Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus (The Alaska Wolf Kill Case) 627 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1980) The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) announced a plan to control wolf populations by shooting them from helicopters. A lot of the wolves that ADFG intended to kill lived on federal lands that were under the control of the Department of the Interior (DOI). ADFG wanted to kill the wolves because the wolves ate moose, so theoretically less wolves meant more moose that hunters could shoot at. Environmental groups (led by the Defenders) asked DOI to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) about the effects of the wolf kill. DOI refused. The Defenders sued for an injunction. The Defenders argued that killing the wolves would actually reduce the moose population by reducing natural selection pressures. In addition, they argued that killing the wolves would cause a lot of other effects in a lot of other species on Federal lands. The Defenders argued that Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) required DOI to evaluate the effects of the wolf kill. The Trial Court found for the Defenders and issued an injunction. DOI appealed. The Appellate Court reversed and allowed the wolf kill. The Appellate Court found that under FLPMA §302(b) the State government has the primary responsibility for the management of wildlife programs within the State. The Court found that DOI arguably has the discretion to preempt State wildlife management programs. However this does not obligate DOI to do so. Basically FLPMA gives DOI the right to take action if they want to, but if they chose not to it doesn't require them to. Of course choosing not to ask is really an action in itself isn't it? Couldn't it be arbitrary and capricious to fail to act?