SUBLETTE COUNTY – Local ranchers scored a victory last week to protect the Green River Drift.

On Tuesday, May 17, District Court Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal agreed approval of continued grazing in the Upper Green River area did not violate the Endangered Species Act, ruled the Fish & Wildlife Service properly took into account possible grizzly bear preservation and that the cattle drives, along with associated grazing, may continue.

Freudenthal ruled federal agency documents that allowed grazing were “supported by substantial evidence, and neither arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or inconsistent with law,” as was asserted by the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was brought by the Center For Biological Diversity and Sierra Club, as well as Western Watersheds Project, Alliance For The Wild Rockies and Yellowstone To Uintas Connection. Court documents listed Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland (along with federal agencies), State of Wyoming and Upper Green River Cattle Association as defendants.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation helped in defense of the historic Sublette County cattle drive as the plaintiff groups sought to preserve grizzly bear populations.

According to court documents, the State of Wyoming was granted permission to intervene in the court case along with local entities like the Upper Green River Cattle Association, Sommers Ranch, Price Cattle Ranch, Murdock Land and Livestock Co. and the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.

Six grazing allotments – Badger Creek, Beaver-Twin Creeks, Noble Pastures, Roaring Fork, Wagon Creek and Upper Green River – were at the heart of the matter. This comes after a 2019 decision for the Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project, totaling about 170,643 acres near the Green River Lakes. The official court record shows approximately 8,819 livestock, including 8,772 cow/calf pairs and yearlings and 47 horses, graze on the six allotments from June 14 to October 15.

On April 29, 2019, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion found effects of livestock grazing as proposed in the projects were not likely to jeopardize the existence of grizzly bears in the area. U.S. Forest Service studies concluded the same.

Petitioners in the case request the court set aside that finding and the project.

Most government metrics show grizzly populations in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem have recovered, sparking some debate over whether the grizzly bear should be delisted from the Endangered Species List. Fish & Wildlife Services have twice recommended grizzlies be removed, most recently in 2017. That same year, the estimated grizzly population in the GYE was 718, which officials believe is likely an underestimate.

Grizzlies in the GYE are monitored and confined to certain areas, as to avoid conflict with humans and livestock.

“The goal with the (Demographic Monitoring Area) is to manage grizzlies to ensure a recovered population in accordance with established criteria (including those found in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and 2017),” the court’s decision read.

All six of grazing allotments in the Upper Green River Area project are outside of the GYE recovery zone but are within the DMA.

Petitioners contested the long-term survival of Yellowstone grizzly bears is contingent upon minimizing average annual mortality within the population, especially adult females, whose survival is the most important factor influencing population trends, as cited by the U.S. Forest Service.

“Petitioners argue – given the vital demographic role of female bears outlined above – that without a limit on the take of female bears, and without an examination of the project’s effect on female bears, the 2019 (biological study) cannot ensure against jeopardy and that its no-jeopardy determination is thus unsupported, unlawful and failed to use best available science,” the court decision read.

The court found the Western Watersheds Project’s argument “unavailing.”

Ultimately, the court determined cattle-related temporary impacts would be insignificant and that the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services did not unlawfully fail to engage in formal consultation of the project’s effects on the endangered population.

The court found no violations at all that were asserted by the petitioners.

A release from the Mountain State Legal Foundation celebrated the legal victory.

“This affirms, once again, that the people who know how to take care of the land the best are those who have been taking care of it for centuries,” a release from the foundation said. “(MSLF) will continue to fight for America’s ranchers and farmers threatened by encroachment from those who want to dictate what our country does with the people’s land.”