Wolves, politics, and the Nez Perce: Wolf recovery in Central Idaho and the role of native tribes

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 538-563

  Wilson, Patrick Impero ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749473894     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Renee Askins, Releasing Wolves from Symbolism, HARPER'S, Apr. 1995, at 16.
2. The return of the wolf to America's premier national park has generated a great deal of public interest and has been the subject of numerous articles and books. See, e.g., HANK FISCHER, WOLF WARS: THE REMARKABLE INSIDE STORY OF THE RESTORATION OF WOLVES TO YELLOWSTONE (1995);
3. THOMAS MCNAMEE, THE RETURN OF THE WOLF TO YELLOWSTONE (1997).
4. Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (1994).
5. An endangered species is one in imminent danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, while a threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (1994).
6. See U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERV., NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF RECOVERY PLAN (1987) [hereinafter USFWS].
7. See id. at v.
8. See id.
9. See id. The experimental population designation was created by Congress in a 1982 amendment to the ESA, Endangered Species Amendment Act of 1982, 16 US.C § 1539 (1994).
10. See USFWS, supra note 5, at vi.
11. See id. at v.
12. IDAHO CODE § 36-715(2) (Supp. 1998).
13. Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Restoration Act of 1990, S. 2674, 101st Cong. The National Wildlife Federation, in prepared testimony on the McClure plan, sketched a picture of the political impasse: "Despite our efforts to direct wolf recovery along a rational course, political pressure from some interest groups and some members of Congress have paralyzed those agencies charged with managing wolf recovery under the Endangered Species Act." Hearings on S. 2674 Before Senate Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 101st Cong. 983, 118 (1990) (statement of Thomas M. France, National Wildlife Federation).
14. The proposal to reintroduce wolves into central Idaho was a surprise to recovery advocates. See FISCHER, supra note 2, at 151.
15. Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Restoration Act of 1990, S. 2674, 101st Cong.
16. See, CARLA WISE ET AL., IDAHO FOREST, WILDLIFE, AND RANGE POLICY ANALYSIS GROUP, NO. 4, WOLF RECOVERY IN CENTRAL IDAHO: ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES AND IMPACT 25 (1991).
17. See Hearings on S. 2674 Before Senate Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 101st Cong. 983, 118, 140-44 (1990) (statement of George Bennet, Idaho Cattle Association, et al.).
18. Although Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming opposed wolf recovery, they differed substantially on management issues and willingness to participate in management and monitoring efforts. For a detailed discussion, see Timothy B. Strauch, Holding the Wolf By the Ears: The Conservation of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf in Yellowstone Park, 27 LAND AND WATER L.R. 33 (1992);
19. WOLF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, 101ST CONG., A REPORT TO CONGRESS: REINTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT OF WOLVES IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK AND THE CENTRAL IDAHO WILDERNESS AREAS (1991);
20. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERV., DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: THE REINTRODUCTION OF GRAY WOLVES TO YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK AND CENTRAL IDAHO 2-4 (1993) [hereinafter DEIS (1993)].
21. See, e.g., Hearings on S. 2674 Before Senate Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 101st Cong. 983, 128-32 (1990) (testimony of Hank Fischer, Defenders of Wildlife). Beyond the concern the plan would undermine the ESA, there was on the part of environmental organizations a natural revulsion at allowing wolves to be killed for being wolves and a long-standing animosity towards an often bitter opponent, the livestock industry; See, MCNAMEE, supra note 2, at 46.
22. The WMC was established by an amendment to the 1991 Interior Appropriations bill, Pub. L. No. 101-512 § 218, Nov. 5, 1990. The committee was comprised of representatives of the USFWS, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, livestock industry, and hunting interests; directors of wildlife agencies in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; and two wolf recovery advocates.
23. See WOLF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, supra note 17, at 12-13. The ESA provides for cooperative state-federal agreements allowing state management of endangered species. See 16 U.S.C. § 1535 (1994).
24. Wolf-Management Idea Brings Howls, IDAHO STATESMAN, Apr. 11, 1991, at 3C.
25. H.J. Mem'l No. 6, 51st Leg., 1st Sess. (Idaho 1991).
26. See H.R. REP. NO. 102-256, at 16 (1991).
27. See DEIS (1993), supra note 17, at xix.
28. See id. at 2-4.
29. The 1982 amendment to the ESA states that it applies only if species that are reintroduced outside their current range are wholly separate geographically from non-experimental populations. See 16 U.S.C. § 1539(j)(1) (1994).
30. See FISCHER, supra note 2, at 148.
31. See JOHN FREEMUTH, BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, PUBLIC OPINION ON WOLVES IN IDAHO: RESULTS FROM THE 1992 IDAHO POLICY SURVEY (1992).
32. See IDAHO CODE § 36-715(4) (Supp. 1998).
33. Prior to approving a federal-state cooperative agreement, the Secretary of the Interior must determine that a state conservation plan is adequate under the ESA. See 16 U.S.C. § 1535(c)(1) (1994).
34. See H.B. 858, 51st Leg., 2nd Sess. (Idaho 1992).
35. A state program is considered adequate if, among several requirements, the state has established a conservation plan acceptable under the ESA for species deemed to be endangered or threatened and a state agency is authorized to establish programs for conservation of resident endangered or threatened species. See 16 U.S.C. § 1535(c)(1)(A-E) (1994). For a discussion, see Strauch, supra note 17, at 77.
36. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 59 Fed. Reg. 60,266 (1994) (codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17).
37. See U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERV., FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: THE REINTRODUCTION OF GRAY WOLVES TO YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK AND CENTRAL IDAHO (1994) [hereinafter FEIS (1994)].
38. See IDAHO CODE § 36-715(4) (Supp. 1998) (authorizing IDFG to begin formal preparation of a state recovery plan in April 1994).
39. Although IDFG believed it should be the lead player in implementing wolf recovery plans in Idaho, the Department did acknowledge a cooperative role for affected tribes. See Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement, in FEIS (1994), supra note 34, at 5-49 [hereinafter IDGF (1993)].
40. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, DRAFT IDAHO WOLF RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN: PLANNING PERIOD 1994-2004 (1994) [hereinafter IDFG (1994)].
41. The Wolf Oversight Committee was established in 1992. See IDAHO CODE § 36-715(4) (Supp. 1998). It includes members of the relevant legislative oversight committees and citizen members appointed by the Directors of the Idaho Department of Agriculture, Department of Fish and Game, and Animal Damage Control Board. See IDFG (1994), supra note 37, at 14.
42. See IDFG (1994), supra note 37, at 2.
43. Interview with Nez Perce Tribe Personnel, in Lapwai, Idaho (July 9, 1998).
44. The IDFG, obviously, had in mind a more limited role for the Tribe: "The Department will keep the Tribe apprised of planned wolf management activities and research efforts and results. The Department will consult with the Tribe in conducting wolf control activities within Ceded area, and will cooperate to the maximum, practicable extent possible in monitoring radio-tagged wolves and other wolf-related activities." IDFG (1994), supra note 37, at 20.
45. See Call Off the Wild: Legislators ask Batt Stop Wolves at Border, IDAHO SPOKESMAN REV., Jan. 11, 1995, at B2.
46. See id.
47. Twenty additional wolves were captured and released in January 1996. See CURT MACK & KENT LAUDON, NEZ PERCE TRIBE , DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ANN. REP. 1995-98, IDAHO WOLF RECOVERY PROJECT: RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT OF GRAY WOLVES IN IDAHO (1998).
48. See Wolf Management Plan Finally Clears Committee, LEWISTON TRIB., Jan. 20, 1995, at 2C.
49. An Idaho demand for federal compensation had been raised several times. See, e.g., IDFG (1994), supra note 37, at 29; FEIS (1994), supra note 34, at 5-49. Federal government denial of liability for depredation, however, had been firmly established through a series of court decisions dating back to 1950. For a thorough examination of court rulings on this issue, see Brian N. Beisher, Are Ranchers Legitimately Trying to Save Their Hides or are They Just Crying Wolf - What Issues Must Be Resolved Before Wolf Reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park Proceeds?, 29 LAND AND WATER L. REV. 417, 443 (1994).
50. As one legislator put it, "[I]f we don't give oversight to this, they're going to give oversight to the Nez Perce." With Wolves On the Way, Idaho Needs a Plan, IDAHO SPOKESMAN REV., Jan. 9, 1995, at A6-A7.
51. Michael R. Wickline, Wolf Management Deal Unlikely, LEWISTON TRIB., Jan. 18, 1995, at 7C.
52. Lawmakers Kill State Plan for Dealing With Wolf, IDAHO SPOKESMAN REV., Feb. 2, 1995, at A1, A6.
53. MACK & LAUDON, supra note 44, at 2.
54. See id.
55. A continuing goal for the Nez Perce is to protect and preserve the natural resources of their homeland. The tribe seeks to "maintain a harmonious and delicate balance in the use and management of nature's gifts." Nez Perce Tribe Executive Committee, Traditional Values (visited Mar. 1999) http://www.tks.net/nptec/traditional_values.html (address being relocated to http://www.nezperce.org).
56. Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement, in FEIS (1994), supra note 34, at 5-58 [hereinafter Nez Perce TEC].
57. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 450-58 (1994).
58. See Treaty with the Nez Perce, June 11, 1855, U.S.-Nez Perce, 12 Stat. 957.
59. Interview with Nez Perce Tribe Personnel in Lapwai, Idaho (July 9, 1998).
60. See MACK & LAUDON, supra note 44, at 6.
61. See NEZ PERCE TEC, in FEIS (1994), supra note 34, at 5-58.
62. See 16 U.S.C. § 1535(d)(1) (1994).
63. See MACK & LAUDON, supra note 44, at 6.
64. Feds Will Provide $100,000 More for Wolf Monitoring, LEWISTON TRIB., Dec. 13, 1997, at 5A.
65. Interview with Nez Perce Tribe Personnel in Lapwai, Idaho (July 20, 1998).
66. Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming Concerning Monitoring and Management of a Recovered Wolf Population in the Central Rocky Mountain Region, Aug. 19, 1997.
67. See IDAHO CODE § 36-715(4)(a) (Supp. 1998). In 1999, the Legislature extended the life of the WOC to Dec. 31, 2001. S. 1105, 55th Leg., 2nd Sess. (Idaho 1999).
68. Dan Gallagher, State Leaders Want to Be More Involved in Wolf Program, IDAHO SPOKESMAN REV., Aug. 22, 1998, at B6.
69. Telephone interview with IDFG Personnel in Boise, Idaho (June 30, 1998).
70. Id.
71. Idaho Wolf Recovery Both Good News, Bad News, IDAHO SPOKESMAN REV., Jan. 29, 1999, at B2.
72. Interview with Nez Perce Tribe Personnel in Lapwai, Idaho (July 9, 1998).
73. See NEZ PERCE TEC, in FEIS (1994), supra note 34, at 5-57.
74. See Stephen Lyons, Pack Mentality, IDAHO SPOKESMAN REV., Mar. 1, 1998, at E1, E5;
75. Curt Mack, The Wolf's Return to Central Idaho, INTERNATIONAL WOLF, Winter 1997, at 5.
76. Mack, supra note 70, at 6.
77. NEZ PERCE TEC, in FEIS (1994), supra note 34, at 5-58.
78. Interview with Nez Perce Tribe Personnel in Lapwai, Idaho (July 9, 1998).
79. NEZ PERCE TEC, in FEIS (1994), supra note 34, at 5-60.
80. Id. at 5-57.
81. Interview with Nez Perce Tribe Personnel in Lapwai, Idaho (July 9, 1998).
82. Interview with Nez Perce Tribe Personnel in Lapwai, Idaho (July 20, 1998).
83. Interview with Nez Perce Tribe Personnel in Lapwai, Idaho (July 9, 1998).
84. Nez Perce Tribe Executive Committee, Traditional Values (visited Mar. 1999) http://www.tks.net/nptec/traditional_values.html (address being relocated to http://www.nezperce.org).
85. Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, Nez Perce Tribal Economic Development (visited Mar. 1999) http://www.tks.net/nptec/econdevelop.html (address being relocated to http://www.nezperce.org).
86. Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, Traditional Values: Wildlife Management (visited Mar. 1999) http://www.tks.net/nptec/traditional_values.html (address being relocated to http://www.nezperce.org).
87. H.B. 616, 54th Leg., 2nd Sess. (Idaho 1998) (died in committee).
88. Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbit, 987 F. Supp. 1349 (D. Wy. 1997) (finding that the blanket treatment of all wolves in the recovery area as experimental effected a de facto delisting of naturally occurring wolves that violated the ESA).
89. The decision originated in separate suits by the Farm Bureau and the Audubon Society, which now supports the recovery plan and has asked the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the Society to align itself with those agencies and organizations appealing the removal order. See Audubon Now Supports Wolf Plan, IDAHO SPOKESMAN REV., Aug. 24, 1998, at B4.
90. One environmental organization that continues to oppose the recovery plan is Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, which has argued that reintroduced wolves should have been declared endangered instead of experimental; See, FISCHER, supra note 2, at 155; Bruce Weide & Pat Tucker, Be Careful What You Wish for the Wolves, HIGH COUNTRY NEWS, Apr. 13, 1998, at 6. To argue that the reintroduced animals should have been considered endangered overlooks the fact that, without a change in status, it was unlikely that wolf recovery would have received the political support necessary to authorize a reintroduction program, in which case there would be no reintroduced wolves of any status.
91. Bill Loftus, Conservationists Appeal Wolf Recovery Ruling, LEWISTON TRIB., Dec. 31, 1997, at 5A.
92. Bill Loftus, Tribe Joins Challenge of Judge's Wolf Ruling: Nez Perces, Conservation Groups Say Transplanted Wolves Should Not be Removed, LEWISTON TRIB., 25 June 1998, at 1C.
93. See Judge Wolf Ruling Wrong, Agency Says, IDAHO SPOKESMAN REV., Nov. 29, 1998, at B1, B2.
94. See MACK AND LAUDON, supra note 44, at 12.
95. See, e.g., Brent S. Steel & Nicholas P. Lovrich, An Introduction to Natural Resource Policy and the Environment: Changing Paradigms and Values, in PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT IN THE WEST 3, 3 (Brent S. Steel ed., 1997).
96. Interview with Nez Perce Tribe Personnel in Lapwai, Idaho (July 9, 1998).
97. Interview with Nez Perce Tribe Personnel in Lapwai, Idaho (July 20, 1998).