Wolf Recovery Under the Endangered Species Act: A Study in Contemporary Federalism
![handle is hein.journals/publan11 and id is 23 raw text is: WOLF RECOVERY UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT: A STUDY IN CONTEMPORARY FEDERALISM
Robert B. Keiter* &
Patrick T. Holscher**
I. INTRODUCTION
The current controversy over wolf recovery in the Northern Rock-
ies-like so many other natural resource controversies involving the
Western public lands-raises fundamental questions about the nature of
federal-state relations on the public domain. Between the federal govern-
ment and the states, the question of who will have final management
responsibility for the wolf strikes at the heart of local cultural mores,
contemporary environmental values, and constitutional federalism princi-
ples. The states, with either the explicit or implicit assent of Congress, have
traditionally been responsible for wildlife resources on the public lands.1
But the Endangered Species Act (ESA),2 which treats the wolf as a
protected species,3 has displaced state authority and vested the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (FWS) with management responsibility for the recovery
effort. Although the wolf recovery proposal involves primarily federal
public lands in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, each of these states has thus
far refused to accept the wolf on the federal government's terms.
Paradoxically, the federal government and the states have not always
been at odds over the presence of wolves on the public domain. At the turn
of the century, recognizing the futility of local predator control efforts, the
western states eagerly enlisted federal officials in a cooperative wolf
eradication effort. Today, however, state officials uniformly resent federal
* Winston S. Howard Professor of Law, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. An earlier
version of this paper was presented at the 12th Annual Public Land Law Conference on March 30, 1990
at the University of Montana School of Law. I am grateful to the George Hopper Research Fund at the
University of Wyoming College of Law for support received during the preparation of this article.
** J.D. 1990, University of Wyoming College of Law; Associate, Schwartz, Bon, McCrary and
Walker, Casper, Wyoming.
1. M. BEAN, THE EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW 10-17,37 (Rev. Ed. 1983); Coggins
& Ward, The Law of Wildlife Management on The Federal Public Lands, 60 ORE. L. REV. 59, 75-85
(1981).
2. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. (1988).
3. 16 U.S.C. §1533 (1988); 50 C.F.R. § 17.11 (1989). See also U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE,
NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF RECOVERY PLAN, Denver, Colorado (1987) [hereinafter
NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF RECOVERY PLAN].
4. P MATTHIESSEN, WILDLIFE IN AMERICA 194 (1987); S. YOUNG & E. GOLDMAN, THE
WOLVES OF NORTH AMERICA 337 (1944); B. LOPEZ, OF WOLVESAND MEN 187 (1978); Coggins &
Ward, supra note 1, at 63.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/publan11&div=5&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Wolf Recovery Under the Endangered Species Act: A Study in Contemporary Federalism
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most