SANDPOINT - A June 30 hearing is set in Wolf People's bid to thwart a license suspension for allowing the public direct contact with captive wolves at its Cocolalla facility.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game notified the wolf advocacy business earlier this year that its license to exhibit the predators would be suspended for a year because barriers were not erected to prohibit contact. Wolf People also did not post a bond to guarantee conformance with a consent agreement.

The consent agreement between Wolf People and IDFG was drafted in 2012 to resolve more than 40 violations of its commercial exhibition license.

The violations included failing to report the births and deaths of captive wolves, transferring and transporting wolves without permission, and failing to report the escape of a wolf in 2011.

The overarching goal of the agreement, however, was to prevent tourists from touching or being in direct contact with the wolves, according IDFG records. An IDFG investigation alleged a pattern of flagrant violations of the hands-off requirement.

Wolf People challenged the suspension in 1st District Court, which stayed the licensing action against the company until the legal proceedings conclude.

Art Bistline, a Coeur d'Alene attorney representing Wolf People, contends that IDFG is trying to deny Nancy Taylor's constitutionally protected right to conduct business.

Moreover, Bistline argues the consent agreement's language does not expressly state that all contact is prohibited, according to court documents.

Kathleen Trever, a deputy attorney general representing IDFG, counters that the intent of the agreement was unambiguous.

"Wolf People had clear notice that failure to keep barriers in place to prevent contact between captive wolves and the public, and failure to provide supervision to ensure the public stays outside of the barriers could subject it to adverse licensing action," Trever said in her reply brief.

IDFG is seeking attorney fees in the matter on grounds that Wolf People's challenge "has no reasonable basis in fact or law."

Bistline maintains that the barriers were only meant to prevent unsupervised contact and that the licensing is strictly punitive.

"The agreement is not clear enough to deprive Taylor of her livelihood for one year and IDFG is not seeking any sort of compliance - it is just punishing Taylor," Bistline said in his response.