Contact:
Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands, 314-482-3746, nick@old.cascwild.org
Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild, 541-344-0675, dh@oregonwild.org

Court Rules BLM Clearcuts on the Edge of Springfield Will Increase Fire Hazard and Harm Recreation

Conservation groups and neighbors defeat BLM’s Thurston Hills timber sale

Eugene, Or. — On Wednesday, Judge Michael McShane ruled in a lawsuit filed by Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild, determining that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated federal laws when it approved clearcutting 100 acres of public land next to the city of Springfield. The court said that BLM’s environmental review failed to consider the fact that logging would increase fire hazard for nearby residents and failed to harmonize logging and recreation by buffering trails as required by BLM’s own rules.

The Court held the BLM failed to explain or analyze “the degree or severity of fire hazard to the community and neighboring landowners” and “attempted to marginalize the effects of regeneration logging” on public safety and fire hazard. The Court went on to explain that the logging would for 5 years immediately following harvest “increase stand-level [fire] hazard from low to moderate/high” “with higher predicted flame length, fire duration, and intensity and decreased ability to control a fire.” “Over the next 10 to 40 years, stands would transition through stages associated with high stand-level fire hazard rating and go from a slash fuel to a brush fuel type, which are more volatile and susceptible to high fire-caused mortality rates. These potential fires would have high flame lengths, rates of spread, and intensity and would be difficult to initially attack and control.”

Local residents had repeatedly raised wildfire safety concerns to the BLM, and the BLM had assured these neighbors that the issue would be addressed. The Court concluded that not only was this issue not addressed, but that BLM removed from public review its 18-page fuels specialist (fire) report and “deprived the public of its only opportunity to comment.”

Many of these neighbors spoke out when the timber sale was finalized: “I am concerned that the Bureau of Land Management chose to ignore the increased risk of wildfire that would result from their clearcut proposal, and am worried that the Thurston Hills timber sale will not only be a local eyesore, but will also threaten the safety of my home and community,” said Sue Hartman, a local resident who lives off of 69^th Street in Springfield, close to the proposed logging.

The area to be logged is located directly adjacent to Willamalane’s recently opened 665-acre Thurston Hills Natural Area. BLM’s recently adopted new resource management plan (RMP) for western Oregon and in collaboration with Willamalane, specifically designated this small area for recreation in order to complement the Thurston Hills Natural Area’s recreation opportunities, specifically high-quality mountain biking and hiking.

“Through this legal challenge, it became clear that the BLM was getting clear commands to ramp up the cut from higher up,” said Nick Cady, legal director of Cascadia Wildlands. “The ruling is a big win for community safety and recreation in our backyard forests.”

BLM now must reconsider its logging plans, and if they decide to proceed with logging, BLM must buffer and protect the trails and conduct a more in-depth analysis of fire hazard caused by logging. This case highlights the fact that mature trees with thick bark and high canopies are more resistant and resilient to fire compared to the dense under-growth that develops after clearcutting. Dozens of nearby homes could be threatened if a fire starts, and BLM admits that its proposed logging will substantially increase wildfire hazard for the Springfield community for 40-50 years after logging.

“We hope this decision dispels BLM’s notion that logging trumps everything else even in a designated recreation area,” says Doug Heiken with Oregon Wild. “BLM needs to listen to the public and come up with a plan to provide high quality recreation and one that protects the community from fire.”

In June 2018, Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) wrote the BLM regarding this timber sale and told them, “If the BLM proceeds with this project, it will inflict lasting damage to its reputation and will garner ill will from the community for decades. The agency will lose any trust or goodwill that has been built over the years by previous district managers.”

Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys Jennifer Schwartz and Nick Cady, legal director with Cascadia Wildlands.

A copy of the Court’s Order and Opinion can be found here.

The post Legal Victory: Thurston Hills Timber Sale Defeated in Court first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Court: Oregon Illegally Denied Marbled Murrelet Endangered Species Protections

EUGENE, Ore.— An Oregon judge has issued a decision concluding the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission violated Oregon law in denying a petition filed by five conservation groups demanding the commission uplist the murrelet from threatened to endangered under the Oregon Endangered Species Act.

Lane County Circuit Court Judge Lauren Holland concluded the Fish and Wildlife Commission illegally changed its decision after first voting to accept the petition to list the murrelet as endangered.

The groups petitioned the commission to uplist the marbled murrelet in 2016. The commission voted 4-2 in February to accept the petition to increase the seabird’s protections, concluding the marbled murrelet was likely to go extinct in the foreseeable future. The commission then instructed the wildlife agency’s staff to begin development of mandatory species survival guidelines as required under Oregon law.

But, after a change in its membership, the commission reversed itself without explanation, and voted 4-2 in June to deny the petition it had accepted just four months earlier.

“Oregon’s desperate struggle to avoid protections for the marbled murrelet ignored science, the law and ODFW’s mission to protect Oregon’s imperiled wildlife,” said Nick Cady, legal director at Cascadia Wildlands. “Our Governor needs to step up and meaningfully address her agencies’ cowering demeanors when it comes to regulating private industries in Oregon. This active neglect of duties towards imperiled species left the marbled murrelet on a path toward extinction in Oregon. It is a shame that we even need the court to address these issues.”

The marbled murrelet is a small seabird that nests in old-growth and mature forests and forages at sea. Its population has declined dramatically in recent decades due to extensive logging in Oregon’s coast range.

It was listed as threatened under the Oregon Endangered Species Act in 1995. However, Oregon has allowed intensive clearcut logging to continue in marbled murrelet habitat on lands owned and regulated by the state. Uplisting to endangered status would require the state to develop a management plan and survival guidelines, providing much-needed protections for the species.

“There can be no question the marbled murrelet is endangered in Oregon,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Logging, warming seas and a host of other factors are all taking a toll on this far-flying seabird. We’re so glad the court rejected the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission’s wrongheaded reversal of its decision to uplist the murrelet to endangered.”

In 2017, responding to the petition from conservation organizations, ODFW conducted a status review to assess the murrelet’s condition. The review demonstrated that murrelets need increased protection under the Oregon Endangered Species Act, due largely to loss of nesting habitat from ongoing clearcut logging on lands managed by the state of Oregon.

“This decision is a win for marbled murrelets and for Oregonians who care about protecting biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest,” said Quinn Read, director of the Northwest program at Defenders of Wildlife. “The Commission’s attempt to deny protections for this imperiled species undermined fair and transparent public process and disregarded overwhelming science. The court is now holding the commission accountable to science and the urgent need to protect our native wildlife.”

The status review provided copious evidence from multiple peer-reviewed studies that murrelets are at serious risk in Oregon. The best available science predicts the extinction probability at 80 percent by 2060 along Oregon’s central and north coasts and 80 percent by 2100 along Oregon’s south coast. California and Washington have already classified murrelets as endangered.

“The ODFW Commission’s reversal of its decision to uplist the murrelet to endangered was outrageous and had no basis in either science or law,” said Bob Sallinger, conservation director for Portland Audubon. “It is time now for ODFW to do what they should have done more than a year ago and uplist the murrelet to endangered and put in place measures to reverse its decline toward extinction.”

Judge Holland concluded that after voting to accept the petition to uplist the marbled murrelet to endangered status under Oregon law – an officially stated agency position under the law – and then subsequently voting to deny the petition, the commission was required to explain the contradiction between the two decisions. Because the commission offered no explanation, the decision to deny the petition violated Oregon law. Holland concluded the commission failed to provide a written basis denying the uplisting petition.

“We are in the midst of a global extinction crisis. Oregon will not be able to confront that crisis and protect our native wildlife if our leaders are willing to ignore science, the public and even their own rules to appease the timber industry,” said Danielle Moser, wildlife program coordinator for Oregon Wild.

“The best available science tells us that murrelets in Oregon will go extinct in the near future unless we take immediate action to rectify the biggest threats to the murrelet’s survival. The uplisting petition was aimed at doing that,” said John Mellgren, wildlife director for the Western Environmental Law Center.

The conservation groups in this case are represented by attorneys from Cascadia Wildlands, Western Environmental Law Center, and the Center for Biological Diversity.

###

The post Legal Victory for Marbled Murrelets in Oregon! first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Last week we kicked off our summer as Cascadia Wildlands’ latest legal interns by attending oral arguments in the Oregon Supreme Court! It couldn’t have been better timing that we started our internships just as attorneys Dan Kruse and Nick Cady were putting the final touches on their Oregon Supreme Court oral argument in the Cascadia Wildlands vs. Oregon Dept. of State Lands (ODSL) lawsuit. This case concerns the ODSL’s sale of the 788-acre East Hakki Ridge parcel of the Elliott State Forest to Seneca Jones Timber Company, which plaintiffs argue is a clear violation of ORS 530.450, which prohibits the sale of the Elliott State Forest. While the ODSL and Seneca Jones (the Intervenor) have readily conceded that the sale violated the statute, they argue that the statute itself was entirely unconstitutional — an argument that Cascadia Wildlands asserts to be incorrect. Following the Appellate Court’s 2016 ruling in favor of the petitioners (Cascadia Wildlands, Audubon Society of Portland, Center for Biological Diversity, and Joshua Laughlin), the ODSL and Seneca Jones appealed to the state Supreme Court, which scheduled oral arguments for June 4, 2019.

We began by familiarizing ourselves with the Elliott State Forest timber sale in question and then accompanied Cascadia Wildlands’ attorneys to the Oregon Supreme Court. Observing and participating in the preparation for oral arguments allowed us to understand the legal mechanics required to construct a successful oral argument – a 30 minute conversation with a panel of judges champing at the bit to ask narrow hypothetical and big-picture questions, all to gain a deeper understanding of how to interpret the law.

After enjoying the visual distractions of 105-year-old courthouse, complete with a marble interior and an intricate stained-glass ceiling, the judges entered the courtroom and the focus turned to the center of the room. The ODSL began with its argument, splitting time with the attorney representing Seneca Jones. Dan Kruse followed, fielding the judge’s questions and challenges calmly and firmly, without skipping a beat. Though we are only first-year legal interns, anyone who heard Dan’s delivery would confidently agree that he rocked it.

Forest management in the United States is rife with problems, and while federal and state agencies have great ability to manage and remedy these challenges, action is not always set in motion properly. It is imperative that conservationists are able to find recourse in the courts, where the impartial judicial branch can enforce the duties of the legislature and executive branches regarding our public lands. As Jess and I watched the law interface with the state government and private industry, we are hopeful that the Court will right what Cascadia Wildlands believes to be a wrong. We are grateful for the opportunity to support Cascadia’s competent legal team and look forward to a fun and challenging experience with the organization. Admittedly, after week one, the expectations are quite high.

The post Cascadia Wildlands and Partners in Front of Oregon Supreme Court to Protect the Elliott State Forest first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 19, 2019

Contact:
Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands, 314-482-3746
Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild, 541-344-0675

Lawsuit Says BLM Clearcuts on the Edge of Springfield Will Increase Fire Hazard and Harm Recreation
Conservation groups and neighbors challenge the Pedal Power timber sale in the Thurston Hills

Eugene — Today, Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild filed a lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) plans to clearcut 100 acres of public forest on the edge of Springfield and directly adjacent to Willamalane’s recently opened 665-acre Thurston Hills Natural Area. In their complaint, the conservation organizations and residents who live adjacent to the proposed clearcutting cite increased fire hazards and threats to recreation from the logging.

“I am concerned that the Bureau of Land Management chose to ignore the increased risk of wildfire that would result from their clearcut proposal, and am worried that the Thurston Hills timber sale will not only be a local eyesore, but will also threaten the safety of my home and community,” says Sue Hartman, a local resident who lives off of 69th Street in Springfield, close to the proposed logging.

The area to be logged was specifically designated as a recreation area in BLM’s 2016 Resource Management Plan (RMP). The recreation area designation is meant to complement the recreation and natural area goals on Willamalane’s Thurston Hills Natural Area which borders the BLM property. BLM has plans to build several miles of new non-motorized hiking and biking trails in the area after logging is complete. The new RMP calls on BLM to manage the area for high quality recreation experiences. The lawsuit says clearcutting violates this requirement, and the agency should have considered thinning instead of clearcutting to better harmonize timber and recreation goals.

“No one wants to go hiking or biking in a clearcut,” says Nick Cady of Cascadia Wildlands. “The BLM, true to form, is putting logging ahead of recreation, even in an area specifically designated for the public’s enjoyment.”

The lawsuit also points out that clearcutting will increase fire hazard posing a threat to dozens of nearby homes. Clearcutting removes fire-resistant trees with thick bark and high canopies. After logging, tree planting creates dense conifer plantations that have dense interlocking branches close to the ground. Fire experts recognize this as a very hazardous fuel condition. Nearby residents raised serious concerns about fire hazard during the public comment period, and BLM admits that logging will increase fire hazard for 40 years after logging. However, BLM refused to consider alternatives to clearcutting, such as thinning, that would likely reduce fire hazard.

“With the climate getting steadily warmer, it is simply irresponsible for BLM to put Springfield residents at increased risk of fire for the next 40 years,” said Kebrhea Cuellar, a local resident who lives in Springfield, close to the proposed logging. “It is baffling why the agency chose to conduct clearcutting instead of thinning in this recreation area so close to Springfield.

The timber sale has drawn ire not only from conservation and recreation interests, but also neighbors and elected officials like Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), whose Congressional District includes this area. In June 2018, the Congressman wrote the BLM and told them, “If the BLM proceeds with this project, it will inflict lasting damage to its reputation and will garner ill will from the community for decades. The agency will lose any trust or goodwill that has been built over the years by previous district managers.” Shortly thereafter, the BLM made minor changes to the timber sale, but moved forward with the majority of the proposed logging.

More information on the project here.

Maps of the project area are below:

The post Thurston Hills Timber Sale Challenged! first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Court: Gray Wolves Can Keep California Endangered Species Protection

Judge Finds No Merit in Pacific Legal Foundation, Rancher Challenge

SAN DIEGO — A state court judge today upheld protection for gray wolves under the California Endangered Species Act. The ruling rejected a challenge from the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of the California Cattlemen’s Association and California Farm Bureau Federation.

“We’re so glad the court got it right and kept protection in place for California’s recovering gray wolves,” said Amaroq Weiss, the Center for Biological Diversity’s West Coast wolf advocate. “The Pacific Legal Foundation’s case was the worst kind of grasping at straws. This is a great result for the vast majority of Californians who want wolves to recover and who understand their importance to healthy ecosystems.”

Ranching groups had challenged gray wolves’ endangered status based on the erroneous claim that the wolves in California are the wrong subspecies. They also wrongly argued that the listing was improperly based on a single wolf’s presence, and that wolves can’t be endangered in the state as there are plenty elsewhere in the world.

“Wolves are coming back to California, and today’s decision gives them a red carpet to return home,” said Tom Wheeler, executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center.

In 2011 a wolf known as OR-7 crossed the border into California from northeastern Oregon, becoming the first confirmed wild wolf in the state in 87 years. The Foundation had argued, however, that OR-7 was from a subspecies that never existed in California.

The court rightly concluded that the California Fish and Game Commission has the authority to list at the species level and that OR-7 and subsequent wolves that have come into the state share a genetic history with wolves that once were widely distributed across California.

“State protections for wolves are critical given the animosity toward the species at the federal level, “said Nick Cady, legal director of Cascadia Wildlands. “It is a shame that this species, and many others, have been subjected to these political games.”

The court found that the state’s endangered species law protects species at risk of extinction in California and the commission need not consider the status of gray wolves globally. It found that threats to wolves necessitate their protection and the commission has the discretion to protect native species that were historically present based on visitation by even one animal, given the wildlife agency’s projections that more will likely arrive.

“There can be no question that gray wolves in California are endangered and need protection,” said Heather Lewis, an attorney at Earthjustice. “The gray wolf’s return to California is a success story we should celebrate, and we look forward to wolves continuing to recover in the Golden State.”

California has seen the establishment of two packs since OR-7 made his star appearance before returning to Oregon to settle down with a mate. The Shasta pack was discovered in 2015 but by mid-2016 had disappeared. The Lassen pack was confirmed in 2017 and produced pups for the second year in a row in 2018.

“Wolves are not yet close to recovered in California. At a time when the Trump administration is hostile to endangered species conservation, it is critically important that the state of California help recover wildlife like the iconic gray wolf,” said Joseph Vaile, executive director of Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center.

The Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Protection Information Center, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Cascadia Wildlands Center, represented by Earthjustice, intervened on behalf of the state.

The post Legal Victory for California’s Wolves! first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

On November 7, 2018, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) authorized the killing of wolves in the Smackout pack in Stevens County and ordered the complete elimination of the Togo pack in Ferry County. Department staff are still actively trying to kill the last adult and pup in the Old Profanity Territory pack. This is the most intensive level of wolf-killing we have seen from the WDFW to date amidst a budding recovery program with approximately 150 wolves in the entire state.

Aside from the high levels of mortality being inflicted upon Washington’s low wolf population, most of these kill orders have been at the behest of a single rancher in Washington, one whom is a vehement and prominent anti-wolf voice. Since 2012, the state of Washington has spent hundreds of thousands of tax-payer dollars to kill 21 wolves, and 17 of these have been to support this single livestock operation.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife generally does a thorough job of encouraging the implementation of non-lethal techniques to prevent wolf-livestock conflicts before they begin. But the problematic producer that has requested the killing of these 17 wolves has adamantly refused to implement preventative techniques and has actively grazed cattle in known wolf territories and in close proximity to wolf dens.

We have been able to demonstrate in Washington and Oregon that a strong emphasis on non-lethal techniques designed to prevent wolf-livestock conflict works, and works really well. But if Washington continues to kill wolves at the behest of bad actors, there is no incentive for livestock producers to get on board with the prevention program. The livestock producer has wolves killed with tax-payer dollars and then is further compensated with public dollars for any cattle lost or injured. The system in Washington is fundamentally flawed.

The people of Washington overwhelming support the recovery of wolves, and the state’s current approach is hindering that recovery. Change is necessary now. That is why Cascadia Wildlands and the Center for Biological Diversity are challenging the legality of these kill orders in court. This has been an uphill battle, but one that needs to occur.

Help Cascadia Wildlands give wolves a fighting chance in Washington! Donate today.

The post Washington Targeting Three Wolf Packs for Killing first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Lower Grave Timber Sale:

The Lower Grave timber sale is a Medford District Bureau of Land Management sale targeting old-growth forests near the Rogue River in southern Oregon. The sale targets old-growth forests inhabited by the northern spotted owl and red tree voles. Oral argument will be held on October 26, 2018 at the federal courthouse in Medford, Oregon. Find out more information on the sale here.

Quartz Timber Sale:

The Quartz timber sale is an Umpqua National Forest logging project that targets mature and old-growth forests roughly 20 miles southeast of Cottage Grove. These forests are home to a thriving population of red tree voles, an old-growth related species sensitive to logging. Oral argument was held in federal district court in Eugene on October 5, 2018 over a preliminary injunction to halt the older portions of the sale from moving forward. Find out more info on the legal challenge here, and more information on field checking efforts for red tree voles here!

Loafer Timber Sale:

The Loafer timber sale is an Umpqua National Forest logging project approximately 60 miles east of Roseburg. The sale targeted mature forests within the proposed wilderness areas surrounding Crater Lake National Park and targeted areas adjoining the popular Umpqua Hot Springs. Cascadia and our allies prevailed before the district court in this challenge and ultimately settled the dispute, allowing the less controversial, younger area logging to move forward while protecting the older, never-before-logged forests.

The post Federal Timber Sale Challenges first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Contact:  
Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands, (314) 482-3746
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495
Bob Sallinger, Portland Audubon, (503) 380-9728

Court Halts Logging of Elliott State Forest Tract Sold to Timber Company

 Old-Growth Clearcutting Stopped to Protect Threatened Marbled Murrelets

The post Court Halts Logging of Elliott State Forest Tract Sold to Timber Company first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Contact
Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands (541) 434-1463
Forrest English, Rogue Riverkeeper 541-261-2030
Roger Flynn, Mining Action Project 303-823-5738
Lori Ann Burd, Center for Biological Diversity 971-717-6405
Jake Crawford, Native Fish Society (720) 253-8485

Federal Court Upholds Oregon’s Right to Protect Water Quality and Fish Habitat

Court Finds That Restrictions on Mining Methods Are Clearly Within the State’s Authority

Medford, OR — This morning a federal court upheld an Oregon law restricting motorized gold mining in and along sensitive salmon streams. The District of Oregon court held that the State of Oregon has the right to regulate both state and federal land to protect water quality and fish habitat, and it has done so in a manner that does not conflict with federal law.

“The court correctly found that mining operations on federal land must comply with state laws enacted to protect public health and the environment,” noted Roger Flynn, with the Western Mining Action Project and one of the attorneys representing conservation and fishing groups that joined the case to help defend the Oregon law. “This decision supports a growing effort in Western states to protect clean water and fisheries from mining pollution and wildlife habitat damage,” said Flynn.

At issue in the case is Oregon’s Senate Bill 838, passed  in 2013 to implement temporary restrictions on equipment such as suction dredges and other motorized mining equipment in and nearby habitat essential for salmon, and to protect water quality. The law went into effect this January and remains in effect through 2021. The 2013 law came about due to increasing concern throughout the state about the cumulative effects of these gold mining techniques on streams and rivers.

“With these protections Oregon has taken the first step towards addressing threats to our salmon runs and water quality from mining,” said Forrest English of Rogue Riverkeeper. “We look forward to sensible regulation that extends beyond 2021 and that ensures these values are protected for all future Oregonians, the court has made it clear that we can do that.”

Peer reviewed science shows that suction dredging can mobilize toxic mercury into rivers and streams, as well as reduce salmon spawning success due to alterations in habitat. Additionally in hot spots, such as the Umpqua and Rogue Rivers, the number of dredges has created conflicts with anglers and other recreationists.

“Oregonians can breathe a sigh of relief that many of our rivers and most sensitive salmon fisheries will be protected this summer from the toxic plumes of mercury that suction dredge mining releases,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Gold miners brought a lawsuit against the State of Oregon last October alleging that federal laws denied Oregon the right to protect environmental resources within the state. Environmental groups and commercial fishing interests including Rogue Riverkeeper, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Oregon Coast Alliance, Cascadia Wildlands, Native Fish Society and the Center for Biological Diversity intervened on behalf of the state and are represented by the Western Environmental Law Center and Western Mining Action Project.

“We are very pleased the Court has clarified that the State of Oregon has the power to protect our cherished rivers from destructive suction-dredge mining, especially the famous Rogue River and its tributaries — one of the most important salmon rivers in Oregon,” said Cameron La Follette with Oregon Coast Alliance. “State environmental laws are a crucial means of protecting the public’s investment in salmon habitat restoration in our public waterways.”

“We are incredibly encouraged that the Court made the common sense decision to permit Oregon to regulate harmful mining practices in some of Oregon’s most cherished waterways,” said Nick Cady with Cascadia Wildlands.  “Oregonians have a right to protect the things they value, including clean water and salmon.”

“This decision will help keep Oregon’s iconic wild salmon healthy for future generations,” said Jake Crawford with Native Fish Society. “It bolsters similar protections in California and Idaho, while giving Washington a path forward for protecting wild salmon and water quality from suction dredge mining.”

A copy of the decision can be found here.

####

The post Federal Court in Oregon Rejects Miners’ Challenge to Suction-dredge Regulations first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Conservationists deal blow to Wildlife Services in landmark WA wolf case

Court rejects indiscriminate wolf killing

OLYMPIA, Wash. – In response to a challenge brought by a coalition of conservation organizations, a federal court rejected plans to escalate cruel wolf killing in Washington state by the secretive federal program dubbed “Wildlife Services.” Federal District Judge Robert Bryan held that Wildlife Services should have prepared a more in-depth environmental analysis of the impacts of its proposed wolf killing activities, finding the program’s cursory environmental assessment faulty because the proposed actions would have significant cumulative impacts that are highly controversial and highly uncertain.

Wildlife Services is a controversial program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service responsible for killing millions of wild animals every year, including wolves, grizzly bears, otters, foxes, coyotes and birds, with almost no oversight or accountability.

Judge Bryan vacated the program’s analysis, stating “Wildlife Services shall not take any further wolf management actions in Washington under the proposed action alternative, but shall observe the status quo in place prior to the environmental assessment and [finding of no significant impact].”

“Wildlife Services has long asserted that it need not comply with our nations’ federal environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, but this decision rejects those arguments and requires Wildlife Services to comply with all federal laws, not just those it finds convenient to comply with,” said Western Environmental Law Center Attorney John Mellgren.

A 2013 internal audit revealed that Wildlife Services’ accounting practices lacked transparency and violated state and federal laws. The program employs incredibly cruel tools to kill wildlife including aerial gunning, leghold traps, snares and poisons.

“It is long past time that we base wildlife management decisions on the best available science, not on antiquated anti-wolf rhetoric and myth,” said Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. “Wildlife Services needs to come out of the shadows, update its analyses and adopt practices in keeping with modern science and values about the ethical treatment of animals.”

The environmental assessment prepared by Wildlife Services failed to provide data to support several of its core assertions. For example, Wildlife Services claimed that killing wolves reduced wolf-caused losses of livestock, yet recent peer-reviewed research from Washington State University directly contradicts this conclusion, finding that killing wolves actually leads to an increase in wolf-livestock conflicts. The environmental assessment also fails to address the ecological effects of killing wolves in Washington, including impacts on wolf populations in neighboring states and on non-target animals, including federally protected grizzly bears and Canada lynx.

“This decision is so incredibly encouraging,” said Nick Cady, legal director of Cascadia Wildlands. “We have been working for over a decade to hold Wildlife Services accountable for its blind, reckless lethal control programs. This decision paves the way for meaningful analysis of the program’s impacts and hopefully a meaningful look at whether or not this wolf killing is worth it.”

Washington has experienced Wildlife Services’ wolf killing program firsthand. In August 2014, Wildlife Services snipers shot and killed the Huckleberry wolf pack’s alpha female during a helicopter gunning operation. The death of the Huckleberry pack’s breeding female threatens the future of the entire pack.

Wildlife Services also “advised” the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the contentious 2012 killing of Washington’s Wedge wolf pack. In that instance, WDFW killed seven wolves after predation of livestock on public lands, despite the rancher’s failure to take sufficient action to protect his cattle.

“The Court made a wise and prudent decision that safeguards the legal right of citizens to know what their government is doing in their name,” said Timothy Coleman, executive director of Kettle Range Conservation Group. “The so-called Wildlife Services cannot just grant itself authority to execute an endangered species absent the public interest or best available science.”

Wolves were driven to extinction in Washington in the early 1900s by a government-sponsored eradication program on behalf of the livestock industry. The species began to return to Washington from neighboring Idaho and British Columbia in the early 2000s and the wolf population in the state has grown to 13 confirmed packs. Despite this growth, wolves in the state are far from recovered and face ongoing threats. According to WDFW, Washington currently has at least 68 wolves in 16 packs.

The organizations, Cascadia Wildlands, WildEarth Guardians, Kettle Range Conservation Group, Predator Defense and the Lands Council were represented by the Western Environmental Law Center.

The post Huge Legal Victory for Washington’s Wolves first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.