Ever since their reintroduction in the late 90s, wild Mexican wolves – a rare subspecies of gray wolf in the Southwest - have been labeled “nonessential” to the species’ overall survival by the federal government.
Conservationists argued in front of a panel of judges Tuesday that this legal distinction denies valuable protections often afforded to other endangered species.
This definition means the genetically unique Mexican gray wolf population, which mainly lives in New Mexico and Arizona, can be removed or lost without jeopardizing the existence of the broader species in the wild.
“The fundamental problem we have, in this case, is that the [U.S. Fish and Wildlife] Service never applied the correct definition of an ‘essential’ experimental population,” said Andrew Hawley, during oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Missoula. “This is a legal error.”
Hawley represents a slew of environmental groups appealing a 2025 decision that favors the federal government’s definition. They first filed the lawsuit in 2022.
Mexican wolves released in Arizona and New Mexico live under a special “experimental” management rule that confines them to an area south of Interstate 40 and governs when they can be captured, removed, or killed.
Conservationists argue labeling that population as “non-essential” means wolves miss out on critically protected habitat and federal consultation requirements.
“As a result, it [the wolf population] didn’t get all of the protections that it should have from day one,” said Hawley in an interview with KUNM.
In the courtroom, the government countered, pointing to a long-standing wolf breeding program as evidence they have the knowledge and expertise to restart the population if needed.
“The Fish and Wildlife Service, thanks to that program, has successfully established a growing Mexican wolf population that is progressing towards recovery goals year after year after year,” said attorney Kyle Gwen, on behalf of the federal government.
Establishing the management area was a compromise with the agricultural industry to ease livestock depredation tensions and other regulatory concerns.
Roughly 45 other lobos live separately in northern Mexico – and fewer than four are tracked with radio collars – which conservationists say is alarmingly low.
Although the Mexican gray wolf lacks a habitat specifically set aside and protected for its recovery, federal law generally protects the species from being killed, harmed, or harassed by the public.
Attorney Gwen contends that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service applied the correct definition after exercising reasonable scientific judgement and determined that losing the lobos in Arizona and New Mexico would not reduce the species’ likelihood of survival.
“So, the [U.S. Fish and Wildlife] Service had sufficient information to undertake this comparative analysis – at least in rough terms – even if it did not put a numerical point on it,” Gwen told the court.
Environmental groups in the Southwest have long maintained that the Mexican gray wolf’s genetic make-up is so poor because the species was brought back from the brink of extinction by breeding just seven individual “founding” wolves together.
Often, any two random lobos are as genetically similar as brother and sister, leading to questions about how equipped Mexican wolves are for living in the wild without human intervention.
While it’s nearly impossible to nail down an exact timeline for a judgment, a decision could come down sometime in the next six months.
