Team Wolf Pack: Marie Curatolo, Thea Reinhardt, Adam Tate, Travis Sangder

ESRM 470: Issue Analysis Paper 2: Agencies and Actors

Identify the primary actors that are involved in your issue.

Executive and legislative actors included the political leaders of a few Native American
tribes, such as the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Council, and representatives from the Blackfeet tribe.
Other executive actors were various elected officials at the local, state, and national level. The
Wyoming House of Representatives was an active legislative actor, as was U.S. Senator Larry Craig
(R-Idaho). On a broader scale, Congress was a primary actor as a legislative body. According to
Michael E. Kraft, “We can distinguish congressional actions in several different stages of the policy
process: agenda setting, formulation and adoption of policies, and implementation of them in
executive agencies” (103). One product of their agenda setting/formulation of policies was the historic
passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It was under this legislation that Congress took action
in the first place: “As enacted by Congress, the purposes of the Endangered Species Act are to provide
a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species as well as a means whereby
the ecosystems upon which such species depend may be conserved” (USFWS 2010, iv). When it
comes to implementation, “[t]he Act also mandates that the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and
implement plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species. It is further
declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve
endangered and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act” (USFWS 2010, iv). This directive outlines other key actors; federal agencies. The one
identified by name is the Secretary of the Interior; in this case, Donald P. Hodel. Within the
Department of the Interior is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This was the institution charged
with taking actions under the ESA as well as The National Environmental Policy Act: “In 1991,
Congress directed the FWS to prepare a DEIS on reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National
Park and central Idaho” (USDOI 1). Thus, the legislative and executive branches of the national
government were very closely linked during the formulation, evaluation, and implementation of the
Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. The FWS is perhaps the most relevant of these actors,
as it was primarily involved in creating the Plan and producing the EIS. However, Congress is still
vested in this issue with its “influential and continual role of overseeing, and often criticizing, actions
in executive agencies” (Kraft 103). Additionally, there were a myriad of actors outside of the
government. As part of the Plan, the FWS held 268 presentations on wolves open to the public from
1989-1992. These presentations, which were attended by 11725 people, allowed the public and
various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) insight into the reintroduction planning process as
well providing scientists with outside and local opinions and concerns (USDOI 398). Many people
against the reintroduction plan were ranchers focused on protecting livestock (USDOI 396). In
addition to public concerns. There were also many NGO’s involved and invested in the reintroduction
effort. One such organization, known as Defenders of Wildlife (DoW), was deeply devoted to the
cause of wolf recovery.

For each of the key actors you have identified, what do they stand to gain or lose in this issue?

Livestock and predation were not the only concerns of local ranchers. One rancher puts it this
way: “We are more worried about the land grab with the wolf than we are depredation.” (Lamp, 1995)
Nearby loggers and other industrial interests were also worried about their continued use of federal
lands (Palamar 26). Rural ranching community members who were generally uneducated about the
feeding and roaming habits of wolves in the wild were concerned for their safety. One man
commented, “many of the local school bus stops [are] in remote areas, so local children might become
wolf fodder” (Fischer, 1995). When the wolf was wiped out of the Nez Perce ceded lands in central
Idaho, a major aspect of their culture was lost. The Nez Perce Tribe was eager to implement the plan.
The Nez Perce Tribe stood to regain a potent mainstay of their culture. Gray wolves are also
intertwined in the Blackfeet Tribes’ history, culture and religion. Wolves used to be found within the
Blackfeet lands in Central Montana . The Blackfeet tribe was enthusiastic to implement the plan and
regain that aspect of their culture. The Wyoming House of Representatives, as an elected legislative
body, wanted to appeal to the interests of their state. Wyoming was home to plenty of ranchers who
opposed reintroduction for fear of depredation and associated economic losses. The Wyoming
congress stood to gain the popular support of many of the voters who were against the wolf
reintroduction. Similarly, Senator Larry Craig had voters on both sides of the issue; ranchers in his
state were also concerned. He stood to gain public approval from the ranching interests in Idaho. In the
political arena, legislative and executive actors often have a lot on the line: “All of these decisions can
have significant impacts on environmental and sustainable development in the United States and
around the world” (Kraft 103). These broad-scale stakes were mostly applicable to Congress. For the
FWS, the successful reintroduction of wolves could attest to their effectiveness as species managers.
They believed the Plan was the best proposed action and failure to enact it could lead to a less
successful recovery. However, as dictated by NEPA, both Congress and the FWS had to balance their
commitment to serving the public interest and recognizing the needs of various stakeholders involved.

How are the primary actors trying to influence this issue?

The Nez Perce Tribe provided commentary on the draft EIS in support of the Plan. As a
sovereign nation, the Nez Pierce tribe would implement the Wolf Recovery Plan using its own wildlife
service. The Blackfeet Tribe also publicly expressed approval of the plan. Sovereign nations supported
the Plan by using it as guidelines for land management. The Wyoming House of Representatives tried
to influence the wolf issue by passing anti-wolf legislation. In 1995, they passed a bill that put a $500
bounty on any wolves found outside Yellowstone and made the Federal government solely liable to
pay for investigating any violations to the endangered species act. Senator Larry Craig was involved
both in town hall meetings and in drafting a compromise with wolf opponents. The compromise
allowed for a wolf hunting season and the killing of problem wolves. These actions were largely the
result of pressure from the ranchers and interest groups located in these areas: as Cubbage explains,
one strategy used by interest groups “is to encourage group members to contact decision makers [and]
activate rank-and-file members or key influential members of an organization” (218). At the federal
level, Congress influenced the issue mainly by its direction of federal agencies: “Congress directed the
Secretary of Interior to appoint a 10-member committee, composed of representatives of the National
Park Service (NPS), FWS, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, representatives
from fish and game agencies from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, conservation groups, and livestock
and hunting communities” (USDOI 2). This wide variety of stakeholders and actors was selected to
form a representative group of stakeholders. The Fish and Wildlife Service took action by preparing an
EIS as directed by NEPA. The Fish and Wildlife Service supported their plan by providing ample
opportunity for public access to information, responding to comments in the draft EIS, and perhaps
most of all, by creating a detailed Plan that would hold up to criticisms. When it comes to NGOs,
DoW was particularly active; Hank Fischer, a member of DoW, proposed and eventually caused the
creation of a compensation fund for ranchers who lost livestock to wolves. In addition, DoW also
brought a 1 million dollar exhibit called “Wolves and Humans” to Yellowstone and Boise in the
interest of educating the public (Palamar). Most NGO’s, like DoW, were in support of the wolf
reintroduction and focused on helping compromise with the opposition, while still maintaining the
basic drive toward wolf recovery (USDOI 341).
 Works Cited

Cubbage, Frederick W., Jay O. O’Laughlin, and Charles S. Bullock. “Interest Groups.” Forest
Resource Policy. Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1993. Print.

Fischer, Hank. Wolf Wars. 1995. Helena: Falcon Press Publishing. Print.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Gray Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Department of the
Interior, 15 Oct. 2010. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.

Kraft, Michael E. “Environmental Policy in Congress.” Environmental Policy and Politics. Ed.
Norman Vig. Web. 15 Oct. 2010.

Lamp, Greg. "The Howl Over Wolves." Beef, March 1995: 10. Web. Oct. 2010.

McNamee, Thomas. The Return of the Wolf to Yellowstone. Holt Paperbacks, 1998. Print

Murray, Crystl. "Nez Perce Wolf Recovery has friends & foes." Idaho Natives-Nez Perce Tribe 2003.
Web. Oct. 2010

Palamar, Colette. “Wolf Reintroduciton: How the Wolves Came Back.” EnvironWest. University of
Idaho, n.d. Web. 19 Oct 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. Trans. Northern
Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Team. Denver, 1987. Web. Oct. 2010.

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Final Environmental Impact Statement:
The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. 1994.
Web. 17 Oct. 2010.