Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0
Advancing indigenous self-determination throughendangered species protection: Idaho gray wolf recovery
Davinna Ohlson a,*, Katherine Cushing b, Lynne Trulio b, Alan Leventhal c
a Live Oak Associates, Inc., 6840 Via del Oro, Suite 220, San Jose, CA 95119, USAb San Jose State University, Department of Environmental Studies, One Washington Square Hall, San Jose, CA 95192-0115, USAcSan Jose State University, College of Social Sciences, One Washington Square Hall, San Jose, CA 95192-0115, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Published on line 3 April 2008
Keywords:
Endangered species
Indigenous self-determination
Nez Perce
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Gray wolf
a b s t r a c t
As part of the right of indigenous cultures to self-determination, several international
bodies have recognized and addressed the role of indigenous communities in natural
resources management, including the conservation of biodiversity. In the United States,
disagreements regarding the application of the federal Endangered Species Act to Native
American tribes have hindered the relationship between the federal and tribal governments
on endangered species recovery. Our research examines the efforts of one Native American
tribe, the Nez Perce, and the United States federal government to collaborate on federal gray
wolf recovery in central Idaho. We interviewed members of the Nez Perce Tribe and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to characterize their relationship and explore the context in which the
recovery program was implemented. Respondents attributed the success of the biological
aspects of wolf recovery to the robustness of the wolf as a species and to close interagency
coordination at the operational level. However, differences of opinion existed between the
Tribe and Service concerning program funding, policy planning, and the rights and role of
the Tribe in wolf management via co-management and cooperative management regimes.
Respondents from both governments noted a clear hierarchical relationship at the strategic
level, where policy planning and decision-making rested with the federal government.
Lessons drawn from this case study can be applied across the international spectrum to
improving partnerships, particularly at the strategic level, between indigenous and non-
indigenous governance structures for protecting endangered species.
# 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
avai lable at www.sc iencedi rec t .com
journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /envsc i
1. Introduction
As part of the right of indigenous cultures to self-determina-
tion, several international bodies have recognized and
addressed the role of indigenous communities in natural
resources management, which includes the conservation of
biological diversity (ILO, 1989). Agenda 21, Chapter 26 of the
1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel-
opment held in Rio de Janeiro calls for ‘‘national and
international efforts to implement environmentally sound
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 408 281 5886.E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Ohlson).
1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reservedoi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.02.003
and sustainable development’’ strategies that would ‘‘recog-
nize, accommodate, promote and strengthen the role of
indigenous people and their communities’’ (United Nations,
1992). It further calls for the establishment of arrangements
for the active participation of indigenous communities in the
‘‘national formulation of policies, laws, and programmes
relating to resource management’’ and in ‘‘resource manage-
ment and conservation strategies.’’ Similarly, Article 8(j) and
other provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) recognize the ‘‘close and traditional dependence of . . .
d.
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0 431
indigenous and local communities . . . on biological resources’’
and, as a step towards meaningful participation by indigenous
peoples in ecosystem management, call on the treaty’s
signatories to ‘‘respect, preserve and maintain knowledge,
innovations and practices’’ of such communities relevant for
the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity
(UNEP, 1992).
Nations such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand (Aotearoa) share a similar history of European
colonization and the subsequent conquest of their indigenous
peoples (Cornell, 2006; Mauro and Hardison, 2000). While the
political and legal status of indigenous affairs differs between
these countries – all four of which are signatories to the CBD,
although the U.S. has not ratified it to date – the indigenous
groups of all are engaged in advancing their right to self-
determination (Cornell, 2006). This effort includes the right to
govern themselves and to preserve and manage their cultural
and natural resources.
To uphold the mandates outlined in the CBD, Agenda 21,
and similar international instruments for environmental
protection, the central governments of these and other
countries are directed to develop participatory mechanisms,
legislation, policies, and other initiatives for indigenous
communities to effectively engage in decision-making, policy
planning, resource management, and conservation activities.
While our research focuses specifically on the efforts of one
Native American tribe, the Nez Perce, and the United States
federal government to collaborate on the recovery of a
federally protected species, many of the issues explored and
lessons drawn are universal and can be applied across the
international spectrum to improving interactions between
indigenous and non-indigenous governance structures, espe-
cially with respect to species protection.
1 In United States v. Washington (1974), U.S. District Judge GeorgeBoldt reaffirmed the rights of tribes in the Pacific Northwest toharvest and co-manage salmon resources with the State ofWashington. The Boldt decision and other court decisions haverepeatedly upheld tribal rights to hunt and fish tribal resources atusual and accustomed places off reservation lands regardless ofwho currently owns those areas (Somers, 1992).
2. Tribal sovereignty, the Endangered SpeciesAct, and the Idaho wolf recovery program
Native American tribes have a unique relationship with the
United States federal government known as the trust relation-
ship, which is based on a complex body of treaties, federal
court rulings, acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and tribal
laws (Cohen, 1971; McKeown, 1997). Because of the trust
relationship and the sovereign status of federally recognized
tribes, the federal government’s interactions with them must
function as one government to another. All federal depart-
ments and agencies must recognize the right of tribes to
develop, manage, and protect their natural and cultural
resources, including fish and wildlife resources on reservation
lands and, under certain circumstances, non-reservation
lands (Clinton, 1994; USFWS, 1994). In addition, executive
departments and agencies must consult with tribal govern-
ments on all matters potentially affecting tribal lands, tribal
resources, and treaty rights (i.e., those rights, such as the right
to hunt and fish at usual and accustomed places, reserved by
tribes during the treaty process) (Cohen, 1971; DOI, 1995).
The United States government has responded to the loss of
biodiversity with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, which provides an umbrella of protection to over 1200
endangered and threatened species occurring on federal and
non-federal lands, including tribal lands. Its objectives are to
‘‘provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which [these]
species depend may be conserved’’ and to ‘‘provide a program
for the conservation of [such] species’’ (United States Code,
1973). Species recovery and conservation are achieved through
efforts such as species reintroduction programs, voluntary
conservation agreements with private landowners, habitat
conservation plans, conservation banks, and international
agreements.
Section 6 of the ESA mandates the federal government to
work cooperatively with the states on endangered species
protection. However, the ESA fails to address the federal
government’s trust responsibility to tribes (Zellmer, 1998).
This omission has led to disagreements and, in some cases,
litigation over the ESA’s application, and the consistency of
that application, to tribal lands, resources, and treaty rights
(Fjetland, 1999; Krogseng, 2000). Secretarial Order 3206 (1997)
recognizes that as governmental sovereigns, Indian tribes
‘‘possess the inherent authority to . . . protect tribal trust
resources,’’ including trust resources occurring outside tribal
reservation boundaries.1 Developed through a bilateral effort
between the federal government and tribal governments from
across the U.S. to reconcile endangered species protection and
the trust responsibility (Wilkinson, 1997), it guides the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the two agencies charged with administering the ESA,
on establishing and maintaining collaborative partnerships
with tribes when these agencies take actions under the
authority of the ESA that may affect tribes. In principle, these
agencies must ‘‘work directly with Indian tribes on a
government-to-government basis’’ so as to ‘‘avoid or mini-
mize the potential for conflict and confrontation’’ between the
ESA and tribal rights (DOI and DOC, 1997).
Gray wolf (Canis lupus) recovery in Idaho provides a valuable
example of a collaborative relationship between indigenous
and non-indigenous governance structures in species con-
servation and management, in which goals for species
recovery were met. The gray wolf is highly regarded by many
Native American tribes, as it represents ideals such as
strength, loyalty, and wisdom (USFWS, 1998); thus, it would
be considered a trust resource to tribes who maintain cultural
ties it. However, European settlers considered wolves a threat
to their homesteading lifestyle and livestock. At the time of its
ESA listing in 1974, the gray wolf was represented by only one
remnant population in northern Minnesota, the remainder of
the population in the coterminous U.S. having been extirpated
through government-sponsored predator eradication pro-
grams in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
(USFWS, 1998).
The Idaho legislature barred the State’s involvement in the
federal recovery effort by rejecting its draft wolf management
plan (Idaho Fish and Game Code, Sec. 36-715). By doing so, they
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0432
joined Montana and Wyoming in choosing not to partner with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on wolf recovery. Idaho’s
action opened the door for the Nez Perce Tribe, whose
aboriginal lands and current reservation are located in north
central Idaho, to assume a leadership role in wolf recovery and
management. In 1995, under the authority of the ESA, the
Service negotiated a cooperative agreement with the Tribe for
them to carry out key management and monitoring respon-
sibilities for the central Idaho recovery area (USFWS and Nez
Perce Tribe, 1995). Although the recovery area occurred
entirely outside of reservation boundaries, portions of it were
located within the Tribe’s aboriginal territory, most of which
was ceded to the federal government through the treaty
process and now consists of national forests and wilderness
areas (i.e., open and unclaimed lands) (DOA and DOI, 1996).
While a number of intergovernmental agreements have
been entered into by Native American tribes for the manage-
ment of natural resources, wolf recovery in Idaho marked the
first time an Indian tribe assumed a lead role in a federal
endangered species recovery program outside of reservation
boundaries (Cahill and Cornell, 2003; Nie, 2003). Through their
treaty with the federal government, the Tribe reserved their
right to maintain their lifestyle in perpetuity in all ‘‘usual and
accustomed places’’ within their aboriginal territory, not just
on reservation lands. This inherently implied that their trust
resources, such as the gray wolf, would be managed in a
sustainable manner. The recovery program offered the Tribe
opportunities to restore the ecological balance and biodiver-
sity of the northern Rocky Mountain ecosystem (Nez Perce
Tribe, 1994), revive their cultural ties to the wolf, and ‘‘play an
expanded and enhanced role in the management of local and
regional natural resources’’ (Wilson, 1999, p. 559).
Our research examines key elements of the partnership
between the Nez Perce and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
facilitated through an intergovernmental agreement, to assess
what factors supported or hindered the gray wolf recovery
effort in Idaho. An interpretive research approach is used to
describe the intergovernmental relationship under the ESA-
authorized cooperative agreement through the perspective of
its members and explore the context in which the recovery
program was implemented. We conclude by illuminating
challenges and opportunities likely to be faced by Native
American tribes throughout the United States who seek
collaborative federal–tribal partnerships for endangered spe-
cies recovery. In doing so, we provide insight into international
implications for indigenous self-determination through par-
ticipation in natural resources management.
3. Methods
We employed three case study methods in our research: (1)
semi-structured interview, (2) document review, and (3)
archival research. Our analysis of the government-to-govern-
ment relationship was based on semi-structured, in-person
and phone interviews conducted from July through November
2004 with current and former officials from the Nez Perce Tribe
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who worked on wolf
recovery. In all, 19 individuals – 11 from the Tribe and 8 from
the Service – were interviewed. Interviewees were selected
based on the following criteria: (1) extent of interactions with
personnel from the other government interest, (2) participa-
tion in decision-making processes regarding the gray wolf, (3)
participation in the design and implementation of gray wolf
management programs, and (4) willingness to participate in
this study. All interviews were conducted in confidentiality,
and the names of interviewees are withheld by mutual
agreement.
We employed a parallel interview structure and set of
questions for the Tribal and federal governments to facilitate
comparison of responses for all participants. Interviews began
with a series of general questions about the interviewee’s
experience working on gray wolf recovery and personal
thoughts on the recovery effort. The next set of questions
related to the interviewee’s perception of the government-to-
government relationship specific to wolf recovery. This
included, but was not limited to, questions regarding com-
munication between the Tribe and the Service, points of
conflict and methods for conflict resolution, and the adequacy
of federal funding for wolf recovery and management. We
supplemented these interviews with a review of archival
documents, including cooperative agreements and govern-
ment policies.
Interviews lasted from 30 min to 3 h and were recorded on
audiotape and transcribed. The data were analyzed using an
approach by Emerson et al. (1995) that draws on ideas rooted in
grounded theory. This is an inductive method of data analysis,
where patterns and themes were identified in the responses of
interviewees within and across governmental entities (Emer-
son et al., 1995). All data were coded manually. We started with
a predetermined list of descriptive codes based on themes
explicit within the interview questions themselves, such as
meanings of wolf recovery and the adequacy of program
funding. Additional descriptive coding categories were devel-
oped as other themes emerged from the data. Once the
descriptive coding categories were developed, a set of
interpretive codes was developed based on respondents’
value positions relating to each of the descriptive codes.
Multiple reviews of the data allowed relationships between
the descriptive and interpretive themes to emerge.
We evaluated the Idaho wolf recovery program by review-
ing the Nez Perce Tribal Wolf Recovery and Management Plan for
Idaho (1995) and annual monitoring reports from 1995 to 2004
(i.e., the duration of the cooperative partnership) obtained
from the Tribe and Service, supplemented by interviews with
Tribe and Service personnel. To maintain consistency and
reduce bias in our document review, data from the wolf
management plan and monitoring reports were collected
using a questionnaire matrix. This matrix analyzed twenty
predetermined factors as established by tasks outlined in the
recovery and management plan. We noted when original plan
actions were carried out for each year of the recovery effort if
they were discussed in the annual monitoring reports.
4. Results
Our analysis of the data revealed four themes that were most
frequently discussed by respondents from both governments:
(1) meanings placed by respondents on wolf recovery; (2)
Table 1 – Major elements of the federal–tribal partnership for the wolf recovery effort in Idaho, the frequency with whicheach element was cited by respondents from the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and thevalue positions of respondents (i.e., respondents in agreement with each statement) from the NPT and USFWS who citedthese elements
NPT USFWS
Number ofrespondentsdiscussing
each element
Number ofrespondents
agreeing witheach element
Number ofrespondentsdiscussing
each element
Number ofrespondents
agreeing witheach element
Plan implementation
� Idaho wolf recovery was a success (Note: the term
‘‘success’’ was left undefined by the interviewer)
9 9 4 4
Co-management versus cooperative management
� Idaho wolf recovery is an example of co-management 6 5 6 1
� Idaho wolf recovery is an example of cooperative
management
6 1 6 5
Communication, decision-making, and conflict resolution
� The Service and Tribe have an effective relationship for
meeting wolf recovery goals
6 6 5 5
� Communication is adequate for carrying out wolf
recovery efforts
6 6 3 3
� The tribe has adequate opportunities to participate in
decision-making processes at the technical level
2 2 4 4
� The tribe has adequate opportunities to participate in
decision-making processes at the strategic level
4 0 5 5
� The government-to-government relationship is adequate
for resolving conflicts at the technical level
3 3 4 4
� The government-to-government relationship is adequate
for resolving conflicts at the strategic level
4 0 3 3
Program funding
� The amount of funding for wolf recovery is adequate 5 0 4 3
� The government-to-government relationship is
effective for funding management needs
5 0 3 0
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0 433
distinctions between co-management and cooperative man-
agement; (3) communication, decision-making, and conflict
resolution; and (4) the adequacy of program funding. Respon-
dents also assessed the practical implementation of the Idaho
wolf recovery plan. While value positions on each of the four
themes often differed between governments, all members
reflected positively on plan implementation (Table 1).
4.1. Plan implementation
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established a recovery
objective for the gray wolf of at least 30 breeding pair equitably
distributed across three identified recovery areas – northwest
Montana, the Greater Yellowstone Area, and central Idaho –
for a minimum of 3 successive years (USFWS, 1987; Mack et al.,
2002). Wolf recovery in northwest Montana has occurred
through natural recolonization, while in the Greater Yellow-
stone Area and central Idaho, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, as part of their ESA mandate, reintroduced several
dozen wolves from Canada in 1995 and 1996 (Mack and
Laudon, 1998).
The Nez Perce Tribal Wolf Recovery and Management Plan for
Idaho (1995) established a goal of at least 10 breeding packs of
wolves for the central Idaho recovery area and outlined a four-
prong recovery strategy: (1) information, education, and
outreach; (2) wolf monitoring; (3) wolf control; and (4) research.
The recovery goal for the central Idaho recovery area was met
by the end of 2000, less than 6 years after the recovery effort
began (Mack et al., 2002). The recovery goal of 30 breeding pair
over the entire recovery area was reached in late 2002 (USFWS
et al., 2003). By the end of 2005, when legislation was passed
allowing states and tribes to petition the federal government
for wolf management authorities, an estimated 512 wolves
and 36 breeding pair inhabited Idaho alone (Nadeau et al.,
2006).
All respondents from the Tribe and Service considered the
biological aspects of wolf recovery to be a success (Table 1).
Respondents attributed recovery less to active efforts than to
the robustness of the species and to the strength of the public
education and outreach components of the recovery program.
Said one USFWS official, ‘‘Wolves are a very easy species from
a biological standpoint to manage. They have fairly high
reproductive capabilities. They’re resilient to disturbance and
perturbations. They have incredible dispersal capabilities, so it
is easy for them to recolonize vacant habitats and increase the
distribution of the population. From a program standpoint,
most of the challenges . . . are social and political challenges’’
(Interview with USFWS official, 5 October 2004).
The cooperative agreement stipulated that the Service
would maintain oversight over endangered species recovery
as authorized by the ESA, while the Tribe would manage day-
to-day operations (USFWS and Nez Perce Tribe, 1995). The
Tribe and Service both considered wolf monitoring to be
successful, as they consistently met their original plan
Table 2 – Implementation of recovery and management tasks outlined in the Nez Perce Tribal Wolf Recovery and ManagementPlan for Idaho (1995) from 1995 to 2004
Recovery and management tasks Were tasks implemented?
1995–1998a 1999–2001b 2002 2003 2004
Information and education
� Low-profile reporting of wolf events N N N N N
� Public education program N Y Y Y Y
� Intern program and development of curriculum N N N N N
� Proactive outreach program N Y Y Y Y
Monitoring
� Determine the distribution and occurrence of
wolves in the central Idaho recovery area
Y Y Y Y Y
� Determine annual estimates of total numbers of
wolves in the central Idaho recovery area and
document pack affiliation, if any
Y Y Y Y Y
� Determine spatial and temporal relationships of
wolves including definitions of wolf pack home ranges
Y Y Y Y Y
� Determine movement patterns of lone and pack wolves Y Y Y Y Y
� Evaluate movement characteristics of wolves
translocated through a ‘‘quick release’’ technique
Y Y N N N
� Determine habitat use of wolves N N N N N
� Determine seasonal food habits of wolves Y Y Y Y Y
� Estimate wolf predations rates on wintering ungulates Y N N N N
� Document breeding and denning activity Y Y Y Y Y
� Determine number of wolf litters, post-den emergence
litter sizes, pup/adult ratios, and recruitment of
pups into the winter population
Y Y Y Y Y
� Determine age and sex of dispersing wolves and
their success in establishing new packs
Y Y Y Y Y
� Determine cause-specific wolf mortality Y Y Y Y Y
Control
� Compensation program (Defenders of Wildlife) Y Y Y Y Y
� Assist Wildlife Services (formerly Animal Damage
Control) in control actions and relocate problem wolves
Y Y Y Y Y
Research
� Identify, prioritize, and initiate wolf research N Y Y Y Y
� Support and help solicit additional funding from external sources N Y Y Y Y
Sources: Nez Perce Tribe (1995), Mack and Laudon (1998), Mack et al. (2002, 2005), Mack and Holyan (2003, 2004) and USFWS et al. (2002, 2003,
2004, 2005). Note: Classifications are as follows: Y: element covered in the Nez Perce Tribe or Northern Rockies annual report; N: element not
covered in the Nez Perce Tribe or Northern Rockies annual report.a Years 1995–1998 were covered in Mack and Laudon (1998).b Years 1999–2001 were covered in Mack et al. (2002).
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0434
objectives (Nez Perce Tribe, 1995). For example, the Tribe
monitored and collected biological data, including wolf
movements, distribution, population, and breeding activity
(Table 2).
Information and outreach, control, and research programs
were largely interagency efforts coordinated between the
Tribe, Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
Wildlife Services (formerly Animal Damage Control) in
partnership with universities and other interest groups.
Targeted information and outreach efforts to livestock
producers, sportsmen, and other members of the public
whose lives and livelihoods may be affected by the presence of
wolves formed the backbone of the recovery effort. For
instance, the recovery team held informational sessions in
communities that wolves had newly recolonized to discuss
wolf ecology and the wolf recovery program. Respondents
from both governments identified these components as being
successfully implemented (Table 1; Interview with NPT
official, 29 July 2004; Interview with USFWS official, 27
September 2004).
4.2. Meanings of wolf recovery
The Tribe and Service shared a vision of restoring the wolf
population, and respondents from both governance structures
recognized the species’ intrinsic right to exist. Specifically,
respondents from the Tribe and the Service both expressed
that wolves have ‘‘a rightful place on earth’’ (Interview with
NPT official, 26 July 2004; Interview with USFWS official, 27
September 2004), which is also reflected in the Tribe’s
spirituality and holistic worldview that all living creatures
have value and an inherent right to inhabit the earth.
Respondents from the Tribe and the Service contextualized
this shared value within a cultural and political framework.
Service officials placed great importance on the wolf’s
biological recovery in demonstrating the strength of the
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0 435
Endangered Species Act (Interview with USFWS official, 5
October 2004), which has often been criticized as unsuccessful
in achieving its goal of saving wildlife and plants at taxpayer
expense (Sahr, 2000). Successful recovery also highlighted the
Service’s own ability to accomplish its objective of recovering
species as a primary responsibility tasked to them by the
federal government under the ESA (Interview with USFWS
official, 27 September 2004). As one Service official succinctly
stated, ‘‘Job well done’’ (Interview with USFWS official, 5
October 2004).
For the Tribe, the return of the wolf was not only a
biological achievement but also a manifestation of their
spirituality, culture, and history and an opportunity to ‘‘honor
the wolf as an equal . . . [and] a brother’’ (Interview with NPT
official, 27 July 2004). ‘‘It was a vision that came true . . . and a
reassurance that our natural world and our spiritual world
were reviving’’ (Interview with NPT official, 26 July 2004).
Tribal members also spoke of wolf recovery as a journey
mirroring the Tribe’s own history, where both shared a similar
fate as European settlers expanded westward, seeking to tame
the frontier and bring order to the west to make room for their
way of life:
We’ve been chased from the land, and so has the wolf.
We’ve been hated and feared, and so has the wolf. We’ve
been hunted and killed, and so has the wolf. And over the
course of time, we have fought to regain ourselves as a
tribe, as a sovereign nation. In this country’s history, we’re
typically a nation of people that are suppressed in such a
way that it’s difficult to regain [that sovereignty] (Interview
with NPT official, 26 July 2004).
In choosing to use wolf recovery as a platform for
discussing tribal authority in natural resources management
issues, the Tribe’s involvement in wolf recovery represented a
step towards asserting their authority as a sovereign nation
and establishing themselves as a legitimate natural resources
manager alongside their federal and state counterparts
(Interview with NPT official, 29 July 2004).
4.3. Co-management versus cooperative management
A frequent theme not included in our interview questions
but, rather, initially cited by the respondents themselves
was the Tribe’s management status in the recovery effort.
The Tribe and Service generally were split in their opinion
as to whether the Tribe’s role was that of a co-manager or a
cooperative manager (Table 1), and our review of archival
documents offered substantive arguments for both desig-
nations.
The Service’s Native American Policy, developed in 1994,
guides their relationship with tribal governments ‘‘in the
conservation of fish and wildlife resources’’ and recognizes
‘‘the authority of Native American governments to manage,
co-manage, or cooperatively manage’’ those resources
(USFWS, 1994, p. 4). The difference between co-management
and cooperative management as defined in this policy largely
influences how other parties, including state governments
and non-governmental organizations, perceive the legitimacy
of tribes as natural resources managers.
While the federal and tribal governments work together to
‘‘actively protect, conserve, enhance, or restore fish and
wildlife resources,’’ co-management only occurs where each
management entity has legally established management
responsibility; ideally, the two governments function as equal
partners (USFWS, 1994). In cooperative management arrange-
ments, one agency or government has authority over the
other; this arrangement is the case in endangered species
protection, as the ESA specifically designates the federal
government as the sole agency for carrying out the Act.
Therefore, the Tribe participated in wolf recovery under the
Service’s authority.
Despite the formal partnership established through their
cooperative agreement with the Service, nearly all respon-
dents from the Tribe interpreted their role to be one of co-
management based on the Treaty of 1855, where the Tribe
reserved the right to hunt their trust resources upon open and
unclaimed lands (United States Statutes at Large, 1855), which
consist of public (i.e., federal) lands outside of tribal reserva-
tion boundaries. Their reserved hunting right implied that
those resources would be maintained in perpetuity to harvest,
which provided a context for co-managing the wolf through-
out the recovery area (Interview with NPT official, 23
September 2004). By entering into the agreement and by
citing the Native American Policy (1994) and Secretarial Order
3206, the Service recognized their trust obligations to the Tribe
based on the treaty and acknowledged ‘‘that the Tribe has
resources that it’s entitled to manage’’ (Interview with NPT
official, 23 September 2004). Because the treaty ideally places
tribes on equal footing with the federal government, only a co-
management regime would reflect the parity of this relation-
ship.
From the Service’s perspective, the Tribe was a cooperative
manager based on the language of the cooperative agreement
signed by the Tribe and Service. The agreement explicitly
defined the partnership as ‘‘an example of cooperative
management’’ and established a mechanism for the federal
government to transfer funds to the Tribe to implement their
management plan and honor other terms of the agreement
(USFWS and Nez Perce Tribe, 1995).
The Service intentionally refrained from naming the Tribe
as co-managers in the recovery effort because it would blur
tribal sovereignty, an issue the Service wanted to avoid, and
agreement responsibilities. It would also create conflicts
between their trust responsibility to tribes and their ESA
responsibility to state governments, with whom wildlife
management responsibilities have traditionally lain. ‘‘Co-
management [can] polarize an issue and antagonize the
parties that you would want to work with. You try to walk a
middle ground in all of this’’ (Interview with USFWS official, 16
November 2004).
4.4. Communication, decision-making, and conflictresolution
Respondents from both the Tribe and Service identified the
human dimension of wolf recovery, particularly the public’s
negative attitudes towards wolves, as the most critical
element of the recovery effort (Nez Perce Tribe, 1995). Because
wolf conflicts were most prevalent where opposition to wolf
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0436
recovery was strongest, successful recovery and management
largely depended on the ability of both governments to
interact with each other and with the public in a manner
that garnered the most public support for the recovery effort.
The Tribe’s recovery and management plan addressed and
operationalized this concern through its information and
outreach, monitoring, and wolf control programs (Table 1).
Policymakers and technical staff from both the Tribe and
Service perceived their government-to-government relation-
ship to be effective for carrying out the operational aspects of
the Tribe’s management plan (Table 1). They cited effective
communication between their respective technical staffs, lack
of ‘‘turf wars’’ over agency responsibilities, and broad
decision-making authority at the operational level as primary
contributors to the program’s ongoing success. For example,
annual meetings at the operational level provided an
opportunity for the two partners to bridge disconnects that
arose over the past year, discuss and prioritize their program
of work, and develop shared expectations for the coming year
(Interview with USFWS official, 16 November 2004). Conse-
quently, they experienced few debates over potentially
contentious issues such as wolf-collaring efforts or the
allocation of funds to telemetry flights or outreach activities.
Technical personnel from the Tribe and the Service also
attributed the effectiveness of their relationship to their
shared biological discipline and because as a team, they had
remained relatively intact since the program’s inception in the
1990s. Over time, they developed an understanding of each
other beyond the professional level, allowing trust, mean-
ingful working relationships, and personal friendships to
form. ‘‘Without those bonds, it’s really hard to say where this
would be’’ (Interview with NPT official, 27 July 2004).
The partners’ demonstrated commitment to the program
through close communication and coordination strengthened
their relationship at the operational level. These strengths
allowed Service and Tribal personnel to implement the
management plan with a high degree of efficiency. Expecta-
tions from the public necessitated diligent interagency
coordination and decision-making authority. For example,
because most livestock depredations were reported on week-
ends, technical personnel maintained a ‘‘24 � 7’’ operation for
immediate access to information on wolf pack locations and
for a prompt follow-up on depredation reports. The recovery
team also coordinated education and outreach programs for
individual residents and traditional opponents of wolf
recovery, such as livestock producers (Interview with NPT
official, 29 July 2004). Unified efforts like these built public trust
and confidence in the governments’ ability to monitor wolves
and quickly react to problem situations, gradually shifting
public attitudes towards tolerance of wolf recovery and
support for the flourishing wolf population.
While few conflicts existed at the operational level,
potentially significant problems persisted at the strategic
level. As a cooperative partner, the Tribe worked on the
Service’s behalf to listen to and address affected citizens’
concerns over recovery-related issues. However, when federal
agency actions to carry out the ESA mandate may impact tribal
trust resources, tribal lands, or the exercise of tribal rights,
those agencies must include tribal participation in consulta-
tion and consensus-seeking (DOI and DOC, 1997). The Service
needed to consult with the Nez Perce as a sovereign nation
over the same issues because those issues affected treaty
resources. Tribal officials felt that this consultation obligation
was not met with respect to wolf recovery (Interview with NPT
official, 27 July 2004).
The two governments also disagreed on the adequacy of
tribal opportunities to participate in decision-making at the
strategic level (Table 1). The Tribe expressed disappointment
with how little input and influence they had on policy
decisions (Interview with NPT official, 27 July 2004). The
Service did not share this sentiment, as they explicitly
retained that responsibility in the cooperative agreement
(Interview with USFWS official, 14 October 2004).
4.5. Program funding
One principle challenge facing the Tribe was securing stable,
long-term funding for the recovery program (Wilson, 1999).
Nearly all respondents from both governments identified this
ongoing challenge as the Tribe’s most critical need for
effectively managing wolf recovery efforts (Table 1).
The Tribe’s annual budget failed to keep pace with the
wolf’s increasing population and expanding distribution,
which necessitated further funding to purchase additional
wolf collars, schedule more telemetry flights for aerial
tracking, hire extra biologists to conduct monitoring, and
expand outreach efforts to inform public expectations as
wolves recolonized new areas (Interview with NPT official, 29
July 2004). In 1995, at the outset of their participation in wolf
recovery and management, the Tribe managed an annual
budget of $151 166 for monitoring 14 wolves. By 2004, the
Tribe’s annual budget had tripled, while the wolf population
had increased thirty-fold (Fig. 1).
Although the Service and Wildlife Services pitched in year-
end monies, when available, for additional flights or assisted
with monitoring efforts, the funding challenge persisted
throughout the recovery period due, in part, to differences
by the Tribe and Service in the perceived adequacy of funding
levels (Table 1). Tribal members framed the funding issue in
the context of their history with the federal government. As
such, dissatisfaction with the disproportionately small bud-
gets versus wolf population totals took on deeper personal and
cultural meanings. ‘‘The tribes already paid their lifetime
premium to the federal government by giving the United
States all this land [through the treaty process], so the federal
government better live up to [their] responsibility’’ (Interview
with NPT official, 26 July 2004).
The Service responded that wolf recovery is overfunded
due to public demands for intense monitoring efforts.
‘‘Throwing fistfuls of money at wolves [is the] politicians’
ways of trying to resolve problems. The symbolism of wolves
[as a threat to lives and industry] makes recovery much more
expensive than it ever need be in the real world. It fosters this
absurd perception that every wolf has to be radio-collared
because they’re [sic] about to do something bad. We’ve tried to
back off [but we] get beat up severely’’ (Interview with USFWS
official, 5 October 2004).
While perceived differences in the adequacy of funding
existed, all respondents acknowledged the very real challenge
of funding program objectives to meet political and public
Fig. 1 – Estimated wolf population versus funding levels for the central Idaho recovery area from 1995 to 2004. Sources: Mack
and Laudon (1998), Mack et al. (2002, 2005), Mack and Holyan (2003, 2004), USFWS and Nez Perce Tribe (1995), and USFWS
et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005).
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0 437
expectations. With insufficient funds available to purchase
radio collars or hire additional biologists, it became increas-
ingly difficult to document the size and behavior of wolf packs.
Without sound scientific data to respond to the politics of wolf
management, ‘‘it’s just a poor performance. [Agency] cred-
ibility is on the line’’ (Interview with NPT official, 27 July 2004).
Consequently, both the Service and Tribe were more reactive
than proactive to situations such as livestock depredations,
arguably the most emotional and politically charged element
of the wolf recovery effort.
5. Discussion
Environmental justice issues have historically plagued fed-
eral–tribal interactions. One example is the siting of nuclear
waste storage facilities on tribal lands, which degrades sacred
homelands and threatens the survival of a tribe’s cultural
identity (Gowda and Easterling, 2000; Gonzales and Nelson,
2001). Numerous studies have investigated controversies over
water rights on reservation lands between tribes and local,
state, and federal government agencies (Miller, 2000; Shep-
herd, 2001). These environmental conflicts have often been
decided in terms unfavorable to Native Americans and their
right to effectively participate in natural resources manage-
ment. In contrast, while it faced its share of challenges, the
Idaho wolf recovery program is widely regarded as a model of a
successful federal–tribal partnership for recovering an endan-
gered species (HPAIED, 1999; EPA and DOI-OIG, 2007).
Our research found that a shared value of restoring wolves
to their native habitat provided common ground from which
the federal and tribal governments could negotiate the
cooperative agreement and collaborate on subsequent recov-
ery efforts. The operational level of this relationship was most
critical for implementation of the wolf recovery plan, and
technical personnel from both governments perceived their
relationship to be effective for meeting the plan’s objectives.
They identified several elements, including long-standing
working relationships, close interagency communication and
coordination, and broad decision-making authority at the
operational level, as being most critical to the success of the
recovery program. By minimizing internal government-to-
government conflicts at the operational level, the recovery
team more effectively resolved external conflicts with the
public.
However, like other stakeholders who view wolf recovery
as a surrogate issue for broader cultural and sociopolitical
debates (Nie, 2003), respondents framed wolf recovery in a
manner specific to their respective cultural and political
interests. This resulted in very different views regarding
program funding, policy planning, and management regimes.
Bridging differences in opinion regarding these elements of
the wolf recovery effort required consultative discussions at
the strategic level. While respondents from both governments
agreed that responsibilities overlapped and were shared at the
operational level, they noted a clear hierarchical relationship
at the strategic level, where policy planning and decision-
making rested with the federal government. Therefore, it
appears that wolf recovery was successful despite the
disconnect at the strategic level of the government-to-
government relationship.
Opportunities to collaborate with the federal government
on strategic planning and policy decisions are essential for
advancing indigenous self-determination by supporting the
institutional capacity of indigenous groups to develop,
implement, and operate programs. Inadequate collaborative
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0438
opportunities are inconsistent with Article 8(j) of the CBD,
Principle 22 of Agenda 21, and other international human
rights treaties and soft law instruments, such as the U.N.
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the
International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 169,
that promote active involvement by indigenous communities
in natural resources management (ILO, 1989; UNEP, 1992;
United Nations, 1992, 2007). For the Nez Perce, these issues
challenged their efforts to gain recognition as a primary actor
alongside state and federal agencies in natural resources
management.
Unlike the circumstances described by Wilkinson (1997)
that allowed for the development of Secretarial Order 3206,
our research found that clarifying goals about wolf recovery
within a broader political context, especially as a vehicle for
advancing tribal sovereignty, appears to have been absent
from initial discussions between the Tribe and Service. For
example, differing views of the Tribe’s management status
and the Service’s reluctance to name the Tribe as co-managers
impeded self-determination efforts and weakened the fed-
eral–tribal relationship. Clarifying these positions at the outset
would allow partners to develop a shared frame of reference
and a mutually agreeable position from which outcomes can
be effected (Willard and Norchi, 1993; Clark, 2002).
Securing adequate and stable funding sources continues
to be critical for successful tribal–federal partnerships in
endangered species recovery (Bruce Babbitt, personal com-
munication, 25 June 2006). Wilson (1999) identified funding
as a key challenge facing Idaho wolf recovery in the
program’s early stages, and our research showed that this
challenge persisted for the duration of the tribal–federal
partnership. Inadequate funding for basic Indian programs
and services impairs a tribe’s capacity to fully function as
sovereign nations (CCR, 2003). Cited as a primary barrier to
implementing natural resources programs, inadequate
funding limits tribes’ ability to attract and retain expert
staff and may force them to discontinue programs altogether
(EPA and DOI-OIG, 2007). Consequently, tribes throughout
the U.S. face a continuing struggle for acceptance as
legitimate natural resources managers, both on and off
their reservations.
Our research illustrates that endangered species protec-
tion and indigenous self-determination are not mutually
exclusive efforts, although using the former as a vehicle to
advance the latter is not without its challenges. Lessons
from this case study can be applied in countries where
indigenous and non-indigenous governance structures are
partnering, or desire to form partnerships, to protect
endangered species. Governmental policies aimed at recon-
ciling indigenous rights with natural resource protection
laws should be developed or, if already in existence, updated
through a bilateral process similar to the crafting of
Secretarial Order 3206 (Wilkinson, 1997). These policies
should establish a mechanism for conducting regular
performance reviews. With respect to the Service’s Native
American Policy (1994) specifically, ineffective cooperative
structures can undermine indigenous sovereignty by de-
prioritizing or ignoring indigenous decision-making models
such as consensus-based forums (Ransom and Ettenger,
2001). Therefore, as part of its updates, the Service’s Native
American Policy (1994) should also clarify the distinction
between co-management and cooperative management of
resources, especially with respect to the circumstances
under which each of these may occur.
International conventions and human rights laws, such as
the CBD, Agenda 21, and the ILO’s Convention No. 169, set
forth policies for the active participation of indigenous groups
in resource conservation and management. Specific provi-
sions to be considered include Articles 8(j) and 10(c) of the CBD;
Chapters 8, 23, 26, 33, and 37 of Agenda 21; and Article 2.1 of the
ILO’s Convention No. 169. These instruments establish a global
standard for developing participatory mechanisms while
providing flexibility to accommodate country-specific condi-
tions (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004). Within these existing
policy frameworks, nations should include the meaningful
participation of indigenous peoples as true stakeholders and
partners in all levels of decision-making, including strategic
policy planning. This includes true consideration of formaliz-
ing co-management regimes with indigenous groups that
allow participants to be equal partners. The definition of co-
management varies across the international literature (Castro
and Nielson, 2001), and our research shows that even in the
United States, despite the Service’s Native American Policy
(1994), the federal and tribal governments vary in their
definition of co-management. National and international
debates over co-management are likely to arise more
frequently as the number of partnerships between central
governments and indigenous groups in endangered species
recovery efforts increases. Therefore, similar to Canada’s
approach to collaborating with First Nations, where co-
management structures typically include advisory boards,
management boards, and joint decision-making boards, best
management practices should be developed in the U.S. and
other countries for negotiating and implementing co-manage-
ment regimes (SFIC, 1996).
Prior to undertaking large-scale efforts and engaging in
long-term partnerships, indigenous and non-indigenous
governance structures should clearly define their expectations
of the project and of each other during initial discussions and
throughout the duration of the partnership via a meaningful
consultation process. In the U.S., the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council (2000) offers several guiding princi-
ples on consultation, such as building ongoing consultative
relationships with tribes and institutionalizing consultation
and collaboration procedures. These principles have broad
applicability to other nations as well. While these guiding
principles should be followed, the federal government should
be mindful of the diversity among indigenous groups and
should adapt these procedures accordingly, formalizing such
arrangements through a Memorandum of Agreement or
similar mechanism (EPA, 2000).
Through diligent government-to-government efforts,
endangered species recovery programs can be administered
in a collaborative manner that supports indigenous self-
determination and protects species threatened with extinc-
tion. If given sufficient opportunities for institutional capacity-
building and the development of collaborative partnerships,
indigenous groups – with their strong ties to native species –
are uniquely positioned to make meaningful contributions to
the broader discourse on conserving biological diversity.
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0 439
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to everyone interviewed from the Nez Perce
Tribe and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for sharing their
personal experiences and perspectives and for their commit-
ment to endangered species protection. B.J. Atanasio, M.
Beering, K. Beltrano, and two anonymous reviewers provided
useful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. This
research was funded through grants from the San Jose State
University College of Social Sciences Foundation and Live Oak
Associates.
r e f e r e n c e s
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M. Farvar, M.T., Kothari, A.,Renard, Y., 2004. Sharing power. Learning by doing inco-management of natural resources throughoutthe world. IIED and IUCN/CEESP/CMWG, Cenesta,Tehran.
Cahill, M., Cornell, S., 2003. Indigenous Self-governance,Cooperative Management Regimes, and Wildlife Resources.Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, the University ofArizona, Tucson, AZ.
Castro, A.P., Nielson, E., 2001. Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management.Environ. Sci. Policy 4, 229–239.
CCR, 2003. A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs inIndian Country. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,Washington, DC.
Clark, T.W., 2002. The Policy Process: A Practical Guide forNatural Resource Professionals. Yale University Press, NewHaven, CT.
Clinton, W.J., 1994. Executive memorandum. Government-to-government relations with native American tribalgovernments. Fed. Register 59 (85).
Cohen, F.S., 1971. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.
Cornell, S., 2006. Indigenous peoples, poverty and self-determination in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and theUnited States. Reprinted from: Eversole, R., McNeish, J.,Cimadamore, A.D. (Eds.), Indigenous Peoples and Poverty:An International Perspective. Zed Books. http://www.jopna.net/pubs/JOPNA_2006-02.pdf.
DOA and DOI, 1996. Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project. Tribal ceded lands (GIS dataset).Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior,Washington, DC. http://www.icbemp.gov/spatial/polit/.
DOI, 1995. Department Manual. Department of the Interior,Washington, DC.
DOI and DOC, 1997. Secretarial Order 3206: American IndianTribal Rights, Federal–Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and theEndangered Species Act. Department of the Interior andDepartment of Commerce, Washington, DC.
Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., Shaw, L.L., 1995. WritingEthnographic Fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.
EPA, 2000. Guide on Consultation and Collaboration with IndianTribal Governments and the Public Participation ofIndigenous Groups and Tribal Members in EnvironmentalDecision Making. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC.
EPA and DOI-OIG, 2007. Tribal Successes: Protecting theEnvironment and Natural Resources. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and Department of the Interior-Office ofInspector General, Washington, DC.
Fjetland, C.A., 1999. The Endangered Species Act and Indiantreaty rights: a fresh look. Tulane Environ. Law J. 13(Winter), 45–70.
Gonzales, T.A., Nelson, M.K., 2001. Contemporary NativeAmerican responses to environmental threats in IndianCountry. In: Grim, J.A. (Ed.), Indigenous Traditions andEcology: The Interbeing of Cosmology and Community.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 495–538.
Gowda, M.V.R., Easterling, D., 2000. Voluntary siting and equity:the MRS facility experience in Native America. Risk Anal. 20(6), 917–929.
HPAIED, 1999. Honoring Nations: Honoring Contributions in theGovernance of American Indian Nations. Harvard Project onAmerican Indian Economic Development, Cambridge, MA.http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/hn/hn_1999_wolf.htm.
ILO, 1989. International Labour Organization Convention No.169. Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples inIndependent Countries. International Labour Organization,Geneva.
Krogseng, K., 2000. Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of ChippewaIndians. (Native American treaty rights to hunt and fishmust be allowed within conservation standards). Ecol. LawQuart. 27 (August), 771–797.
Mack, C., Babcock, I., Holyan, J., 2002. Idaho Wolf RecoveryProgram: Restoration and Management of GrayWolves in Central Idaho. Progress Report 1999–2001. NezPerce Tribe, Department of Wildlife Management,Lapwai, ID.
Mack, C., Babcock, I., Holyan, J., 2005. Idaho Wolf RecoveryProgram: Restoration and Management of Gray Wolves inCentral Idaho. Progress Report 2004. Nez Perce Tribe,Department of Wildlife Management, Lapwai, ID.
Mack, C., Holyan, J., 2003. Idaho Wolf Recovery Program:Restoration and Management of Gray Wolves in CentralIdaho. Progress Report 2002. Nez Perce Tribe, Department ofWildlife Management, Lapwai, ID.
Mack, C., Holyan, J., 2004. Idaho Wolf Recovery Program:Restoration and Management of Gray Wolves in CentralIdaho. Progress Report 2003. Nez Perce Tribe, Department ofWildlife Management, Lapwai, ID.
Mack, C., Laudon, K., 1998. Idaho Wolf Recovery Program:Restoration and Management of Gray Wolves in CentralIdaho. Progress Report 1995–1998. Nez Perce Tribe,Department of Wildlife Management, Lapwai, ID.
Mauro, F., Hardison, P.D., 2000. Traditional knowledge ofindigenous and local communities: international debateand policy initiatives. Ecol. Appl. 10 (5), 1263–1269.
McKeown, C.T., 1997. The meaning of consultation. CommonGround 2, 16–21.
Miller, C. (Ed.), 2000. Water in the West. Oregon State UniversityPress, Corvallis, OR.
Nadeau, M.S., Mack, C., Holyan, J., Husseman, J., Lucid, M.,Thomas, B., 2006. Wolf Conservation and Management inIdaho; Progress Report 2005. Idaho Department of Fish andGame, Boise, ID. Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, ID.
Nez Perce Tribe, 1994. Comments by the Nez Perce Tribe on theDraft EIS for the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves toYellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. In: FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement: the Reintroduction ofGray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and CentralIdaho. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, ID.
Nez Perce Tribe, 1995. Nez Perce Tribal Wolf Recovery andManagement Plan for Idaho. Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, ID.
Nie, M.A., 2003. Beyond Wolves: The Politics of Wolf Recoveryand Management. University of Minnesota Press,Minneapolis, MN.
Ransom, J.W., Ettenger, K.T., 2001. ‘‘Polishing the Kaswentha’’: aHaudenosaunee view of environmental cooperation.Environ. Sci. Policy 4, 219–228.
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 3 0 – 4 4 0440
Sahr, D., 2000. Environmental politics and the EndangeredSpecies Act. Social Educ. 64 (7), 398–409.
SFIC, 1996. Co-Managing Natural Resources with First Nations:Guidelines to Reaching Agreements and Making ThemWork. Saskatchewan Federated Indian College andDepartment of Indian Affairs & Northern Development,Ottawa, Canada.
Shepherd, H., 2001. Conflict comes to roost! The Bureau ofReclamation and the federal Indian trust responsibility.Environ. Law 31, 901–949.
Somers, D., 1992. Rediscovering respect for the land and itsinhabitants. In: Lyden, F.J., Legters, L.H. (Eds.), NativeAmericans and Public Policy. University of Pittsburgh Press,Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 311–318.
UNEP, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. United NationsEnvironment Program. http://www.biodiv.org/convention/convention.shtml.
United Nations, 1992. Agenda 21: Chapter 26. United Nations.http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter26.htm.
United Nations, 2007. Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples. United Nations. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html.
United States Code, 1973. Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C.,Sections 1531–1544.
United States Statutes at Large, 1855. Treaty with the NezPerces, Volume XII, pp. 957–962.
USFWS, 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT.
USFWS, 1994. The Native American Policy of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,DC.
USFWS, 1998. Gray Wolf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington, DC. http://training.fws.gov/library/Pubs/graywolf.pdf.
USFWS and Nez Perce Tribe, 1995. Cooperative AgreementBetween the Nez Perce Tribe and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService Region 1. FWS No. 14-48-0001-95. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Portland, OR.
USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA WildlifeServices, 2000. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 1999 AnnualReport. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt99/index.htm.
USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA WildlifeServices, 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 AnnualReport. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt00/html/annualrpt2000.html.
USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA WildlifeServices, 2002. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2001 AnnualReport. In: Meier, T. (Ed.), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Helena, MT.
USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA WildlifeServices, 2003. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2002 AnnualReport. In: Meier, T. (Ed.), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Helena, MT.
USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA WildlifeServices, 2004. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2003 Annual
Report. In: Meier, T. (Ed.), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Helena, MT.
USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish,Wildlife & Parks, Idaho Fish and Game, USDA WildlifeServices, 2005. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2004 AnnualReport. In: Boyd, D. (Ed.), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Helena, MT.
Wilkinson, C., 1997. The role of bilateralism in fulfilling thefederal–tribal relationship: the tribal rights-endangeredspecies secretarial order. Wash. Law Rev. 72, 1063–1107.
Willard, A.R., Norchi, C.H., 1993. The decision seminar as aninstrument of power and enlightenment. Polit. Psychol. 14,575–606.
Wilson, P.I., 1999. Wolves, politics and the Nez Perce: wolfrecovery in central Idaho and the role of native tribes. Nat.Resour. J. 39, 543–564.
Zellmer, S.B., 1998. Indian lands as critical habitat for Indiannations and endangered species: tribal survival andsovereignty come first. South Dakota Law Rev. 43, 381–437.
Davinna Ohlson is a plant and wildlife ecologist with Live OakAssociates in San Jose, California. She received her M.S. in envir-onmental studies from San Jose State University and B.S. inbiology from Santa Clara University.
Katherine Cushing is an assistant professor in the Department ofEnvironmental Studies at San Jose State University. She has alsoserved as the Associate Director for the Program on Urban Studiesat Stanford and as a senior research associate at the PacificInstitute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Securityin Oakland. Katherine has an M.S. and Ph.D. in civil and environ-mental engineering from Stanford University and a B.S. in indus-trial engineering and science from Northwestern University.
Lynne Trulio is a professor in the Department of EnvironmentalStudies at San Jose State University specializing in environmentalrestoration and directing graduate student research. She has alsobeen the lead scientist for the South Bay Salt Pond RestorationProject during its planning phase (2003–2007). Dr. Trulio conductsresearch investigating human impacts to species and habitats,seeking effective methods to mitigate or eliminate those impacts.Specifically, she has studied the effects of recreation on wildlife,and the ecology and recovery of the western burrowing owl inCalifornia. She holds a Ph.D. in ecology from the University ofCalifornia, Davis and a B.A. in biology from Goucher College inMaryland.
Alan Leventhal, M.A., is an archaeologist/ethnohistorian who hasconducted field work in the Great Basin and California. He hasworked for the past 28 years at San Jose State University as a staffmember and lecturer in anthropology, urban planning, and theDean’s Office, College of Social Sciences. He has taught classes onNative American issues, traditional cultures and prehistory. For 27years, he has worked with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Amah-Mutsun Tribe and Ohlone-Costanoan/Esselen Nation from the SanFrancisco/Monterey Bay regions and has co-authored articles withtribal representatives about their respective legal histories ashistoric Federally Recognized tribes.
