Attorneys representing the State of Wyoming and the federal government are contending that a judge in Montana got some things wrong when he reinstated Endangered Species Act protections for the Yellowstone area’s grizzly bears.

A three-judge panel of the U.S Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Tuesday, in an appeal of a 2018 decision restoring the protections. Lawyers for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Wyoming — and for conservation groups and tribes that believed the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s bears should continue be listed — met online in front of federal judges Mary M. Schroeder, Paul J. Watford, and Andrew D. Hurwitz.

Shortly after Trump administration lawyer Joan Pepin began her opening statements, Judge Hurwitz interrupted asking, “what are we fighting about?”

“There’s a lot of ink and a lot of argument,” Hurwitz said, “but nobody disagrees about the final result. So I’m trying to figure out whether we really have a controversy.”

At issue is a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Dana C. Christensen, which restored protections for grizzlies hours before planned hunts of the species in Idaho and Wyoming. (Montana declined to schedule hunts following the delisting of the species in June of 2017.)

Christensen said the Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t adequately weigh how delisting a distinct population segment — in this case, the Yellowstone area’s grizzly bears — would affect populations outside of the ecosystem. The Fish and Wildlife Service is appealing the ruling, saying the district court’s order improperly imposes procedures not required by the Endangered Species Act. At the same time, the service is completing such a study in case the appeal fails.

In briefs in the case, the government said “empowering the service to alter the listing status of segments rewards those states that most actively encourage and promote species recovery within their jurisdictions.” The agency added that “continuing to rigidly enforce the act’s stringent protections in the face of such success just because recovery has lagged elsewhere would discourage robust cooperation.”

In her arguments on Tuesday, Pepin said “the court went too far.”

“The Endangered Species Act clearly does not require this,” she said. “Let the service apply its expertise and craft a solution here.”

Meanwhile, the State of Wyoming is mounting a separate challenge, to the complex administrative and scientific issues raised by Christensen. That includes comments by the judge about the methods for counting grizzlies in the region and whether translocations of individual bears to supplement genetics should be “proactive,” or if the state can just promise to implement the practice should genetic diversity ever become a concern.

However, Wyoming Special Assistant Attorney General Jay Jerde faced questions from Hurwitz over whether the state had standing in the case. Hurwitz asked Jerde to “tell me why, statutorily, you have the ability to pursue an appeal that the government is not appealing?”

Jerde replied that Wyoming’s ability to challenge a ruling “shouldn’t be dependent upon whether the United States Fish and Wildlife Service wants to appeal that district court decision.”

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the State of Montana have filed a brief in support of the federal government’s appeal.

Timothy Preso, representing Native American tribes, shared his time with Matthew Bishop for WildEarth Guardians and pro se attorney Robert Aland in generally contending that grizzly bears should remain listed and the Fish and Wildlife Service required to study how a delisting in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem impacts the overall grizzly population.

Preso said the real argument is whether the Fish and Wildlife Service should be able to “line-item edit out” parts of the Montana district court’s opinion the government doesn’t like.

Once again, Hurwitz challenged the argument.

“Everybody agrees that the remnant [populations outside the Yellowstone ecosystem], whatever the outcome of the rest of the process, the remnants will remain listed as an endangered species,” the judge said.

Preso agreed, but said he questions whether the species definitions of the Endangered Species Act allow the service to “parse out this particular Yellowstone population without triggering an unintended and disastrous delisting of remnant populations.”

“Nobody’s fighting about that issue,” Hurwitz said.

The hearing lasted an hour and 21 minutes, due in part to technical glitches like dropped connections and issues with muted microphones. A timeframe for when the Ninth Circuit will rule on the appeal was not announced.