The last-ditch lawsuit filed by Colorado ranchers to block an underway plan to release wolves got fiery on Wednesday.
A flurry of filings by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Parks and Wildlife and two animal groups blasted the Colorado Cattlemen’s and Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ associations, setting the stage for a Thursday hearing in federal court.
The ranchers are asking U.S. District Court Judge Regina Rodriguez to issue an injunction and temporary restraining order blocking Colorado Parks and Wildlife from releasing wolves on the Western Slope. The agency has wildlife officials in Oregon right now working to capture five wolves and fly them to Colorado to release in the next two weeks on private or state land somewhere in Eagle, Grand or Summit counties. (CPW will not put wolves on federal land but the predators will certainly roam into national forests on the Western Slope where ranchers lease land for grazing cattle.)
CPW in a filing on Wednesday agreed to not release wolves until after the hearing on Thursday.
The ranchers, in a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Denver, argued that the Fish and Wildlife Service should have conducted an environmental impact statement review of its renewal of an agreement with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to manage endangered species.
To secure an injunction, the ranchers will have to prove in the hearing Thursday that they have a likely chance of winning their case.
Attorneys for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service filed a response to the ranchers’ request for a halt to the reintroduction process saying the livestock groups “are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim” that the service did not follow federal law when it renewed its endangered species cooperative management agreement with the state.
☀️ READ MORE
“If CPW’s program for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species is ‘adequate and active,’” the federal agency’s response reads, “the service must enter into the cooperative agreement. There is no room for the exercise of discretion.”
And an environmental impact statement review under the National Environmental Policy Act is not required for agency actions that are “non-discretionary.”
The Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife have twice renewed their cooperative agreements concerning endangered species — including wolves — since voters approved wolf reintroduction in November 2020. Neither time did the service conduct a review under NEPA. The service’s attorneys argued that the ranchers knew wolves were coming and knew about the cooperative agreements for years, so their claims of “irreparable harm” does not jibe with “the very last minute” lawsuit to block reintroduction.
If the court agrees with the ranchers and requires a NEPA review of the species management agreement between CPW and the service, Colorado could lose federal funding for managing all its endangered species, like Canada lynx, wolves and wolverines, according to the federal agency’s filing.
“This would harm threatened and listed species and the service’s efforts to conserve them,” reads the federal response. “It would undermine the public interest in preserving and protecting threatened and listed species.”
Defenders of Wildlife, a D.C-based nonprofit that has spent years supporting the reintroduction of wolves in the Rocky Mountains, on Wednesday asked the federal court to allow it to intervene in the lawsuit and defend the planned release. The group’s motion says many of its members “revere wolves, frequently visit parts of Colorado where wolves will be restored and are keen to experience wolves in the wild and to experience the biodiversity benefits they bring to the state.”
“Livestock losses to wolves are rare,” the group’s 15-page motion reads, also noting that the state’s reintroduction plan provides livestock growers in Colorado up to $15,000 for each animal killed by wolves.
Friends of Animals also asked the court to allow it to participate in the defense of wolf reintroduction. The Connecticut-based animal advocacy group has sued Colorado Parks and Wildlife twice over hunter-friendly rules for State Wildlife Areas as part of what the group calls its “persistent campaign to transform wildlife agencies to protect wild animals and not just the interests of hunters and fishers.”
Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s response to the request to block releases also argues that the ranchers’ case is not likely to succeed. The state’s argument focuses on a lack of claims against Colorado.
“The plaintiffs do not allege that CPW has violated NEPA or any other law,” reads the response written by Lisa Reynolds with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, who called the ranchers’ failure to state a claim “fatal to their request for an injunction.” Even if the ranchers could establish a reasonable likelihood of winning its case against the Fish and Wildlife Service, that should not be enough to block the release of wolves, reads the state’s filing.
CPW already has sent staff to Oregon to capture five wolves and return them to Colorado and Wednesday’s court filing argued a delay will cost CPW money and “will not serve the public interest in CPW carrying out the will of the voters.”
The ranchers argue that CPW has met the voter mandate by preparing a reintroduction plan by the end of 2023. CPW argues that legal theory “is untested.”
“Preventing CPW from reintroducing wolves before Dec. 31, 2023 could expose CPW to liability,” the filing reads.