622 F.Supp.3d 997
D. Idaho2022Background
- Plaintiffs (several conservation and animal-welfare organizations) challenge Idaho laws and 2021 rule changes that expanded wolf trapping/snaring: year‑round trapping on private land, removal of the 15‑tag cap, and authorization of state‑sponsored private‑contractor wolf control. Plaintiffs allege these changes are reasonably certain to cause unlawful "take" of ESA‑listed grizzly bears (and separately, lynx).
- Two grizzly incidents in Idaho in 2020: a subadult male found dead in May with wolf snares tightly around its neck (investigation unresolved), and an adult male shot in August who had a broken wolf snare and a British Columbia ear tag. Plaintiffs also cite a 2012 incidental capture by state researchers and reports from other jurisdictions of incidental grizzly captures.
- Idaho officials state they have no record of any grizzly taken incidentally by a licensed trapper complying with Idaho wolf‑trapping rules; state rules restrict trap types/placement, require breakaway devices for snares, 72‑hour checks, and limit public‑land seasons to align with grizzly denning in recovery areas.
- Procedural posture: Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt the expanded trapping rules pending merits. The Court heard argument and took the motion under advisement.
- The court concluded Plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits or a reasonably certain threat of imminent irreparable harm from lawful compliance with Idaho’s wolf‑trapping rules, and therefore denied the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs demonstrated likelihood of success on an ESA §9 "take" claim | Idaho’s expanded trapping laws are reasonably certain to cause unlawful take of grizzlies because traps/snares are indiscriminate and past incidents show risk | The documented grizzly incidents were not shown to result from lawful, licensed trapping under Idaho’s rules; no causal link to the statutes/rules | Denied — plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success because causation to lawful trapping under Idaho law was not established |
| Whether plaintiffs showed a reasonably certain, imminent threat of irreparable harm (required for injunctive relief under ESA jurisprudence) | Expanded seasons (private land year‑round), unlimited tags, and state contractor programs increase risk of future takes, especially when bears are active | No increase in recorded grizzly captures after the rule changes; evidence of past incidents is speculative and may involve unlawful or out‑of‑state snares | Denied — speculative harm insufficient; plaintiffs did not meet the required showing of reasonably certain future take |
| Whether prior incidents are adequate to infer future violations traceable to Idaho’s regulatory scheme | Prior Idaho and out‑of‑state reports show non‑target captures occur and may be underreported, supporting a risk of future takes | Prior incidents either involved unlawful or non‑Idaho snares or agency research captures exempted by regulation; Idaho has monitoring and enforcement practices | Denied — court found no record that lawful Idaho trappers have incidentally taken grizzlies, so prior incidents do not establish traceable future risk |
| Whether equitable/ESA injunction standards (diminished balancing) mandate an injunction despite uncertainty | ESA’s remedial scheme favors protection of species, reducing courts’ traditional weighing of equities | Court: ESA still requires plaintiffs to show reasonably certain threat of future take; courts cannot enjoin based on conjecture | Denied — ESA does not eliminate plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate likely future harm; injunction not warranted on present record |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm absent special circumstances)
- Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (ESA injunction precedent showing strong congressional preference for species protection)
- Marbled Murrelet v. Pacific Lumber Co., 83 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must show a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to obtain injunctive relief)
- Animal Welfare Inst. v. Beech Ridge Energy, 675 F. Supp. 2d 540 (D. Md. 2009) (granting injunction where evidence showed virtual certainty of imminent take from wind turbines)
- Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, 896 F. Supp. 1170 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (injunction to prevent ongoing harm where causation from defendant’s permit regime was clear)
- Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Park Serv., 669 F. Supp. 384 (D. Wyo. 1987) (denying injunction where interim management and monitoring showed low risk of harm and violations were tied to deliberate rule‑breaking by third parties)