(CN) — After his order limiting wolf trapping and snaring in Montana’s grizzly bear territory survived the scrutiny of a Ninth Circuit panel this past April, Chief U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy denied conservation groups’ motion for summary judgment in the case.
Molloy, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote in a 30-page order that there are still material questions of fact in the case that are best answered at a bench trial, which is scheduled to begin Dec. 2.
In November 2023, Molloy granted a preliminary injunction requested by Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force and WildEarth Guardians, two conservation groups.
The groups claim Montana’s plan to allow wolf trapping as early as the first Monday after Thanksgiving through March 15 can cause harm to the grizzly bears and violates the Endangered Species Act.
Molloy, in granting the injunction, found the conservationists had shown that the unlawful take of grizzly bears in wolf and coyote traps is reasonably certain under Montana regulations, and therefore had shown irreparable harm sufficient for the injunction. The Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction in April but questioned whether it was geographically overbroad.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to extend the injunction until Montana received incidental take permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and to include coyote trapping as part of the injunction in addition to wolf trapping. They claimed that grizzly bears were certain to be harmed as long as trapping occurred in their habitats.
The plaintiffs requested recreational wolf and coyote trapping be permitted only from Jan. 1 through Feb. 15 every year in grizzly habitat. They say climate change is driving the bears to be more active in the winter months, putting them at risk from the traps and snares used to catch canids.
The defendants argue there have been no past violations and can be no future violations because the state's mitigation measures, like its floating season start date and requirements like trap weight limits and breakaway devices, and mandatory new trapper education courses, eliminate the likelihood of any future accidental capture of grizzly bears.
Molloy found the defendants’ argument was weak, but still denied summary judgment to the conservation groups.
“Although defendants’ staunch insistence that there is no evidence of past take and will be no future harm to grizzly bears from the state’s widespread authorization of trapping and snaring activity in Montana is not convincing, neither plaintiffs nor agricultural groups have established that they're entitled to summary judgment on the ultimate question,” Molloy wrote. “Because genuine issues of material fact remain, this case is best resolved at trial. Thus, summary judgment is denied.”
Molloy found the evidence shows that grizzly bears have been harmed by both coyote and wolf traps in Montana, but that the two sides fundamentally disagree about the extent to which these occurrences support the plaintiffs’ claim that the take of grizzly bears is “reasonably certain.”
The judge did say that there is “convincing evidence” on the record that coyote traps could harm grizzly bears, however.
Lawyers for the conservation groups and the state of Montana declined to comment on the ruling.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Nebraska spars with ACLU over felon voting rights August 28, 2024
