Simpson announced that the continuing resolution to fund the federal government will include language that would reinstate a 2009 policy removing wolves from the endangered species list and allowing Idaho and Montana to manage their wolf populations, which would include bringing back a wolf hunt.

“This language takes an important first step by allowing for a wolf hunt this year in Idaho and Montana and allowing Wyoming to move closer to developing an approved state management plan,” Simpson said in a news release. The language ending federal protection of wolves has been approved by both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., according to Simpson’s staff.

Gov. Butch Otter backs Simpson’s effort. The governor’s spokesman, Jon Hanian, said there’s been off-and-on communication on the issue, and that the delisting plan is just what the doctor ordered.

“We’re very supportive of what he’s trying to do,” Hanian said of Simpson. “This is an issue that really does need a congressional fix. We applaud his effort to deal with this very frustrating problem.”

Congress and the White House are negotiating the federal spending plan that includes wolf delisting language. If it wins favor, it could scuttle the action by state lawmakers in opposition to wolves. The Legislature approved a plan to let the governor declare a wolf emergency that one lawmaker said could lead to open season on wolves. However, that legislation said an emergency would be ended once federal protection for wolves is over.

Otter has said he’s still reviewing the wolf emergency plan, and Hanian wouldn’t comment on how the congressional efforts affect the governor’s consideration of the state plan.

The disaster emergency legislation instructed the governor to give Idaho’s Office of Species Conservation (OSC) the authority to deal with the wolf emergency. OSC wolf specialist Dustin Miller said the way the legislation is listed, an emergency couldn’t be declared if Simpson is successful in Congress. “Once wolves are delisted, the legislation at the state level is no longer needed,” Miller said.

The conservation group Defenders of Wildlife is opposing Simpson’s efforts. Defenders has often not seen eye-to-eye with the state government and lawmakers on wolf issues.

“Congress is trying to force this through on a budget bill in a moment of incredible desperation,” Suzanne Stone with Defenders said in a news release. “And for what? To appease a tiny group of the most radical hunters and ranchers who want to get rid of wolves entirely. Nevermind that the vast majority of Americans, including those of us in the West, recognize the wolf as a vital part of our wilderness and want wildlife decisions to be made by scientists, not politicians.”

Defenders was one of 14 groups that sued to stop Idaho’s management of its wolf population and bring back federal protections. Last August, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy in Montana sided with the conservation groups. Earlier this year, 10 of the 14 groups, including Defenders, signed onto a settlement with the federal government to allow Idaho and Montana to manage their wolves. Molloy rejected that deal on Saturday, saying that it didn’t solve his legal concerns and that not all the groups in the lawsuit were on board.

Simpson’s language in the federal funding plan specifically says that the removal of federal protections wouldn’t be subject to court review. “Judge Molloy’s decision has left little doubt that without the passage of my language wolves would remain under unnecessary federal protection indefinitely,” Simpson said.

Simpson, who heads a House appropriations subcommittee, also pushed for reduced funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Interior in the federal funding plan, including eliminating funding for the Interior’s “wild lands” policy that could increase federal regulation of some public lands. Simpson and Otter both opposed the “wild lands” policy.

Photo courtesy of echiax

“It allows the state to establish a foundation for a well-designed grant management program,” said Sen. Charles Coiner, R-Twin Falls. The fund could receive private donations for working land conservation. “It makes sense for them to cooperate and coordinate outcomes.”

Sen. Tim Corder, R-Mountain Home, said the fund should keep farms in Idaho. “It’s the state’s responsibility to preserve ag lands,” he said. He added that the Treasure Valley has seen too much farm land disappear. “We’ve got parking lots and malls on the best farm land in this state.”

Some senators opposed creating another state fund and board. “By forming the board, we are growing our state government,” said Sen. Steve Bair, R-Blackfoot. “There seems to be no purpose in my mind… why the state should begin funding conservation easements.” Those easements could be potential use of fund dollars, if Idaho lawmakers decide to use state money for the fund in the future.

Sen. Jeff Siddoway, R-Terreton, said he opposed the fund because it won’t serve his interests as a sheep rancher. “None of those priorities (for the fund) talk about ranching and farming,” he said. “They talk about hunting and fishing and access to recreation.” He added that funding won’t solve the problems of agricultural businesses. “We don’t want your money. What we want is the help of these groups instead of adding to the weight and the burden (facing ranchers and farmers).”

The Senate approved the legislation on a 21-13. It now heads to the House. The text of the Working Lands Fund legislation is available here.

Sen. Gary Schroeder, R-Moscow, said Idaho agencies already consult with similar agencies in other states but could do more.  “All the states that have wolves — and it’s going to increase — need to get together and talk,” he said.  Schroeder said the conservation and environmental groups that sue Idaho and other states over wolf management issues are talking with one another.  “There’s a whole lot of people that like to sue us over wolves,” he said.  He also speculated that the reason behind lawsuits over wolves is because they share many characteristics with dogs, but said the state wants to treat them like other big predators.  “Idaho has a good record of managing large carnivores — bears  and cougars — and we want to do the same for wolves.”

The resolution calling for cooperation on wolves now moves to the House.  Read IdahoReporter.com‘s first story on the resolution here.  The text of the resolution is available here.

“The resolution encourages collaboration and we’re already trying to accomplish that,” said Sharon Kiefer, IDFG’s policy director. “It certainly helps with prioritizing our responsibilities.” IDFG manages Idaho’s wolf population and the state’s wolf hunt. Kiefer said the IDFG meets every year with similar agencies in Wyoming and Montana, with wolves being one topic of conversation. The state has also contacted Alaska on dealing with wolf issues related to the federal government, and has contacted other states and Canadian provinces in the West.

“I kind of appreciate looking down the road and collaborating with other states around us and doing a better job,” said Sen. Charles Coiner, R-Twin Falls. The Senate Resources and Environment Committee approved the non-binding resolution without dissent. Committee chairman Sen. Gary Schroeder, R-Moscow, is sponsoring the measure, which he will present to the full Senate.

The resolution says that lawsuits involving wolves has cost Idaho and other states a significant amount of money, time, and resources, and that the actions of one state can affect nearby states. Read the full resolution here.