A judge in California on Monday barred farmers, ranchers and timber companies from intervening in lawsuits that seek to restore Endangered Species Act protection to gray wolves.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in Oakland already had granted intervenor status to the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International. The sportsmen will adequately represent the interests of the American Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups, according to White.

“This is surprising and disappointing,” said Chase Adams, senior policy director for the American Sheep Industry Association. “It will take an important voice out of this lawsuit. Certainly, (the sportsmen) don’t represent all the folks who could be harmed.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took gray wolves off the federally protected list throughout the Lower 48 in November. Three separate lawsuits challenging that decision are pending in the U.S District Court for Northern California. The three suits have merged into one case presided over by White.

The Farm Bureau, American Sheep, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, American Forest Resources Council and the Public Lands Council filed a joint motion to intervene. Neither the Biden administration nor the environmental groups that filed the lawsuits objected to agricultural groups becoming a party to the suit.

The agricultural coalition argued the stakes were high for their members and that they couldn’t rely on anyone else to represent their interests. They noted that President Biden, on his first day in office, ordered USFWS to review and possibly rescind the Trump administration’s delisting of wolves.

White’s decision to deny intervention was disappointing and confusing, Public Lands executive director Kaitlynn Glover said in a statement.

Ranchers, farmers, and forest owners have borne years of harm and invested in wolf recovery, said Glover, who’s also the natural resources executive director for the cattlemen’s association.

“We sought to intervene in this case because we believe the agriculture community’s unique experiences are worthy of representation in defense of the delisting rule,” she said.

White wrote that while agricultural groups have different motives than hunters’ organizations, both want wolves managed by states, rather than USFWS.

“Accordingly, the two groups share the same interest,” he wrote. “The agricultural coalition has not shown that its perspective adds a ‘necessary element’ to the proceeding.”

White said practical considerations also weighed in his decision. Environmental groups want a ruling before states open fall wolf hunting seasons and adding farm groups to the suits would potentially complicate the case, the judge wrote.

The agricultural groups can submit an amicus brief stating its opposition to restoring federal protection to wolves, White said.

Adams said the coalition appreciates that chance, but added, “It is not a substitute for being able to intervene as a party.”

“The importance of being an intervenor is it gives you more rights. If there’s a settlement, you’re at the table. If there’s a decision, you have the possibility of appealing,” he said.

White also denied intervenor status to groups representing hunters in the Great Lakes region. White said the membership of those groups overlapped with the NRA and Safari International.

Defenders of Wildlife, WildEarth Guardians and Natural Resources Defense Council are the lead plaintiffs in the three lawsuits. Many other environmental groups signed on as co-plaintiffs. So far, the USFWS has defended the action it took during the Trump administration.