Our Most Recent/Ongoing Legal Actions:

On August 5, 2025, District Court Judge Malloy filed his decision on this case in Missoula District Court and granted in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Defendants. The judge made the following comment in his decision.....

"Here, the Service failed to, inter alia, consider historic range in its assessment of whether the Western DPS grfay wolf population meets the definition of either "endangered" or "threatened" through "a significant portion of its range." 16 U.S.C. & 1532(6), (16), (20). It also made numerous unfounded assumptions regarding the future condition of the gray wolf despite recognizing either limitations on those conditions or bias in the population estimates utilized. 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 and endangered or threatened species under the ESA."

The History of this Case:

(Washington, D.C.)—On the heels of the recent drawn-out torture of a captured and bound gray wolf, a coalition of organizations has filed their 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for their refusal to restore Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections to the Western gray wolf. The Notice of Intent may be viewed at this link.

In July 2021, this coalition—Animal Wellness Action, the Center for a Humane Economy, Project Coyote, Kettle Range Conservation Group, Footloose Montana, and Gallatin Wildlife Association—along with dozens of other organizations filed a petition with the FWS requesting federal ESA protections for gray wolves in the Western United States.  

The FWS released an initial 90-day finding in September 2021 that relisting the Western gray wolf as endangered “may be warranted.” The agency then inexplicably reversed course on February 7, 2024, when it found in its final decision on the petition that the Western gray wolf is not entitled to ESA protection.  

Three weeks after this decision, a man in Wyoming ran down a gray wolf with a snowmobile, captured her, taped her muzzle shut, paraded her in a local bar while subjecting her to extended abuse—including going so far as to kiss the dying wolf while being filmed, the wolf too weak to do anything but bare her teeth—and finally killing her. While Animal Wellness Action argues that these actions are punishable under Wyoming criminal law, and numerous veteran law enforcement professionals have called for felony charges, he was required only to pay a $250 fine for live possession of wildlife.

“States have proven they cannot be trusted to sustain the wolf species,” commented Jessica Karjala, executive director of Footloose Montana, based in Missoula, MT. “They not only allow but endorse bounties on wolves. They have encouraged increased hunting and quotas on wolves, spotlighting, baiting, trapping, snaring, hound hunting. Here, Wyoming is turning a blind eye to the heinous acts of Cody Roberts. The delisting of wolves has led to the failure of state wildlife agencies to protect wolves.”

“It is so disappointing to see one of our Nation's federal agencies, the only agency that has the responsibility to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants in their native habitat, become so disengaged from their mission and from reality on the ground,” said Clint Nagel, president of the Gallatin Wildlife Association, based in Bozeman, MT. “Our Nation’s wildlife deserve so much better.”

“It was illegitimate for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to continue to deny gray wolf relisting protection under the ESA for our small population of state-listed endangered gray wolves in Washington state,” said Timothy Coleman, director of Kettle Range Conservation Group, based in Republic, Washington. “Outside of Northeast Washington, just a couple of wolf packs exist, and there are no packs in the entire southern Cascade and Pacific Coast wolf recovery region that includes high quality habitat in Olympic National Park. Slaughter of gray wolf source population stifles migration from Idaho and Montana and will likely delay wolf recovery for decades across Washington state.”

The biggest threat facing the gray wolf is human-caused mortality. Since 2021, Rocky Mountain states have liberalized legal killing of wolves and removed discretion from their fish and wildlife agencies in favor of letting lawmakers use wolves as a political cudgel. Unlawful killings, including poaching and poisoning, are on the rise too. Higher mortality rates will result in further loss of genetic diversity and connectivity between wolf populations across the Western U.S. And worse, in their refusal to list the wolf, the FWS is relying heavily on highly suspect data on wolf populations from states that use population-estimate methodologies that have been criticized by scientific experts.

“Despite having admitted that Rocky Mountain states use means and measures ‘at odds with modern professional wildlife management,’ the FWS has still failed to properly account for the impact of the uptick in human-caused mortality on Western wolf populations, as they are required to do under law,” said Kate Chupka Schultz, senior attorney with the Center for a Humane Economy, who prepared the Notice. “Compounding that error, FWS is also failing to apply best available science to the analysis—ignoring the good science and instead relying on the bad. These are just two of the multiple ways the FWS is violating federal law.”

Now, this coalition of conservation organizations has formally sent their notice, arguing that the FWS’ failure to list the Western gray wolf violates both the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This notice is the third filed in recent months by various organizations against the FWS for failing to protect the gray wolf. 

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is continuing to allow the same unlimited and unregulated killing practices that nearly wiped wolves off the landscape in the 20th century,” said Renee Seacor, carnivore conservation director with Project Coyote. “Time and time again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has lost in court when challenged over gray wolf protection. We fully expect the same with this deeply flawed decision.”

The coalition is now awaiting the expiration of the 60-day notice period before filing their lawsuit in federal court.

ABOUT

Animal Wellness Action is a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)(4) whose mission is to help animals by promoting laws and regulations at federal, state and local levels that forbid cruelty to all animals. The group also works to enforce existing anti-cruelty and wildlife protection laws. Animal Wellness Action believes helping animals helps us all. X: @AWAction_News

The Center for a Humane Economy is a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)(3) whose mission is to help animals by helping forge a more humane economic order. The first organization of its kind in the animal protection movement, the Center encourages businesses to honor their social responsibilities in a culture where consumers, investors, and other key stakeholders abhor cruelty and the degradation of the environment and embrace innovation as a means of eliminating both. The Center believes helping animals helps us all. X: @TheHumaneCenter

4. Montana Groups Join Fight to Protect Wolves v. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission:

STATUS: Defeat in TRO and PI - Court Case Proceeds Ahead.

HELENA, MONTANA— On October 15, 2025, plaintiffs filed a brief for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to halt the slaughter of the gray wolf being conducted by the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission (MFWC), an act propagated by the Montana State Legislature and signed into law in 2025. The goal of the state legislature and the MFWC is to kill upto 558 wolves in the 2025-26 hunting and trapping season. Unfortunately, the judges decision was not in favor of the plaintiffs in a court decision of December 19, 2025. The judge did express ""serious concerns" about the state's ability to accurately estimate Montana's wolf population". This is the writing of Amanda Eggert in the Montana Free Press of Dec. 22, 2025. See the link here.....

https://montanafreepress.org/2025/12/22/judge-allows-2025-2026-wolf-quota-to-stand/

The judge did also allow the plaintiffs Constitutional claim to proceed forth.

A motion was filed March 27, 2023 asking a Montana state court to direct Montana state agencies of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission to review the 2002 Wolf Plan and for a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent hunting, trapping, and snaring of wolves until the 2002 Wolf Plan has been updated and/or amended as necessary. Today Footloose Montana and the Gallatin Wildlife Association joined forces alongside the previous complaint with previous plaintiffs: WildEarth Guardians and Project Coyote, a project of Earth Island Institute.

Monday’s motion came approximately 4 months after the previous conservation groups filed the initial lawsuit against the State of Montana, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission (the “Commission”) alleging that the state’s current wolf hunting and trapping regulations violate numerous laws and the Montana constitution. 

5. The restraining of trapping and snaring of wolves in the Idaho Panhandle and other regions of the state:

STATUS: Victory, Appealed - Gone to Settlement

WE WON!!!!!!! Judge Dale just issued her order in the Idaho wolf-trapping lawsuit, and we won!!!

She issued an injunction beginning in the 2024–25 season, which will prohibit wolf-trapping and snaring in grizzly bear habitat (the Panhandle, Clearwater, Salmon, and Upper Snake regions) except during the grizzly bear denning season (December 1 to February 28). Her order is in effect until Idaho obtains an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – that itself would likely come with mandatory terms and conditions constraining trapping.

-------

To GWA Membership:

Unexpectedly, we heard today that GWA and several other plaintiffs won in part, a big part of our litigation case in Idaho, the restraining of trapping and snaring wolves in the Idaho Panhandle and other regions of the state. We took this case on, as said below to prevent the accidental taking of grizzly bears. Please read below. This was not a complete victory, but still much to celebrate. More to come as stated below. We won this case in Idaho - of all things. This does not pertain to Montana. The reason for that is cumbersome to explain in this format, but Montana changed their regulations prior to us bringing the case, making it harder to argue. 

Remember what happens in one section of the GYE, affects all sections of the GYE especially in terms of wildlife that practice connectivity throughout the northern Rockies.

NOTE: This case is under appeal by the state of Idaho presently, but until that decision is heard and decided, this judgement does stand.

6. Montanans Citizens Sue Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission -

STATUS: Case has been Vacated

GREAT FALLS–– Montana citizens, led by Great Falls resident Denise Boggs, have filed a lawsuit (complaint attached) in the First Judicial District Court in Lewis & Clark County against the Montana Fish & Wildlife Commission for violations of the State Constitution. It seeks to void a recent vote to increase the previously set limit on killing female black bears. The Commission made the decision without prior notification to the public or opportunity to comment.

The suit states: “This is an action against members of the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission resulting from the unlawful conduct of Defendants for failing to comply with Montana’s Open Meeting notice requirements and failing to comply with Montana’s explicit constitutional Right to Know.”

Clint Nagel, President of the Gallatin Wildlife Association joined several others in this effort to make the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission more responsible to the general public and to follow state law.

7. Canada lynx Management Plan, Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest:

STATUS: Just Beginning

Contact: Mike Garrity, Executive Director Alliance for the Wild Rockies (406) 410-3373

Clint Nagel, Director of Gallatin Wildlife Association (406) 600-1792

Conservation Groups challenge removal of wildlife protections on 1.1 million acres of public land in Montana

On February 24, 2026, four Montana-based Conservation Groups — Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council on Fish & Wildlife — sued the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service for removing wildlife protections on 1.1 million acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in Montana. 

The federal government agencies issued a “Forest Plan Amendment” in 2025 to remove protections on 1.1 million acres of habitat that was formerly mapped and protected as “lynx habitat” for the Canada lynx, a threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The removal of these protections will allow more private logging operations on these publicly-owned lands. Lynx are highly sensitive to logging operations, and are known to avoid logged areas. The lynx population in the Greater Yellowstone Area is currently at risk of extinction, but if managed properly, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest could aid the recovery of the imperiled Greater Yellowstone lynx population by serving as a connectivity corridor with the healthier lynx populations in Northern Montana. By choosing to remove protections rather than increase them, however, the government is completely undermining recovery of this struggling lynx population.

"The Forest Service recently amended its Forest Plan to eliminate legally-binding logging restrictions on 1.1 million acres of connectivity lynx habitat -- which is an area larger than Glacier National Park,” explained Michael Garrity, Director of co-Plaintiffs Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

"This amendment undermines lynx recovery, which the Forest Service is legally bound to pursue for all species listed under the Endangered Species Act," Garrity continued. "Although both the Forest Service and Fish & Wildlife Service are required by law to follow the best available science, in this case, both agencies are ignoring the best available science that finds that the entire National Forest is either reproductive, residential, or dispersal lynx habitat, all of which need to be protected. 

"The Forest Service cannot have it both ways," said Clint Nagel, President of co-Plaintiff the Gallatin Wildlife Association and retired 31-year veteran with the U.S. Geological Survey. "The agency can't say it wants to provide better management of Canada lynx on one hand -- and then approve forest logging, burning and road-building projects on the forest that removes or hinders the ability for lynx to move about freely and/or habituate itself upon that landscape. It is time to stop the hypocrisy."

"When the executive branch of the federal government breaks the law the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right to sue the government," Garrity concluded. "If someone throws a brick through a window, the police enforce the law. But when a federal agency breaks the law, it's the citizens who must stand up to enforce the law. This is how the civil justice system works and citizens should never be shamed or intimidated from holding the government accountable to the law.”

8. Sage Grouse Management Plan across 9 Western States v.BLM

STATUS: Just Beginning

For Immediate Release, March 2, 2026

Contact:

Randi Spivak, Center for Biological Diversity, (310) 779-4894, rspivak@biologicaldiversity.org
Sarah Stellberg, Advocates for the West, (208) 801-7520, sstellberg@advocateswest.org
Erik Molvar, Western Watersheds Project, emolvar@westernwatersheds.org
Clint Nagle, Gallatin Wildlife Association, clint_nagel@yahoo.com
Matt Sandler, Rocky Mountain Wild, Matt@rockymountainwild.org
Ginny Roscamp , Sierra Club, ginny.roscamp@sierraclub.org
Joanna Zhang, WildEarth Guardians, Jzhang@wildearthguardians.org

Lawsuit Challenges Trump’s Gutting of Greater Sage Grouse Protections in Nine Western States

GREAT FALLS, Mont.— Conservation groups sued the Bureau of Land Management today to challenge its final plans governing greater sage grouse management across 71 million acres of federal public lands in nine Western states.

Today’s lawsuit covers the dwindling species’ habitat in Montana, Idaho, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nevada, California, Utah and Wyoming.

The Trump administration finalized the plans in December, stripping protections approved in 2015 by Western states and federal officials to prevent the need to list greater sage grouse as endangered. Those 2015 plans have failed to protect the imperiled greater sage grouse and its disappearing habitat.

“The Trump administration’s destructive, illegal plans could nail the coffin shut on our country’s incredible dancing birds unless the courts intervene,” said Randi Spivak, public lands policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “There’s no scientific support for claims that these plans will save sage grouse, and no public support for them either. The greater sage grouse’s fate is tied to hundreds of other animals who all rely on the Sagebrush Sea. We’ve got to preserve these Western landscapes for future generations, and we do that by stopping Trump’s giveaways to corporate billionaires.”

Today’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Montana, says the plans violate several federal laws by disregarding the best available science showing that expanded oil and gas and other development cause sage grouse populations to decline. The plans also give states the authority to dictate whether the BLM may strengthen sage grouse protections on federal land, even after significant sage grouse population or habitat declines.

“After a decade of tepid sage grouse protections, now the Bureau of Land Management is completely abandoning its responsibility to manage commercial activities in sage grouse habitats to allow the birds to survive,” said Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist and executive director of Western Watersheds Project. “The limitations on livestock grazing, oil and gas development, and mining in the original plans are now being cast aside in a rush to accelerate industrial and commercial activities and destroy the wild places and wildlife that make the American West unique.”

Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey found that most greater sage grouse breeding sites have a 50% chance of disappearing over roughly the next six decades if conditions remain unchanged. The changes to the sage grouse plans will make sagebrush habitat conditions worse.

“BLM has once again failed sage grouse,” said Sarah Stellberg, an attorney with Advocates for the West who is representing the conservation groups in the case. “These new plans fall short of conservation measures scientists say are needed to recover this species, opening millions of acres of public lands to expanded industrial development. For a species already in decline, we are out of time for half-measures. We are back in court to hold BLM accountable for meaningful conservation before it is too late.”

“The sage grouse are iconic birds who makes their home across the West, yet society takes their habitual lands for granted and in so doing we undermine this bird’s ability to survive,” said Clint Nagel, president of the Gallatin Wildlife Association. “It is past time to take these urgent steps to fight rampant habitat destruction and fragmentation.”

This is the second time Trump has tried to undermine critical protections for greater sage grouse. In 2019 the Trump administration weakened the plans to appease industry and allow more drilling, mining, livestock grazing and other destructive activities in greater sage grouse habitat. Later that year a federal judge ruled that those plans were illegal.

“The Trump administration tried, and failed, to dismantle sage grouse protections once before, yet here we are again,” said Joanna Zhang, endangered species advocate with WildEarth Guardians. “We’re going to court once more to ensure that our public lands are managed for wildlife and future generations, and that sage grouse aren’t sacrificed for corporate gain.”

“These plans ignore best available science and open public lands to expanded oil and gas drilling and other industrial development, even though evidence shows this drives sage grouse declines,” said Ben Greuel, national wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club. “For more than a decade, we’ve fought to protect this iconic species and the landscape it depends on from industry-backed rollbacks that put corporate profits before conservation. We’re taking this fight to court because corporations aren’t above the law, and they don’t get to push a species closer to extinction for short-term gains.”

The new plans repeat many of the 2019 rollbacks of the 2015 BLM plans’ important safeguards, including:

• Removing protections from 11 million acres of prime sage grouse habitat;
• Eliminating requirements to prioritize new oil and gas leasing outside of sage grouse habitat;
• Making it easier for BLM officials to disregard protective buffers around sage grouse mating and nesting areas, called leks;
• Eliminating a requirement that developers offset harms to public land habitat through beneficial mitigation projects elsewhere.

Other changes include weakening habitat protections in Nevada to allow construction of the Greenlink North transmission line, which would destroy nesting and mating grounds. The plans also allow states to override a warning system designed to detect declines in local sage grouse populations before they become irreversible. They also remove science-based grass-height standards for nesting habitat, a shift driven by livestock-industry pressure in Nevada, California, and Idaho that further threatens the birds’ existence.

Background
Greater sage grouse were deemed eligible for protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2010 because of steep population declines. Instead of protecting the birds under the Act, however, federal officials adopted revised land management plans in 2015 that limited where mining, oil and gas, transmission lines and other heavy industry could operate within priority habitat areas in 10 states.

Much of the 2015 plans were never implemented and they were further weakened in 2018 and in 2024. The birds’ populations continue to spiral downward, declining nearly 80% between 1968 and 2023, with more than half of that loss occurring over the last two decades.

As many as 16 million greater sage grouse once ranged across 297 million acres of sagebrush grasslands, a vast area of western North America known as the Sagebrush Sea. Over the last 200 years, agriculture, oil and gas drilling, livestock grazing and development have reduced the grouse’s range by nearly half, and sage grouse populations have steadily declined to perhaps 1.3% of their original number.

Protecting greater sage grouse and their habitat benefits hundreds of other species that depend on this sagebrush landscape, including pygmy rabbits, pronghorns, elk, mule deer, burrowing owls, golden eagles, native trout, and migratory and resident birds.