This story is adapted from the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.
An incident involving a Wyoming man who spent hours displaying a wolf he’d injured with his snowmobile in a small-town bar before shooting her drew international attention last month. Now, wildlife and animal rights groups are citing the situation as they ask the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to restore endangered species protections for wolves. In a notice of intent to sue issued Tuesday, six groups argue that the Sublette County incident demonstrates that Northern Rockies states cannot be trusted to responsibly manage wolves.
In February, USFWS declined to restore Endangered Species Act protections for wolves, finding that “wolves are not at risk of extinction in the Western United States now or in the foreseeable future.” That finding has already been challenged in two lawsuits brought by environmental and conservation organizations.
In the April 22 letter to USFWS, Animal Wellness Action, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Footloose Montana and other groups signaled they intend to bring a third lawsuit. The groups argue that the agency failed to properly analyze “the effect of manmade factors such as politics” and “anti-wolf sentiment brewing in Western states” on the species’ continued existence. Wayne Pacelle with Animal Wellness Action told Wyofile this week that what happened in Sublette County is representative of “everything that’s wrong with Wyoming’s handling of wolves” and was a “trigger” for the lawsuit.
In a press release about the pending lawsuit, the groups make a connection between the charges brought against the man, Cody Roberts, and broader anti-wolf sentiment. Animal Wellness Action argues that Roberts, who was fined $250 for live possession of wildlife, should have been charged with animal cruelty under a section of state law dealing with animal abuse. The group said that section of Wyoming law includes an exception for the “hunting, capture, killing or destruction of any predatory animal,” but argued that the exemption shouldn’t apply to the “torment and torture of the wolf in the intervening hours between capture and killing.”
“States have proven they cannot be trusted to sustain the wolf species,” Footloose Montana Executive Director Jessica Karjala said in a release. “Wyoming is turning a blind eye to the heinous acts of Cody Roberts.”
Like Wyoming and Idaho, Montana wishes to keep wolves under state management. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is expected to adopt a new wolf management plan sometime this year.
LATEST STORIES
How Montana’s federal campaigns are funded
Montana’s federal candidates have arrived at the final stage of the general election largely fueled by individual contributions. National political action committee donations and contributions from congressional leadership committees also play a major role. Here’s a summary of the financial picture for each major candidate who raised at least $90,000 in individual contributions leading up to the Nov. 3 election, including where the bulk of their itemized donors reside.
First Nations celebrate Albertans’ decision to remain a part of Canada
The Blackfoot Confederacy, a coalition of tribes in Montana and Alberta, celebrated Albertans’ decision this week to remain a province within Canada. The “no” vote represents a long-sought victory for First Nations in Alberta, who brought a legal challenge and launched a public information campaign to thwart the secession. Alberta’s independence movement dates back to the Great Depression, though it gained popularity and legitimacy after a handful of events in recent years, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the election of Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Crow Legislature rejects bill to expand enrollment
After nearly two hours of impassioned debate, the Crow Tribe’s Legislature on Wednesday voted down a bill that would dramatically change who counts as a tribal member. The bill, brought by Chairman Frank White Clay, would have revised the tribe’s “blood quantum” standard, effectively making more people eligible for tribal citizenship. Supporters argued that the change was needed to ensure the continued existence of the tribe. Opponents expressed concern over straining federal funding.
