Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana

After the State of Montana adopted new wolf trapping and snaring regulations, parties to a lawsuit challenging the previous regulations agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuit. The new regulations incorporated a preliminary injunction’s temporal and geographic limitations. The court had imposed the limitations upon finding that the plaintiffs presented a “substantial body of evidence” that future unlawful takes of grizzly bears in legal wolf and coyote traps were reasonably certain under the previous regulations, including evidence regarding a trend of grizzly bears being active outside their dens during the trapping season due to a warmer winter climate. The defendants agreed to pay the plaintiffs $210,000 for attorneys’ fees, costs, and other litigation expenses.

The federal district court for the District of Montana denied motions for summary judgment in advance of a December 2024 bench trial in conservation groups’ lawsuit asserting that Montana’s authorization of wolf and coyote trapping and snaring in grizzly bear habitat would result in unlawful take of grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act, due in part to increased wintertime grizzly bear activity. Regarding the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, the court found that there were unresolved factual issues regarding whether future grizzly bear takings by wolf and coyote traps were reasonably certain. The court also found that questions regarding whether coyote traps and snares threaten grizzly bears prevented partial summary judgment for agricultural groups that intervened as defendants. The court also rejected the defendants’ challenges to the plaintiffs’ notice of intent to sue and granted in part motions to compel expert disclosures. The court noted that the bench trial was scheduled to start on December 2, 2024.

The federal district court for the District of Montana enjoined the State of Montana from authorizing wolf trapping and snaring in certain areas except during the time period in January and February “when it is reasonably certain that almost all grizzly bears will be in dens.” The court found that plaintiff organizations had, “at a minimum, raised serious questions going to the merits” of their claim that Montana’s regulation extending the length of the trapping season and expanding the area where trapping may occur was reasonably certain to result in takes of grizzly bears in violation of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The court further found that the plaintiffs presented a “substantial body of evidence” that future takes of grizzly bears in legal wolf and coyote traps were reasonably certain, which established irreparable harm sufficient for a preliminary injunction. The court found, among other things, that the plaintiffs “convincingly argue[d]” that the trend of grizzly bears being active outside their dens after November 27 or before March 15 was “likely to increase due to a warmer winter climate.”