Judge affirms Wolf People license suspension

SANDPOINT — A 2nd District Court judge is affirming the one-year suspension of Wolf People’s license to exhibit wolves at its Cocolalla facility.

Judge Jay Gaskill concluded Wolf People violated a 2012 consent agreement by allowing guests to have direct contact with captive wolves and failing to secure a bond to ensure conformance with the agreement.

Gaskill’s written ruling was filed in 1st District Court on Wednesday, court records show.

The Idaho Department of Fish & Game notified Wolf People founder Nancy Taylor last year that it was not renewing her license to exhibit wolves for a year because of the consent agreement violations.

Wolf People was party to a consent agreement with Fish & Game that sought to resolve 43 license violations. The violations involved allowing guests to touch wolves, in addition to failing to report the births and deaths of wolves, transporting them without permission and failing to report the escape of a wolf in 2012.

Wolf People contested the consent agreement violations, but a hearing officer concluded that the business violated the pact. Wolf People petitioned Fish & Game Director Virgil Moore to review the determination earlier this year, but Moore affirmed the hearing officer’s ruling.

Wolf People petitioned for a review in district court and Gaskill heard oral arguments on June 30.

Wolf People’s counsel, Coeur d’Alene attorney Arthur Bistline, argued that the consent agreement did not expressly prohibit people from touching wolves and that Taylor was in the process of securing a bond when Fish & Game commenced the licensing action.

Bistline maintained that Wolf People was essentially being subjected a criminal sanction in violation of Taylor’s right to due process.

But Gaskill rejected that argument, ruling that the action against Wolf People commenced under the Idaho administrative code and the license suspension was not a court-imposed penalty.

Gaskill ruled that Wolf People was provided due process via administrative license proceedings.

“Therefore, the petitioner’s assertion that the loss of a permit for a year is a criminal penalty does not create a basis to reverse the hearing officer’s decision, or remand the matter for further proceedings,” Gaskill said in the 10-page ruling.

Gaskill further ruled that the record in the case established that Wolf People neglected to obtain the required bond.

Counsel for Fish & Game sought attorney fees in the case on grounds that Wolf People acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law in seeking judicial relief. But Gaskill found that Wolf People acted in a manner that was not patently unreasonable in light of the arguments that were presented.

Bistline did not immediately return a message Thursday seeking comment and it’s unclear if Wolf People will try to appeal Gaskill’s ruling.