GW:  Follow the science until you don’t like it

SAF Asks Court to Send Animal Extremists Packing with Baseless Lawsuit in Tow

On Friday, March 7, the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, along with Safari Club International and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, filed for summary judgment in a trio of lawsuits brought by animal-extremist groups to relist wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain region under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We’ve asked the court to issue a judgment in our favor due to the animal extremists’ lack of standing and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) proper denial of the extremists’ attempts to relist gray wolves in the Northern Rockies.

In February 2024, FWS denied two petitions to relist wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) region – Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and a small portion of northern Utah. The petitions alternatively requested that the delisted NRM wolves be incorporated into a “western states population,” comprised of every state to the north and west of, and including, Colorado, and relist them under the ESA. The Center for Biological Diversity, Humane Society of the United States, Western Watershed Project, the Sierra Club, and Animal Wellness Action then filed a trio of lawsuits challenging the denial.

“The animal-extremist groups are following their typical litigation script to a T,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel for the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “Their petitions were correctly denied by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they’ve now brought feeble lawsuits to waste government time and taxpayer money. We’re happy to provide an additional layer of defense against these pointless attacks on science-based wildlife management and sportsmen.”

The Sportsmen’s Alliance and our conservation partners successfully intervened in the lawsuits to defend the petitions’ denials by FWS. The record clearly shows that the service followed the best available science, as required by the ESA and requested by petitioners, in denying the petitions. The service rightfully concluded that gray wolves in the NRM are not a distinct population segment that could be listed under the ESA and that wolves in the broader Western United States, while qualifying as a distinct population, do not warrant listing under the ESA. FWS very clearly considered the best available science – much of which is conveniently ignored in the animal extremists’ complaints and motions – to support the denials. As noted by FWS, “now and into the foreseeable future, wolves are likely to retain a healthy level of abundance” throughout the Western United States.

“The service’s denial of the petitions was robust, well-informed, and appropriate,” said Torin Miller, Associate Litigation Counsel for the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “Wolves in the Northern Rockies – and throughout the west – have achieved recovery goals laid out under their initial listing under the ESA. It’s well-past time we stop moving the recovery goal post, and we’re confident the court will agree by entering judgment for our cross-motion for summary judgment.”

On February 25, the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation filed an objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny SAF’s request for preliminary injunction in our lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) unlawful puppy ban. A district judge will now take a fresh look at SAF’s arguments that the CDC’s Dog Rule should be halted until the full legal process can play out.

“While we’re disappointed with the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny our motion for preliminary injunction, we still feel strongly that the recommendation, and CDC’s defenses, miss the mark,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel for the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “We’re hopeful the district judge will agree.”

Oral arguments on the preliminary injunction were delivered before a magistrate judge in December 2024. The magistrate judge delivered a report and recommendation to deny the preliminary injunction in early February 2025. That recommendation is passed along to the presiding district judge for a final decision. However, because SAF objected to the recommendation, the district judge will now review the request for preliminary injunction outside of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

SAF’s legal arguments remain sound. CDC exceeded its authority in promulgating the Dog Rule, and precedent from multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, concludes just as much. Additionally, just days before oral arguments, CDC announced a forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking to potentially change the dog import rule. The notice indicates that CDC is second-guessing its own rule and may propose revisions to the requirements for the importation of dogs. Still, CDC continues to defend its unlawful rulemaking.

“We remain confident that our multiple pleadings not only show that CDC’s Dog Rule is unlawful, but that a preliminary injunction is necessary and proper to stop the harm our members are experiencing as a result,” said Torin Miller, Associate Litigation counsel for the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “We’re asking the district judge to see through the government’s smoke and mirrors and see the rule for what it is – an egregious usurpation of authority.”
Read more

Animal extremist groups have recently announced their decisions to hire additional attorneys to challenge predicted federal government regulations and actions regarding energy, the environment and endangered species. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Earthjustice, two groups who appear opposite of the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation on many lawsuits, are hiring six and eight additional attorneys.

“While the specifics of their lawsuits are still unclear, one thing is certain: these animal extremists are committed to dismantling sportsmen’s rights in our country, and they have the funding to pursue as much,” said Dr. Todd Adkins, Senior Vice President at the Sportsmen’s Alliance. “Years and years of sue-and-settle schemes have lined the coffers of ideologues, and they have no shame in utilizing those funds to pursue silly, superfluous lawsuits without legal or scientific backing.”

The new presidential administration has brought a wave of new administrative actions – many of which have created anxiety and ideological roadblocks for animal extremists. But these organizations are no strangers to suing the federal government. CBD sued the previous Trump administration more than 280 times, while Earthjustice took the administration to court over 200 times. These numbers are staggering – especially when you consider the lunacy of many of their arguments – but not surprising.

CBD has over 70 in-house attorneys, and Earthjustice employs at least 200. Our most common animal extremist foes collectively employ over 350 in-house lawyers. When you consider SAF’s Office of Litigation Counsel, combined with our closest in-house litigation partners, hunters, anglers and trappers are outnumbered 70:1 with respect to legal representation.

This number highlights the importance of the work the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is doing. Very few conservation organizations are willing to go to court to defend sportsmen. Not only do we seek out opportunities to uphold our rights in court, but we do it with an in-house team.

“We’ve been litigating against CBD, Earthjustice and other animal extremists for years, and their tactics have changed very little,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel at the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “But they’re willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money to pursue their ideologies. Fortunately, we’ve been very effective and efficient at defending against these attacks.”

We each must make a commitment to ourselves and future generations to stand up and fight, protect and defend against the rising tide of animal extremism. They work tirelessly to crater our rights, values and heritage, and we must work harder to ensure they are secure today, tomorrow and in the future.

Join us today in the fight to protect sportsmen’s rights or donate to the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund.

On Thursday, Dec. 19, the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (SAF) will present oral arguments in support of its request to enjoin recent dog-import restrictions imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If granted, the preliminary injunction would essentially pause implementation of the rule’s restrictions until the court issues a final decision on the matter.

SAF sued CDC in August 2024 to rescind a rule restricting the importation of dogs into the United States. Shortly after suing CDC, SAF filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The CDC opposed that motion, and SAF answered with additional arguments and reaffirmed our commitment to holding CDC accountable for its overreach.

“We’re looking forward to presenting our case,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel at the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “We’re confident the court will agree with our briefings that CDC’s restrictions are too broad, unnecessary, and an overreach of the agency’s statutory authority. A preliminary injunction is just the first, but necessary, step in protecting the interests of our members until we can do away with this rule altogether.” Read more