A federal judge again dismissed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture in which plaintiffs alleged the government acted unlawfully by exterminating prairie dogs in urban areas.

Prairie Protection Colorado and prairie dog advocate Michaela Hinerman sued the USDA’S Wildlife Services program based on three agreements it entered into for prairie dog “management activities” in Colorado Springs, Pueblo and Castle Rock. The plaintiffs argued Congress has not authorized Wildlife Services to undertake prairie dog killings in urban areas and sought a court order blocking similar efforts in the future.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge William Martínez dismissed the lawsuit, concluding the plaintiffs had not shown they were about to suffer near-certain injury from

the government’s actions and they lacked standing to sue. Moreover, the federal law they claimed USDA violated was not, Martínez determined, intended to protect wildlife.

“It is, rather, an authorization to ‘control’ — in most cases, a euphemism for ‘ kill’ — ‘nuisance mammals and birds,’” Martínez pointed out in his order.

Prairie Protection Colorado advocates for the conservation of prairie ecosystems, and also for prairie dogs. In its lawsuit, the group described its goal of preventing Wildlife Services from using “lethal and inhumane methods of wildlife demand management.” It also recited statistics showing Wildlife Services kills more than 1 million animals annually — 1.75 million specifically, according to the program’s 2021 report.

The plaintiffs raised three agreements Wildlife Services entered into with Colorado Springs Utilities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Pueblo and the town of Castle Rock. With an estimated cost of $105,000, Wildlife Services would conduct “management activities” on prairie dogs through the “application of pesticides.” In addition to altering the ecosystem and posing a danger to other animals, the plaintiffs claimed the government’s techniques violated a provision of the federal Animal Damage Control Act.

The agriculture department is authorized, the law states, to enter into agreements for the control of nuisance mammals and birds, “except for urban rodent control.”

Consequently, the parties disputed the meaning of “urban rodent control.”

Prairie Protection Colorado previously filed another lawsuit in federal court for similar prairie dog extermination in Commerce City. Martínez also handled that case and found that, regardless of the meaning, Congress was not trying to protect “urban rodents” with the law’s exception.

The exception was “meant to avoid usurping business opportunities for private exterminators,” he wrote in 2019.

In the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the USDA, Martínez first found they lacked standing to sue. Although Hinerman alleged the three prairie dog extermination agreements injured her because she unfairly competes against the lower-cost Wildlife Services for “prairie dog relocation work,” Martínez saw no allegations in the lawsuit that Hinerman provides the services outlined in the agreements.

Further, the plaintiffs did not fall under the “zone of interests” the Animal Damage Control Act protects. While the plaintiffs wanted Martínez to declare the USDA abused its authority by implementing the agreements to kill prairie dogs, the goal of the act “was something other than protecting rats, mice, and other urban rodents,” the judge concluded.