A Federal Judge Is Overriding Idaho’s Wolf Trapping Rules. Idaho Is Fighting Back. 

Idaho allows limited trapping of gray wolves, which prey on livestock and other valuable wildlife. The State regulates traps and their placement, requires training, and warns that catching federally protected animals can lead to prosecution. It too wants to protect grizzly bears and prohibits trapping them.   

When Idaho broadened its gray-wolf trapping laws in 2021, thirteen activist groups sued, arguing those traps could unintentionally also catch grizzlies, which are protected under federal law. Instead of further limiting trappers’ actions, however, a federal court held Idaho responsible for their potential conduct and restricted Idaho law by barring the State from authorizing wolf trapping on private land year-round and further restricting any trapping in 19 counties—outside three winter months. The order forces Idaho to enforce federal law and limits its ability to protect livestock and manage wildlife—even though private trappers set the traps.   

Why it’s illegal:

The division of power between the states and federal government, recognized in the Tenth Amendment, forbids the federal government from forcing states to run federal programs. Enforcing the federal Endangered Species Act is a federal job, and Idaho doesn’t have to alter its law to be more protective of grizzly bears than it already is. Yet, the court ordered Idaho to answer for trappers who might run afoul of federal prohibitions by suspending a state law. 

What we’re asking the court to do:

We are asking the Ninth Circuit to throw out the lower court ruling that suspends Idaho’s law in furtherance of federal law enforcement goals.  

Why this case matters:

• The federal government should enforce federal policies. States cannot be forced to do that for them. CIR defends the right of people in each state to set their own policies under state law within federal limits. 
• A win would establish that federal courts are barred from making states responsible for crimes its own rules forbid. No state can write laws airtight enough to stop every lawbreaker. A state is not to blame when someone it licenses for a limited purpose breaks federal law. 
• Every state licenses hunting and fishing. Under the district court’s theory, every state will need to rewrite its laws to make sure there is near zero risk a license holder, following state law, will not harm a protected species. 
• For decades, activist groups have used the district court’s theory against state wildlife rules, from Massachusetts fishing gear to Minnesota and Montana trapping. Each ruling gives federal courts more say over state policies preferred by that state’s citizens.