Judge renews injunction protecting wolves in the SNRA
by Todd Adams
The federal government cannot engage in wolf control
actions on either private or public lands within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) if wolves attack livestock during
the 2003 grazing season, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Winmill
has ruled.
In an April 2 decision, Winmill granted the ban on wolf control
as part of a second injunction sought by the Idaho Conservation
League (ICL) and Western Watersheds Project (WWP) but denied
the environmental groups’ request to shut down grazing on
eight grazing allotments.
The injunction against wolf control actions by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service “shall expire on November 1, 2003,”
Winmill wrote.
A 2002 injunction expired after the 2002 grazing season but
did not include private land within the SNRA. Winmill has now
extended the injunction to private property within the SNRA.
The federal government had asked Winmill after the 2002 injunction
to clarify whether private land was affected or not.
Winmill declined to shut down grazing on eight “problem”
grazing allotments in order to protect wolves in the SNRA and
Sawtooth National Forest for not only the 2003 grazing season,
but in “future years” as asked by WWP and ICL.
The judge also declined to alter the terms and conditions
of the grazing permits set by the U.S. Forest Service.
But Winmill did grant a request by ICL to speed up the Forest
Service’s environmental analysis of the grazing allotments
(see related story).
In renewing the injunction against wolf control actions, Winmill
wrote, “The Court perceives this as a limited remedy that
will ‘give the parties time to work out solutions while
allowing grazing to continue.’”
The environmental groups’ motion had asked Winmill to
close the eight grazing allotments with prior and potential future
wolf-livestock conflicts until the SNRA and Forest Service have
fully complied with federal laws to review grazing practices
and impacts on wolves.
Judge issues decision
Oral arguments were heard in the case on April 1, and Winmill
issued his decision the next day. “The Court has decided
to extend the injunctive relief entered previously [in 2002],
but declines to close allotments or to modify the terms of existing
permits,” Winmill wrote.
Winmill agreed with defendants (the U.S. Forest Service and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) that his authority to close grazing
allotments or to modify permits is limited by two acts of Congress.
The Recissions Act passed by Congress in 1995 protects ranchers
from having their expired grazing permits cancelled if the permit
can’t be renewed solely because of Forest Service delay.
But if the ranchers’ permits are not renewed due to violations
of the grazing permits’ terms, the Act’s protection does not apply.
The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (CAR) passed by
Congress in 2003 extends protection to Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) as well as Forest Service permits. The 2003 legislation
extends protection until completion of analysis under not only
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) but “all applicable
laws and regulations.”
Winmill presumes this would include the SNRA Organic Act,
which created the SNRA.
In granting the 2002 injunction, Winmill had sought to balance
the value of wildlife and livestock grazing under the SNRA Organic
Act. Winmill had said wildlife takes primacy over the “conditional
value of grazing.”
ICL and WWP had asked Winmill to close the eight allotments
or modify grazing permits to protect wolves.
“There is no evidence that the permits at issue here
had expired or were not being renewed due to some concern other
than agency delay,” Winmill wrote in his April 2 decision.
“Under these circumstances, the Recissions Act and CAR limit
the authority of the Court to void or modify the permits.”
Wolves protected
But Winmill said there is nothing in the legislation “that
would affect the authority of the Court to once again enjoin
the enforcement of a portion of the Wolf Control rules for a
defined period of time. Under this injunction, the wolves’
predations within the SNRA will not count against the wolves
under the Wolf Control Rules.”
In other words, wolves that kill livestock cannot be killed.
In extending the wolf control injunction to private lands
this year, Winmill cited the SNRA Organic Act, which allows the
Secretary of Agriculture to draft regulations for the use of
“privately owned property within the boundaries of the [SNRA].
“This authority offers at least some support for the
Court applying its injunction to private lands within the SNRA
to ensure that SNRA values [such as wildlife] are upheld,”
Winmill wrote.
But Winmill said the government retains the right to raise
this issue for a “final determination.”
In separate cases, WWP has sued the Forest Service and BLM
for not completing environmental analyses on all grazing allotments
under the Recissions Act.
Complete records on SNRA
wolf case number 01-389:
U.S.
District Court website
www.id.uscourts.gov