Idaho Won’t Enforce Newly Reinstated Federal Law Protecting Endangered Gray Wolves

The court has ruled, but that doesn’t mean the war is over when it comes to the issue of protecting the northern gray wolf from illegal hunting in the western states.

Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves. Photo courtesy of Howlingforjustice.com.

Late last month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service obeyed an order from the District Court of Montana that repealed a 2009 decision which took the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf off the endangered species list.

To enforce the new court order, the agency published a final rule in the Federal Register reinstating the wolf’s protections in the following areas:

• Oregon.
• North-central Utah.
• The eastern third of Washington.
• The northern half of Montana.
• The northern panhandle of Idaho.

The order also restores special rules identifying the gray wolves as “nonessential experimental populations” in the remaining areas of Montana and Idaho. This means, according to the agency, that “anyone may legally shoot a wolf in the attack of any type of livestock on their private land or grazing allotment, and anyone may shoot a wolf chasing or attacking their dog or stock animals anywhere except national parks.”

This right to kill doesn’t apply to the gray wolves that are considered part of endangered populations. Endangered wolves are subject to additional protections. Livestock owners are prohibited by federal law from killing wolves considered part of endangered populations, even if they are seen actively chasing, attacking, or killing their livestock. Only government officials are allowed to kill chronically predatory wolves that are classified as endangered.

Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the gray wolves from the endangered species list because they had reached the levels of what are considered large sustainable populations in everyplace except Wyoming.

This year, the court ruled that the agency’s 2009 decision didn’t meet the requirements for delisting the wolves. The court ruled that:

“The Endangered Species Act does not allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list only part of a species as endangered … The Wyoming portion of the range represents a significant portion of the range where the species remains in danger of extinction because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms.”

The decision has outraged Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter, who has no intention of complying with the new rules.

 Late last month, in a letter to Ken Salazar, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Gov. Otter said:

The state will not manage wolves as the designated agent of the federal government. This means the Idaho Department of Fish and Game will not perform statewide monitoring for wolves, conduct investigations into illegal killings, provide state law enforcement in response to illegal takes (kills) or implement the livestock depredation response program.

Instead, I am directing the Idaho Fish and Game Commission to immediately refocus its efforts on protecting our ungulate (hooved) herds. This directive preserves an individual’s right to kill a wolf in self-defense or in the defense of another person. It does not jeopardize the existing flexibility landowners and permittees have to protect their livestock and pets from wolves.

Criticizing Gov. Otter’s actions, Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defender of Wildlife, said that, “Refusing to allow state agencies to participate in wolf management or to investigate, or enforce against illegal killings of wolves is political showmanship, not the statesmanship that one expects from a governor.”

The fires of animosity are still raging on both sides, with Jake Cummins, executive director of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, saying, “We have been betrayed by this blatant and transparent capitulation (pressuring) of a federal judge to the demands of these same environmental activist organizations who will continue to reap millions of dollars annually in their now endless campaign to protect a predator no more in danger of extinction than they are.”

Reader comments and input are always welcomed!