have 10 different opinions. I would just like to see some reasoning in the whole thing. Medium ground would be nice that is what the States were going to do is "MANAGE" the wolf population to keep acceptable numbers, not wipe them out. From what I see all you saying you could care less if the wolves wiped out the deer and elk. Which are also managed by the Fish and Game.

And to "Bowhunter from Montana" you mentioned Fair Chase I am also an archery hunter, and do enjoy the fair chase. But fair chase has nothing to do with this wolf issue. Get off your high horse you are not the only sportsman.

[Bill]

What I first wanted to say was tha I liked both Jeff Call's first comment and Bowhunter's comment. I will say, and I say this gently, I do not understand Jeff's position. On the one hand he says that wolves make it harder to live his chosen life which is "culling" elk and deer for his family's table. But he only takes one elk a year. That raises the question of how hard is it to find one elk and then enough deer in the face of predation by the wolves? Is it really extra hard? And how many deer feed Jeff's family, just so we know?

And in his first entry Jeff gives evidence that our beloved Feds are managing the wolf population to a certain (albeit "secret") extent.

So, my bad, but I do not understand Jeff's real, central complaint; meanwhile I do appreciate Bowhunter's comments.

I think that certainly wolves could be a viable part of our shared National Park/National Ecosystem. That is, bring on the "Manageable WildSide", and let us push back the multitude confines of daily life.

[Jeff Call]

To answer Bills question of how many deer and elk to feed my family, about 1 elk and 5 deer for a year or 2 elk and 2 or 3 deer is comfortable. Some choose to buy beef I choose deer and elk. In the areas I hunt the wolf numbers are still managble. I still get my elk. But if you read the news there are areas in the state where they are very concerned that the local herds are being wiped out from over predation.

All I am saying is MANAGE it is not, nor ever has been said that the state agencies would cause the wolves to be wiped out. That is not their goal. If we read the reports the wolves goal was to get 300, that originally was what they decided would be a good manageable number I guess. So why are so many people crying out and saying stop the killing and the hating when we have over 1500 wolves and climbing. The wolves are not different than other species if left unmanaged and never culled like everyone is agreeing that deer and elk need culling they will be a big problem.

The Fish and Game adjust permit numbers every year for deer, elk, moose etc.
If they need more culled they give more permits in a given area. If the numbers are down they give out fewer permits for the area. Wolves would be managed the same way. Some areas where there is too much predation permits would be given. Just as Mountain Lions have been managed.

[StirlingSilver83]

Hello, ok I am not from the area, but I was reading a book recently about a wolf and decided to search it on google to read more about them. From the comments above I am appalled from all the regions, from the hunters and from the ecosystem people. You see I live in new jersey, and in new jersey we have a vast range of wildlife, but our problem is we have way too many deer, and our governments arrange for special hunts to keep the population down. I agree with this. We don't want to kill off all the deer in our state, but just enough to keep the population down. The deer in our state have gotten so use to human contact that they don't even run anymore when you approach them. I was driving just the other day and I saw 2 fawns spots and everything not even 5 feet away from a highway ramp. Now to me this in dangerous, deer can do serious damage to your car if you were to hit them. So to me I agree on the hunts to keep the population down. Now from another point of view, I understand where the other people are coming from, being wolves are a predator. I have never hear of wolves attacking people, now I know I am not from around you guys and we don't have wolves in NJ, but if we did it would certainly keep the deer population down, instead of our taxes going to pay for these deer hunts to keep the population down. I also think wolves are beautiful creatures, and how we are forget where the dog originated from. A lot of us who own dogs forget that wolves are just part of that species. Now if dogs weren't domesticated and had to live in the wild they would kill just as well as wolves kill to keep from starving to death. Also dogs or wolves don't fruitlessly kill, they will kill have a feast that will last them a few days and then in those few days will kill again. They don't kill for the fact of just killing things, they kill to survive to keep them from starving to death. And if everyone thinks wolves should be destroyed because of that then I think humans should be destroyed because of that. But if you look into the society we live in now, us humans just kill each other for the fact that someone looked at us cross eyed, not because we need to survive. Also we kill innocent animals just for the fact of having food. Isn't that similar to why wolves kill? So in many ways humans and wolves are a like. And for those of you that say wolves should be killed just because they are a predator, need to look up the facts. They are meat eaters, just like most humans are meat eaters. They need food to survive we need food to survive. If you think wolves should be killed because they are meat eaters, than humans should be killed because they are meat eaters. I believe, if there is an over population of wolves in your area like there is an overpopulation of deer in my area, that should be the reason they should be killed. Not the reason that most of you are giving, because they are predators. That is absolutely rediculous!

[Lucy]

Hey Jeff, I too have lived in Idaho my whole life and we hunt for our meat as well, there is only 2 of us so we only need 1 or deer a year. I am curious how you are able to take 5 deer in a year, since the limit is only 1 per hunter, at least in the panhandle. Humm sounds like pouching to me..
It is a proven statictic that in areas where wolf populations have been restored the big game herds have actually improved. Unlike man, wolves help the population by taking the weak or sick.

If you really wanted to improve the big game populations and allow your way of life to continue, you would not have had 5 children. The biggest threat to all wild things is our encrouchment.