Redacted and added text from a draft of House Bill No. 294
Wolf populations have enjoyed a resurgence in Idaho in recent years thanks to successful management of reintroduced packs. Yet not everyone has welcomed the wolves, and in fact some have attempted to thwart the reestablishment of wolves in the state. One need only look at the draft of a 2003 bill in the Idaho House of Representatives to understand the tensions between ranchers and hunters who would like to see the wolf once again eradicated and those who believe state or federal management of the wolf provides environmental and economic benefits to the state.
House Bill No. 294, which amended Section 36-715 of Idaho law, detailed the transition from federal management of the recovering wolf populations to state management of the packs, initially forbade state wildlife agencies from any kind of enforcement of the Endangered Species Act or other federal laws relating to wolves:
The department of fish and game is not authorized to participate in investigations or enforcement actions involving violations of the final rules of the United States fish and wildlife service or section 9 or the United States endangered species act, as the final rules and section 9 regulate the reintroduction of wolves into central Idaho.
Other legislators, understanding that such language would ensure the federal government’s refusal to turn wolf management over to the state, removed those prohibitions, providing an entirely different set of instructions for the state’s wildlife agencies:
The office of species conservation, in conjunction with the department [of fish and game], shall prepare and submit an annual report to the senate resources and environment committee and the house resources and conservation committee on the implementation and progress of the Idaho wolf conservation and management plan.
Despite this encouragement to follow established wolf management guidelines, the previous section of House Bill No. 294 made clear that the state “is on the record asking the federal government to remove wolves from the state” and that the federal reintroduction of wolves in 1995 and 1996 impinged on “state sovereignty.”
How did Idaho and Idahoans arrive at this point? Why are some Idahoans so opposed to the wolf’s very presence in the state? And how, despite the state leaders’ vocal resistance to federal reintroduction of gray wolves to central Idaho, did the state come to have such a thriving wolf population that the federal government trusted the state with its ongoing stewardship?
The answers to this question are more cultural than scientific or political. The stories that circulate among Idahoans and residents of other western states reveal much about our fears, anxieties, and hopes about the wolf and its recovery.
Continue to Wolves, Part II: The Wolf in Popular Culture and Folklore