Questions and Answers Concerning Judge Downes' Recent Wolf Decision

Q: Why were the National Audubon Society plaintiffs challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf reintroduction plan in the first place?

A: National Audubon Society, Predator Project, Sinapu, and Gray Wolf Committee filed a lawsuit in federal court in Idaho challenging the Fish and Wildlife Service's dropping of habitat and legal protections for the wolves that were naturally recolonizing Idaho. In their lawsuit, the National Audubon Society plaintiffs did not challenge in any way the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction program.

Q: How did the Farm Bureau Federation's case against the Fish and Wildlife Service's Yellowstone program get consolidated with the National Audubon Society case?

A: After the National Audubon Society plaintiffs had filed their lawsuit in Idaho, the federal government asked the court to transfer the case to Wyoming. The National Audubon Society plaintiffs opposed the motion because their case had no connection to Wyoming. The Idaho judge transferred the case to Wyoming.

Q: What is the difference between the National Audubon Society case and the Farm Bureau case?

A: The Farm Bureau Federations were trying to stop Fish and Wildlife Service from bringing any additional wolves into Yellowstone and Idaho. The National Audubon Society plaintiffs were trying to protect the wolves recolonizing Idaho on their own.

Q: What did the National Audubon Society plaintiffs ask for in their lawsuit?

A: The National Audubon Society plaintiffs asked the court to rule that the Fish and Wildlife Service had illegally declared that the wolves that were naturally recolonizing Idaho be treated as "experimental" and "non-essential" rather than endangered, and send it back to the Service so that it could modify the reintroduction effort so as to protect those naturally occurring wolves.

Q: What did the Farm Bureau Federations ask for in their lawsuit?

A: The Farm Bureau Federations asked Judge Downes to order that the Canadian wolves that Fish and Wildlife Service transplanted to Yellowstone and Idaho be removed. In the legal proceedings before Judge Downes, the National Audubon Society plaintiffs opposed the Farm Bureau Federations' motion to remove the Canadian wolves.

Q: Are the National Audubon Society plaintiffs happy with the Judge Downes' ruling?

A: The National Audubon Society plaintiffs are outraged that Judge Downes ruled that the Canadian wolves brought to Yellowstone and Idaho by Fish and Wildlife Service should be removed. In the district court, the National Audubon Society plaintiffs vigorously opposed the Farm Bureaus' request that Canadian wolves be removed from Yellowstone and Idaho.

Q: What action do the National Audubon Society plaintiffs intend to take in response to Judge Downes' ruling?

A: The National Audubon Society plaintiffs will continue to fight with all of their legal resources to stop the removal of the transplanted wolves from Yellowstone and Idaho. They will appeal the Farm Bureau Federations' victory that required the removal of the reintroduced wolves from Yellowstone and Idaho.

Q: Is it possible to maintain the legal and habitat protections accorded endangered species for the Idaho's naturally occurring wolves and at the same time treat the Canadian wolves transplanted to Yellowstone and Idaho as "experimental" and "non-essential"?

A: Yes. If National Audubon Society plaintiffs prevail on appeal, and beat back the Farm Bureau Federations' injunction ruling, there will be no legal challenge to the Yellowstone reintroduction program that would require any different action. As to Idaho, Fish and Wildlife Service could choose to treat Canadian wolves as experimental in those areas and at those times that naturally occurring wolves were not present.

Q: What will happen if the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Judge Downes' ruling that the Farm Bureau was right in arguing that it was illegal for Fish and Wildlife Service to bring Canadian wolves as experimental populations to Yellowstone and Idaho?

A: If the 10th Circuit Court upholds the Farm Bureau Federations' arguments about the illegality of Fish and Wildlife Service's wolf reintroduction plan, the Court and Fish and Wildlife Service will be faced with three options: 1) kill the Canadian wolves; 2) move the Canadian wolves back to Canada or elsewhere in the U.S.; or 3) leave the Canadian wolves in Yellowstone and Idaho and treat them as endangered.