As wolves near federal reclassification, the politics of wolf restoration are heating up. Within the past year and a half, the state of Idaho and counties in California, Oregon and Wyoming have all passed anti-wolf legislation.

Siskiyou County, California, and its sister county Klamath, Oregon, lie in an area of the West that contains prime wolf habitat, according to Defenders of Wildlife and other environmental groups. The Siskiyou-Klamath region is one of the most biologically diverse areas in North America north of Mexico. The region's wild lands and low human population give it great potential for wolf recovery. Additionally, a little-known state Endangered Species Act affords wolves in Oregon special protection and mandates that the state encourage wolf recovery on Oregon's state and federal lands.

This combination of prime wild lands and state protection has prompted action by people in the region who do not support wolf restoration. Anti-wolf activity in California and Oregon began to increase in late 1999 when Defenders of Wildlife announced they were going to co-fund a feasibility study for the potential restoration of wolves and other large carnivores to the Siskiyou-Klamath region. In April 2001, Defenders filed a petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting that a portion of federal lands in western Klamath County along with other lands in Oregon and California be designated as a population segment for the gray wolf. Within a month, the executive director of the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau and Cattlemen's Association had proposed an anti-wolf ordinance for the county.

In response to the proposed ordinance, Defenders, along with the California Wolf Center, presented information on wolves and wolf recovery to the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors on November 6, 2001. In spite of Defenders' presentation, substantial press coverage after the meeting focused mostly on the views of those opposed to regional wolf recovery. At the board's next meeting, on November 13, 2001, members unanimously passed Resolution 01-231, opposing the introduction or reintroduction to Siskiyou County of 'unacceptable predatory mammals' that are 'potentially harmful to man as well as livestock.'

Seven months later, a similar situation occurred in Klamath County, Oregon, when on June 4, 2002, the county commissioners enacted their own anti-wolf ordinance. The ordinance prohibits the introduction of gray wolves to the county. In addition, several anti-wolf groups in Oregon have petitioned the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to remove wolves from the state list of endangered species, and Oregon lawmakers who oppose wolves are mobilizing to revise or repeal the state's Endangered Species Act.Anti-wolf sentiment also arose in Fremont County, Wyoming, an area that covers portions of the southeastern corner of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. The county commission announced that it was 'drawing a line in the sand' when it came to wolf reintroduction. In March 2002, it passed resolutions banning wolves and other 'unacceptable species' from the county.

All of these county-level resolutions and ordinances are unenforceable, however, as wolves are currently protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. Once wolves are removed from federal protection, the laws would still be unenforceable, as wolves would be under the state's authority. Despite their unenforceability, the ordinances are clear statements of what these elected officials think of wolves inhabiting the counties in which they live.

Counties are not the only level of government passing anti-wolf legislation. On March 6, 2001, the Idaho House of Representatives passed the House Joint Memorial Bill 5. This bill demanded that wolves be removed from Idaho "by whatever means necessary." The law does not supersede federal law, so no action will be taken, but like the county legislation, it is a reflection of how some Idahoans feel about wolves.

Anti-wolf groups were active again in Idaho this year. In May the Central Idaho Wolf Coalition bought newspaper ads throughout Idaho to publish its anti-wolf beliefs. The ads stated that the Coalition's "sole objective is the immediate removal of the Canadian gray wolf from Idaho because of the catastrophic slaughter of our big game herds, serious livestock predation, loss of wildlife viewing-causing unnecessary and extreme hardship to 'mom and pop' businesses." (Despite their claims, there is no evidence that wolves are destroying big-game herds in Idaho. Additionally, wolf depredation accounts for only a small portion of livestock losses each year.)

In the midst of the anti-wolf sentiment in Idaho, however, have come important actions that support wolves and their presence on wild lands. On June 13, 2002, in a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service by the Western Watersheds Project and the Idaho Conservation League, a federal District Court judge ruled in favor of wolves. He stated that the 1972 law that created the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) in Idaho gave wildlife, and hence wolves, precedence over livestock that graze on the SNRA. The judge also stated that this law must be balanced with those established prior to the reintroduction of wolves in the state, which direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to relocate and eventually kill wolves that repeatedly prey on livestock.

Additionally, the judge ruled that the U.S. Forest Service is in violation of the federal Rescissions Act, passed in 1995, which orders the service to create a schedule to conduct environmental analyses for each of the grazing allotments in the national forest system. The main result of the ruling is that the service must review all 28 of its grazing plans for the SNRA to determine whether they are adequately protecting wolves.

A subsequent ruling by the same judge on July 19, 2002, decreed that wolves cannot be killed in the SNRA in summer 2002, even if they kill livestock within the SNRA. This latest decision follows a second lawsuit filed by the Western Watersheds Project and the Idaho Conservation League to close eight grazing allotments in the SNRA where wolves and livestock have had past conflict. While the judge's decision does not close the allotments to grazing, it sends a message that wolves will have precedence over livestock in the SNRA.

For now, wolves are protected by the federal Endangered Species Act. But wolves have reached recovery goals and may soon be removed from the endangered species list. When that happens, wolves will be managed by the states, and the states must be ready to manage them. Idaho has completed a wolf plan, Montana's is expected to be complete by the end of the year, and Wyoming expects its plan to be completed by March 2003. Once the plans are in place, the process for removing the wolf from the Endangered Species Act may begin. It will then be interesting to see how all the local anti-wolf sentiment plays out.