idaho wolfs

[roundbelly]

thirty five wolfs were transplanted to idaho in 1995 and 1996 from canada. they have multiplied to appox 256 and by the end of 2002 there will be about 500 wolfs in northern idaho, montana and parts of the yellowstone park in wyoming. the grey wolf is still fully protected as a endangered species, however the federal wolf managers are going to give some farmers and ranchers permits to take a wolf if it has been attacking their livestock.
i expect these wolfs to be in oregon in large numbers in a few years and our deer and elk numbers will go down. seems a shame to me.

[Ramstrong]

Oh, boo hoo

[BuKuBass]

One wolf was spotted a couple of years ago at the upper end of the middle fork of the John Day. Another one was hit by traffic on I-84 south of Baker later that year; could've been the same one.
I doubt if deer and elk populations will be significantly impacted. However, cattle herds may be another story. Personally, I favor their return; both for aesthetic and management-tool reasons.

[birdhunter]

Funny you should bring this up. I'm working with a agricultural committee looking at state management of gray wolves in Oregon. Here's part of the porposal that I wrote. This is current background on the status of the wolf in Oregon. I'm more than willing to go into depth on this issue as it's something I've spent a lot of time on.

The Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) is listed on the Oregon State Endangered Species list as an Endangered Species. Historically, they were widespread in the state. The last know native gray wolf in the state was killed in 1974 near Huntington. They have been considered extirpated from the state for the past 40 years however.

With the recent reintroduction of gray wolves into Central Idaho, some strays have been coming across the Snake River and into north-eastern Oregon. In February of 1999, a radio-collared wolf, B45 was found in the Middle Fork of the John Day. She was subsequently recaptured and sent back to Idaho. Again in June of 2000, a male wolf (B83) was found dead along I-84 west of Baker City. Finally in October of 2000 a wild wolf was found shot dead near Ukiah.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is required to formulate a management plan for the wolf pursuant to ORS 496.182 and OAR 635-100-0140. No plan has been formulated however as there is a lack of funding and the issue is highly polarized and political. The official policy is still that there are no wolves in the state and any radio collared wolves found in the state will be captured and sent back to Idaho.

Oregon does have excellent habitat and prey for wolves, but not without conflict with the livestock industry. Some attempts have already been made by the Oregon’s Cattlemen’s Association to classify wolves as predatory animals and remove all state protection. In March 2001, House Bill 3363 failed to pass.

The USFWS has been keeping track of wolf sightings in the state since 1998. Thus far there have been 20 sightings in 2000 and 40 in 2001. About 1/4 of these are considered reliable. They are mostly centered around NE Oregon, specifically the Upper John Day River and near the town of Halfway. 95% of these sightings are of individual wolves and no packs are believed to be present in Oregon yet. USFWS estimates there are a dozen wolves wandering the state at the moment.

The USFWS conducts annual flights over NE Oregon to check for radio-collared wolves. So far none have been found. The Service also conducts quarterly meetings of an Oregon Wolf Working Group. The group is set up to educate and inform interested parties and organizations in the state. The Service has also spent $17,000 on education, equipment and training in the state.

Currently the Service is attempting to reclassify or de-list the gray wolf. Wolves in the Central Idaho experimental population are expected to meet their population requirement as early as December of 2002. Either option there would allow for greater management flexibility. At that point the state would have the option to take on wolf management if the so desire.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Wolf management should consist of:

Shoot
Shovel
Shut up

[img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

[BuKuBass]

BOE: Your line of reasoning is...?

[TheRogue]

WHY is it necessary to re-introduce a species that hasn't been here for umpteen years?? I would like to know one PRACTICAL reason for re-introduction??

The base reason for having wolf population is balance....letting mother nature keep the elk and deer populations in control...in a NATURAL environment!! I'm sorry, but since white man moved here, there is very little natural environment left, even in our small wilderness areas. Wolves wouldn't stay in those places, that is quite obvious. There is already an intricate elk/deer population control system in place, ie; general and damage control hunting seasons.

The only reason I can see for wolf re-introduction is for aesthetics??

I have several friends in Idaho who, for years, hunted the Salmon and Selway areas for elk and deer. The last few years, they've seen more wolves than elk!!!

The introduction of wolves would do nothing but lower the hunting and harvest opportunity for the hunters of this state. This is proven in those states which have re-introduced the animals. As such, I sincerely hope that OHA, RMEF, Mule Deer Foundation, and other groups battle this.

My .02

Kyle

[ 04-04-2002, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[lightline]

BOA: I also hunt in Idaho and Im not sure that the wolf has had as much impact as rifle hunting in the rut, and alittle over harvest. Idaho is trying to turn things around and thats a great thing, but I wouldn,t put the blame all on the wolf. I haven't seen one in Idaho yet, but I did see one twice in the high cascades several years ago while on a deer hunt

[RichH]

Well, based on the logic posted here I'm guessing that doing all we can to improve wild runs of fish is not popular either. I mean, if it cuts down on the number of harvestable animals who needs them, right? Since man has done a fine job of screwing up the environment we should just take over and bend it to fit our needs and whats right be dammed.

[TheRogue]

Sorry, don't see the direct link between wild fish and wolves. :whazzup: Wolves are predators who need an extremely large area for a pack to roam. As evidenced by the wolves spreading out from Idaho into Oregon. The only way to allow these wolves to do this "naturally" is by the government buying up oodles of private farm and ranch land on the East side, getting rid of all the cows and sheep, and letting everything go back to the wild.

They have places we could all go, I guess, less than a couple million people here in Oregon...we could probably move right into Los Angeles without too much impact, leaving wolves and spotted owls and wild steelhead to do whatever they want to do...

Oregon simply doesn't have the isolated wilderness country that some of the Rocky Mtn states do. Yes, we've got lots of total acreage, especially in the Cascades, but there is also a large public impact on that land..it's really not that "pristine".

As for wolves not impacting game populations in Idaho, next sportsmans show, go down the line of outfitters from there and the other "wolf" states, and ask them if they've seen a difference.

We can and are making a difference in wild fish populations in many ways, 99% of which don't involve letting your livestock, pets, and just maybe(very unlikely) your children get eaten.

I suppose after the "greenie do-gooders" get wolves back, we'll just have to bring in some grizzlies?? After all, they used to live here, also.

I just have to ask...is there a practical reason for wolf re-introduction in Oregon???

Sorry, but this is one that I'll happily argue over until the rod buries in the holder!!

kyle

[lightline]

TheRougue: I haven't seen anywhere on the listed post that says that the wolf would not make an impact on our big game, if there numbers were are great enough sure they will make an impact. What I said was that Idaho's elk decline started before the wolf was even intrduced. Thats the reason they started to revamp there game laws. You talked about people seeing more wolves than elk. I bet that they see alot more hunters than they did fifteeen or twenty years ago two. Im not in favor of introducing the wolf to Oregon, but I believe in putting the blame where it belongs also.

[RichH]

So basically what you're saying if I understand it right is that its only for selfish reasons you don't want to see wolves back? By that I mean to say that if it does not benefit man directly through increased tags or harvestable game animals then it should not occur?

I don't particularly advocate the reintroduction of wolves in Oregon but if they migrate here I believe we should let the natural order of things guide their existence here, not your or my self centered world view.

[lightline]

No as far as my self little world goes, Im not in favor of intruducing them. As far as them swimming the river thats fine and I wish them all the luck, same as the moose and other critters that make the swim,or come down from up north.

[Bait O' Eggs]

BuKuBass - I think The Rougue stated it well. The wolf will drastically lower the number of harvestable animals for man. Quite frankly the Wolf has ruined a lot of good hunting in Idaho since reintroduction. I made the statement because it was on the shirt I bought last time I was in Idaho hunting. The locals (or at least some of them) think this is how the wolf should be controlled since you cant legally shoot them.

We can all have a warm fuzzy feeling knowing we have reintroduced the wolf to its natural state, or we can have hunting. I am all for man going out and keeping the deer and elk in control. The sportsman is a wonderful thing, he is willing to pay a lot of money to fuel a big piece of the economy for the right to hunt. The wolf will kill the same animal and not give us anything back. The wolf will be protected just like the marine mammals and will over populate. It will end up being a ballet measure and all the bleeding heart liberals that are against hunting will not allow the wolf to be harvested or controlled, leaving no deer and elk to hunt. Parts of Idaho have some terrible hunting now due to the wolf and it will happen here.

Man has populated this state to a level that does not allow hunters and wolfs to co-exist in my opinion.

If you dont like to hunt, you probably wont feel the way I do. If you do hunt, how many years are you going to buy a tag and all the cost that are associated with hunting if your chances of harvesting an animal were cut by 99%. It is already tough to get a tag to hunt east, imagine the animals cut by 80%, due to the wolf, and then calculate the time it will take to draw the few tags (if any available) given out per unit.

So, Birdhunter, what are your thoughts on the Wolfs moving into Oregon? It is only a matter of time and they will be here in force. You for it or against it?

I personally will shoot every wolf I see the rest of my life that I think I can get away with. Call it survival, call it stupid, I dont care. It will either be wolves or man hunting the big game animals, and I intend to give my grandchildren a chance to hunt and the wolf stands in my way.

[TheRogue]

And what, exactly, is the natural order of things?? Does the "natural order" involve livestock and people??

Wolves are apex predators. Their packs will form/gravitate towards the best and easiest food source. This will nearly always be an area where there are livestock in abundance. Would you be in favor of, as part of a re-introduction program, setting up a damage reparations fund for the farmers and ranchers affected?? Or shall they just be left to fend for themselves??

I'll state again, we simply do not have the contiguous, pristine wilderness settings that will support packs of wolves without forcing them to spread out into populated (albeit somewhat sparsely) areas. Especially come winter, when in many areas, the elk and deer end up in the lowland private ground.

I'll apologize if I tend to be a practical person. I like to find practical reasons for doing things. I see lots of practical purposes for wild fish restoration. I can also see the populist point of view considering the steps taken to save and restore whale and eagle populations. But to attempt to restore populations of an animal somewhere that WILL HAVE a direct, detrimental impact to humans; one that hasn't been here in nearly 100 years; to me seems bordering on insane. :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Again, RichH, I ask you, using your logic, should we then re-introduce grizzlies?? Or shall we pick and choose which species we want...

lightline....one group that hunts the Selway has definitely seen more people, and I agree that the rut hunt pressure has made a direct impact. However, the guys that go into the Salmon generally don't see another person all season, except maybe at the trailhead. It's likely the benefits of all the fires last year will come to be, and the wildlife populations will explode.

If it's decided that the State is going to allow the "natural order" of things to progress for these wolves, it better realize that, naturally, many people will treat them the same as coyotes..and shoot them on sight.

kyle

[ 04-05-2002, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[birdhunter]

On Thursday, April 11, the Commission will host a wolf workshop from 1 to 6 p.m. Wolf populations in Idaho have increased to more than 250 animals since reintroduction in 1996. In the past two years three wolves have wandered into Oregon from the Idaho packs. The agenda includes the following items:

§ Gray wolf recovery in the United States;
§ Gray wolf biology and ecology;
§ Idaho wolf recovery program;
§ Wolf-livestock interactions: prevention and control;
§ Wolves in Oregon: Implications for Oregon livestock producers;
§ Legal issues regarding wolves in Oregon;
§ Role of the Defenders of Wildlife in wolf restoration in the west; and
§ Winter predator study in Lemhi County, Idaho.

The purpose of the workshop is to inform and educate the Commission on the most current wolf restoration issues in the western United States. Members of the public may attend the meeting, but no public testimony will be received. The meeting will be held in the Commission Room of ODFW Headquarters, 2501 SW First Ave, Portland.

[Steve]

How about 1500 Elk in the Minam Unit that have disappeard thanks to Cougar and Black Bear kills of calves. Cougar makes a kill on average every 3 days, say 50% are Elk and 25% Deer that would be 50 elk 25 deer for each cat... that's an impact. Ad Wolf packs, and Grizzly and kiss Hunting as you know it good bye... Urban ledgend has it that targeted Grizzly's are being captured in Yellowstone and being released in Northeast Washington... Have a friend who has photos to substantiate claims...of Grizz.

[birdhunter]

I want to first offer a disclaimer that my opinion are just that, my opinions. None of them are a personal attack on anyone here.

TheRogue – I wanted to clarify some of your comments.

“But to attempt to restore populations of an animal somewhere that WILL HAVE a direct, detrimental impact to humans; one that hasn't been here in nearly 100 years; to me seems bordering on insane.”

The last know native wolf was killed in Oregon in 1974. Wolves have been essentially gone from Oregon for only 40 years or so, not 100.

“Wolves are predators who need an extremely large area for a pack to roam. As evidenced by the wolves spreading out from Idaho into Oregon.”

Wolves also aren’t coming to Oregon because they have large pack sizes; it is because they are dispersing into areas w/out other wolves. The average wolf pack size is only 5 to 7 animals operating in 185 square miles. When wolves reach sexual maturity some remain with their natal pack while others leave, looking for a mate to start a new pack of their own. These individual wolves are called dispersers and this is what Oregon currently has.

It needs to be understood that wolves have never, and will never be reintroduced into Oregon. The reintroduction effort took place in Central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. This is the same for the Grizzy Bear. They never will be introduced into Oregon either, but if one swims the Snake to come over then they will be allowed to stay.

The reason for the introduction to Yellowstone and Central Idaho was because of a little document called the Endangered Species Act. The same act that protects our salmon and whales. Section 10 J of the act authorizes the creation of experimental populations:

10 j 2A "The Secretary may authorize the release of any population of an endangered species or a threatened species outside the current range of such species if the Secretary determines that such release will further the conservation of such species."

This is what happened in Central Idaho and Yellowstone. The experimental reintroduction was challenged in US v. McKittrick, but affirmed. I fully agree that, “the worth of a species is incalculable, at least for a court” (TVA v Hill).

Oregon wasn’t chosen as an area for reintroduction because of habitat issues. TheRogue said, “we simply do not have the contiguous, pristine wilderness settings that will support packs of wolves without forcing them to spread out into populated (albeit somewhat sparsely) areas. Especially come winter, when in many areas, the elk and deer end up in the lowland private ground”. This is true. Oregon doesn’t have the habitat to support wolves without conflict. The key word there is without. Oregon has exceptional habitat and prey base. The conflict comes with the livestock industry.

“The only reason I can see for wolf re-introduction is for aesthetics”

The biological values associated with the Gray Wolf are surprisingly important. Predatory mammals such as the gray wolf are vital to the integrity of many ecosystems. Interaction between top-level carnivores and prey species through evolutionary time has shaped and fine-tuned each one morphologically and behaviorally into what they are today. In the absence of those functional relationships, ecological systems may not be balanced.

Top-level carnivores speed up nutrient cycling, provide carrion for other species, cull sick or weak animal, and contribute to biological diversity. Broader habitat management and conservation purposes are also served by the presence of large carnivores such as the gray wolf. Providing and sustaining an adequate prey base for wolves and other carnivores (i.e. humans) requires that ungulates be carefully managed and their habitats protected, which ultimately benefits entire plant and animal communities.

“I have several friends in Idaho who, for years, hunted the Salmon and Selway areas for elk and deer. The last few years, they've seen more wolves than elk!!!”

The main causes of elk decline in Idaho and Montana are due to low recruitment of fawns and calves, over harvest of antlerless elk and natural mortality caused by severe winters. Similar decreases in elk have been observed in areas devoid of wolves. Habitat and climate influence ungulate population more strongly than predation. In Minnesota for instance, wolves do not appear to impact deer population, although there may be some localized effects.

Hunter opportunities are already managed to change in response to previous hunter success, hunter participation rates, prevalence of illegal activities (poaching) or access to private lands. Hunter opportunity also changes in response to environmental events that affect ungulate populations such as drought, severe winters, or poor recruitment. The presence of wolves within the yearlong range of a specific ungulate herd adds another factor for consideration among all environmental and human-related factors. The wolf will not drastically lower the number of harvestable animals for man and the wolf has not ruined a lot of good hunting in Idaho since reintroduction.

On average wolves make 1 ungulate kill per 2-3 days. The composition of elk kills was 34% calves (0-12 months), 34% cows, 19% bulls, and 13% unknown sex and age. In the Central Idaho area elk make up 53% and deer 42% of the wolves diet. Even these are not all kills. Wolves are opportunistic scavengers who feed on road-killed, winterkill, other carnivore’s kills.

Let’s take a look at domestic stock. For Idaho, since wolves were introduced in 1995, a grand total of 46 cattle and 154 sheep have been killed by wolves. As a result of livestock predation, 33 wolves have been moved and 18 have been killed. Compare that to Non-predator losses (weather, disease, poison, birthing complications, age, theft) at the same time. 248,000 sheep and 388,500 cattle were killed by non-predator causes in the same time period. Other predators than the wolf (i.e. coyote, dog, lion, bobcat, bear, eagle) took 11,000 cattle/calves and 158,300 sheep/lambs. In response, the Defenders of Wildlife (not my favorite group) has doled out $58,470 in compensation payments for wolf kills. Clearly wolves are not the greatest threat to the livestock industry as you might think.

The greatest challenges associated with wolf management come from social and political issues, rather than biological ones. Experience in Minnesota demonstrates that active management of wolf numbers and distributions is a necessity, given their reproductive potential and dispersal capabilities. It is unrealistic to expect that wolves could exist in 21st century setting as they did in the time of Lewis and Clark. It is also unrealistic to expect that wolves should go away. Management, including lethal removal, is necessary to address and reduce conflict with livestock and humans.

That all being said, I do support wolves in the state, although I do not support their direct reintroduction. Think of me what you will, but these are my opinions supported by the fact I can find. My family and I have hunted and guided in NE Oregon for over 30 years. It’s an area I hold dear to my heart. I believe strongly in predator control and do damage control trapping for bobcat and coyote. I’ve also killed bear and cougar. I’ve spent years working in the livestock industry and am currently working for OALF (Oregon Agriculture Legal Foundation) on the issue of wolves in Oregon. I have been very involved with USFWS and ODFW on these issues in Oregon.

I believe there is room in Oregon for wolves and people. Wolves will do just fine if we allow them. Their management will be a necessity, but it is more for our benefit than theirs. Wolves are here in Oregon as we speak, and they will be here to stay. I know I can’t change any of your minds, just like you can’t change mine. I just hope you’ll understand my reasoning and respect my opinion.

[TheRogue]

Excellent post, birdhunter. Well stated, with lots of facts.

I just have a couple of questions.

1. You make numerous statements about there being no "direct" introduction, just allowing them to emigrate here. Really, what's the difference, in the end??

2. Yes, the last known wolf was here in 1974...but when was the last viable population?? I believe it's been around a century since there were significant numbers of wolves in it's historical range around the state.

3. "The average wolf pack size is only 5 to 7 animals operating in 185 square miles. When wolves reach sexual maturity some remain with their natal pack while others leave, looking for a mate to start a new pack of their own." Uhhh, that's what I said! 185 square miles is a ton of country!!

4. "The main causes of elk decline in Idaho and Montana are due to low recruitment of fawns and calves,". From what??

5. "On average wolves make 1 ungulate kill per 2-3 days." Is this per pack?? And if so, how many packs can Oregon sustain?? One pack alone, in, lets say, the Eagle Caps, would be taking 100+ elk and deer per year. How will this affect the populations already in decline in large part to the increasing bear and lion populations??

6. "For Idaho, since wolves were introduced in 1995, a grand total of 46 cattle and 154 sheep have been killed by wolves. As a result of livestock predation, 33 wolves have been moved and 18 have been killed." So, are the rural ranchers supposed to just absorb this cost, just as they've absorbed all the rest; stream production, limited grazing, etc.?

7. What about the cost to the State of Oregon, beginning with the planning stage, and going on into enforcement, regulation, reparations, etc., etc., etc.,?? Pretty tough time in our history to spend more dollars we don't have...we can't even pay for schools. Do you honestly think the current federal administration will be ponying up the dollars for this??

Again, I appreciate all the information...it's just obvious to me that there's more to this story that isn't being told.

Kyle

[birdhunter]

Kyle,

1. Ultimately, wolves came to Oregon so there is little difference. I guess the only difference would be that the wolves came here under their own will and under considerable effort, rather than being planted by man. When the USFWS planned to reintroduce wolves into the Northern Rocky Mountains they did not take into consideration that wolves would stray into Washington and Oregon. This was an obvious oversight and something I feel should have been very apparent. As such, they didn't have to create a management plan for wolves in Oregon and that is a big part of the reason we're in the mess we're in now.

2. The last bounty paid on a wolf was in 1946 in the Umpqua National Forest. A few more packs survived into the 50's and early 60's in the Central Cascades and NE Oregon. The last known native wolf was killed January 30, 1974 near Huntington. To illustrate wolf abundance in the early part of the century, between the short period of October 1, 1913 and May 10, 1914, bounties were paid on 30 wolves in Oregon. And those are only the wolves reported!

3. 185 square miles is a ton of country. Wolf home ranges vary between 50 sq miles in Minnestoa to 5000 sq miles in Alaska. You had said that "Wolves are predators who need an extremely large area for a pack to roam. As evidenced by the wolves spreading out from Idaho into Oregon.” I was pointing out that the wolves we have here are not Idaho packs who's home range extends into Oregon. Rather, they are dispersers from those Idaho packs who are seeking to establish new home ranges.

4. Low fawn recruitment can be caused by any number of things. These factors include: health (nutrition and disease), cover, weather, birthing complicaitons and predation. Without a doubt health and cover (habitat) are the most important factors influencing fawn recruitment. More fawns die of disease and nutritional defficencies than from predation.

5. Yes, per pack. The number of pack Oregon can sustain is an open ended question. It will depend very much on how the wolves affect the ungulate and livestock populations in their ranges. That is something we can't really predict. If I had to guess, I would say Oregon has suitable habitat in the NE portion of the state to support 5-6 packs. But that is only a guess.

Prey populations in the region are among the highest in the state. Last estimate I saw of the Blue Mountains area, there were supposed to be 100,000 deer and 59,000 elk. I think 100+ elk/deer will not affect hunting too much although I will freely admit that it could have affects on localized areas. Specific drainages the wolves feed in may very likely decline in game numbers. However the overall health of ungulate populations in the area is secure.

By providing a year round supply of kills, those same bears that would have killed a elk can feed off a carcass. Wolf kills don't just benefit wolves. You're adding another predator to the chain so obviously there will be increased predation. I don't feel that it will cause a crash in the game population. Look at it this way: we'll still be able to manage wolves better than we're able to manage bear/cougar right now.

6. They are not expected to absorb the costs. For the 46 cattle and 154 sheep that have been killed by wolves, Defenders of Wildlife has compensated them to the tune of $58,470. That is fall market value for any animal killed in the spring/summer. A pretty good deal.

7. The state of Oregon has contributed no money thus far to gray wolf management. Even the monitoring and recapture of B45 in Feb 1999 was paid for by the USFWS (at the tune of $20,000). I posted a meeting that will be held this coming Thursday in Portland on gray wolf managemnt in the state. This is the first time this issue has been adressed by the ODFW commission. Cost estimates for state programs will start being adressed here.

For the entire Gray Wolf re-introduction effort (wildlife staff, biologist, enforcement, information and education, administration and depredation control) the program has only cost the taxpayer $765,296. That is an incredibly small amount of money for a program of this size and scope.

The USFWS has already been spending money on the wolf in the Oregon. They conduct annual flights over NE Oregon to check for radio-collared wolves (so far none have been found). The Services monitors and reports wolf sightings throughout the state. The Service conducts quarterly meetings of an Oregon Wolf Working Group. The group is set up to educate and inform interested parties and organizations in the state.

The Service just recently spent $18,000 on education, equipment and training for Oregon. These items include: Wolf-tracking gear for a Wildlife Services airplane, hand-held tracking gera, traps, radio collars, training for federal state and tribal biologists on wolf handling procedures, and information for hunters.

Hope that answers some of you questions.

Ben

[ 04-05-2002, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: birdhunter ]

[Bait O' Eggs]

Your right birdhunter you didnt change my mind but you do make some good point. :grin:

Whether we like it or not the Wolf is coming our way. I agree the wolf populations need to be controlled. But I dont believe the wolf will be controlled as it should be. I would control it down to zero with a belted magnum rifle. Others would divide the states total acreage by 185 square miles and determine that no wolf should be harmed until the state has that many wolf packs roaming around. And we know the 185 square miles where Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington county meet could support 0 wolf packs. (I am about to rant and babble now) And then some bleeding heart liberal will determine the wolf pack size in Oregon is 6 animals per pack and until it is 8 animals per pack as it should be we should let them continue to populate. And when it is 8 animals, and it looks like a chance of controlling the animals population is about to happen, some left wing group that just moved here from California will get a ballet measure going that does not allow the wolf to be killed in any circumstance. The biologist will have there hands tied and the hunting in this state will be over. And all of this could happen in my lifetime.

I am sure the correct number of wolf packs for the state is somewhere between where I would want the population and where the left wing extremist wants the population, but the left wing extremist will get millions of dollars from hollywood celebrities to fight the control of the wolf. One good disney movie that parallels bambi yet stars a wolf will do more damage to wolf control than I could ever dream up.

Also, I can picture hundreds of hours for choppers and biologist flying around looking for wolves. Thousands of manhours studying the problem. Thousands of hours in meetings discussing and debating the problem. All costing the taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars we dont have. When a 4 bit shell donated by the sportsman would fix the problem. The marine mammals have not been contolled and the wolf wont be either IMHO.

Maybe when the wolf gets so populated that it overruns the domestic stock, because it has killed the bulk of the deer and elk (I'm not sure I agree with your numbers on kills), we can buy a wolf tag and go hunt them. :smile:

Ok,.... so I got carried away on my rant above,.. maybe made a few generalizations and stereotypes. But I dont want to see the hunting in this state in the toilet any more than it already is. Hound hunting is controlled in this state by feel good voters, not biologist and the wolf could very well be the same way.

I am still shooting wolves on site just like I do with coyotes. (Shoot, shovel and shut up )

[birdhunter]

BOE

I shoot coyotes on sight too.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Birdhunter - You are alright.

I always got a seat open for you in the boat.

Well except for Floatilla 4, I dont need any dead weight that day. :tongue:

[Idahobidcaller]

The tree huggers will beat the brush for the return of the wolves, until they want to build a house in the wolf habitat. Someone will tout reintroduction until their child, pet or Llama gets killed. Grizzlies are next. We have them in Idaho and don't want any more. The carrying capacity for wolves and grizzlies is low without cattle or sheep, cats or dogs, llamas etc. Luckily, ranchers are getting fewer restrictions when it comes to shooting, I'd rather draw a permit for an elk than a gray wolf, better eating. I have an opinion hiding in the above, I think it is shoot the tree huggers, or nuke the Nature Conservancy, you decide. NO don't murder, get smarter than them, and be influential. We need good people on both sides to solve the worries.

[TheRogue]

""When the USFWS planned to reintroduce wolves into the Northern Rocky Mountains they did not take into consideration that wolves would stray into Washington and Oregon. This was an obvious oversight and something I feel should have been very apparent. As such, they didn't have to create a management plan for wolves in Oregon and that is a big part of the reason we're in the mess we're in now."" Nope, they knew exactly what they were doing. They just didn't have the political(or legal) power behind them to deal with that issue, so they didn't.

""Low fawn recruitment can be caused by any number of things. These factors include: health (nutrition and disease), cover, weather, birthing complicaitons and predation. Without a doubt health and cover (habitat) are the most important factors influencing fawn recruitment. More fawns die of disease and nutritional defficencies than from predation."" Please look at this link Here at the preliminary data gathering and "suppositions" for NE Oregon.

""The state of Oregon has contributed no money thus far to gray wolf management. Even the monitoring and recapture of B45 in Feb 1999 was paid for by the USFWS (at the tune of $20,000)."" $20,000?? I suspect the helicopter time alone ate up most of that. Just because the birds are on contract anyway, doesn't mean the $$ shouldn't be counted.

""I posted a meeting that will be held this coming Thursday in Portland on gray wolf managemnt in the state. This is the first time this issue has been adressed by the ODFW commission. Cost estimates for state programs will start being adressed here."" Let's see; spend state money on wolves, and let my kids be in a class with 34 others because there's no money for teachers?? [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] One penny spent by the State is one penny too much.

""For the entire Gray Wolf re-introduction effort (wildlife staff, biologist, enforcement, information and education, administration and depredation control) the program has only cost the taxpayer $765,296. That is an incredibly small amount of money for a program of this size and scope."" Sorry, but that's just creative accounting. Obviously, this doesn't include an incredible amount of hours that get charged "elsewhere". I just happen to work for the Feds, in one of the agencies involved. I suspect 3x that amount has been spent in my agency ALONE when you factor in real costs.

Keep the information coming, I like being informed.

[ 04-09-2002, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[Bait O' Eggs]

We all know how smart it was to create a sovereign nation within a nation. The native fish I have to turn loose today, dies in a net tomorrow and soaks in the water for a couple days before it is harvested. Bringing the wolf back and protecting it is the equivalent of giving the wolf sovereign nation status. It exist, it does what it wants without regard for others, somebody else pays for its mistakes.

[birdhunter]

1. "Nope, they knew exactly what they were doing. They just didn't have the political(or legal) power behind them to deal with that issue, so they didn't."

Well that is quite the conspiracy then. Seeing as how since 1980 wolf plans for the Rocky Mountain states have been formulated and the prospect of wolves straying into Oregon never came up. Not in the Environmental Impact Statement for the current plan, not in the Final Rules (59 FR 60266) and not in any of the State Management Plans either.

Let's see what the Final Rules have to say:

In November 1991 (Pub. L. 102-154), Congress directed the Service, in consultation with the National Park Service and Forest Service, to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider a broad range of alternatives on wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. In 1992 (Pub. L. 102-381), Congress directed the Service to complete the EIS by January 1994 and indicated the preferred alternative should be consistent with existing law.

The Service formed and funded an interagency team to prepare the EIS. The team participants were the National Park Service; Forest Service; States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana; USDA Animal Damage Control; and Wind River and Nez Perce Tribes. The Gray Wolf EIS program emphasized public participation. In the spring of 1992, the news media and nearly 2,500 groups/individuals interested in wolves were contacted to publicize the EIS process.

In April 1992, a series of 27 "issue scoping" open houses were held in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, as well as 7 other locations throughout the United States. The meetings were attended by nearly 1,800 people, and thousands of brochures were distributed. In total, nearly 4,000 people gave comments on EIS issues. In July 1992, a report narrating the public comments was mailed to 16,000 people.

During the EIS public review period (July 1 to November 26, 1993) over 160,200 individuals, organizations, and government agencies commented

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And Oregon never came up.

I agree that it should have, but hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to sit here now and say that they should have known wolves would disperse into Oregon.

2. I've read that study before, but I think I took away a different message from it than you did.

"The contrasting patterns of high and low recruitment in elk across Oregon may be due to a myriad of possible factors, and understanding the relative importance of the various factors is critical to sound management of these species."

“Nutrition regulates or affects virtually every aspect of reproduction in ruminants, and elk and mule deer are no exception. Nutritional condition affects elk weight at birth (Thorne et al.1976), calf growth in summer (Haigh and Hudson 1993,Cook et al.2001a),calf survival in winter (Cook et al.2001a), and pregnancy rates of yearling and adult females.”

"Irwin et al. (1994) suggested that the declines in elk recruitment in northeast Oregon were caused in part by density-induced shortages of high-quality forage and changes in plant communities. The amount and quality of forage available to ungulates can be affected by abiotic (e.g.,drought,severe winter)or biotic factors (e.g., vegetation succession). Thus, year-to-year variation in recruitment may be attributed to either short-term (density-independent; i.e., weather) effects or long- term (density-dependent)effects."

"Nutritional status of elk has a direct effect on pregnancy and calf growth. Physical condition of cow elk was the prime determinant of successful breeding."

"The effect of predators on prey populations is highly dependent on the ratio between predators and prey...little is known on the long-term effects of predation as either compensatory or additive mortality."

"Gasaway et al.(1992)found that predators limited moose populations at low densities and recommended judicious use of predator management to increase both moose and predator populations. Ballard et al.(1981) identified predators as the major cause of mortality of moose calves. However, Miller and Ballard (1992) were unable to document any effect of increased brown bear (Ursus arctos ) harvest on population size of moose in the study area of Ballard et al.(1981),suggesting that predation was compensatory. Hornocker (1970)was unable to demonstrate that cougar predation reduced mule deer, elk, or bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis ) populations in Idaho."

"The cougar population (3 —6 adults, Pierce et al.2000b) was not controlling population size but may have lowered the rate of population increase."

"Predation may be additive or compensatory mortality depending on the nutritional condition of the prey and population densities of the predator and prey species (Bartmann et al. 1992,Messier 1994,Krebs et al.1995,S ther 1997)."

I have no doubt that predators play a role in prey populations. The removal of cougars will almost assuredly increase the fecundity of elk in the short term, but it does nothing to address long-term population problems like nutrition or habitat.

It should be no surprise to anyone that the mortality from predation has increased in the past few years. We've essentially put an end to effective forms of hunting bears and cougar in the state. You increase the numbers of predators and the number of elk/deer killed by predators will naturally increase.

3. $20,000?? I suspect the helicopter time alone ate up most of that. Just because the birds are on contract anyway, doesn't mean the $$ shouldn't be counted.

Actually, it was a plane operated by the State Police that monitored the wolf on an almost daily basis. The State later sent a bill for $20,000 to the USFWS, which they paid.

4. "One penny spent by the State is one penny too much."

So you want wolf control and management, yet you don't want the state to spend any money on it. How does one do that? We already lost our hatcheries so that school programs wouldn't get cut. ODFW's budget and the Education system's budget are two seperate things. Any money spent on Gray Wolves in the state would come out of ODFW's budget and would not affect education.

The state is going to have the option to take on wolf management from the Feds if they so desire. We can leave it up to the feds and not spend any of our money on wolves at all. I think we've seen what happens though when the Feds control state wildlife.

I hardly think that the monitoring of wolves, made up mostly of graduate student studies, is going to break the state's budget. Any damage control will be performed by Wildlife Services (Feds).

5. I still disagree. The wolf reintroduction program has been one of the most cost-effective programs the USFWS has come up with. All it's really required past the inital capture and acclimation of wolves was monitoring.

[birdhunter]

Just so 'yall don't think I'm a greenie.

[OneLastCast]

Doesn't matter whether I think you are a greenie or not Birdhunter. I enjoy your informative posts. They often seem to give me something to think about.

(by the way, nice songdog)

OneLastCast

[roundbelly]

birdman you are the guy with the infor. thanks for the excellent post. a lot of information that i had not heard befor.
sounds like the best we can hope for is a de listing for the gray wolf and control them like a preditor.

[roundbelly]

oops make that birdhunter, i got a fumble finger and got the moniker wrong.

[TheRogue]

I second the thanks about supplying the information. I have been known from time to time to drag something out, just for argument's sake. In this case, I felt that there was some more information to bring to light.

You're right roundbelly....de-listing is the by far the best thing that could happen. Otherwise, you'll have some people breaking federal laws by doing what they've been doing for years....controlling predators that are preying on their livestock. I believe that we have enough for the WAY TOO FEW game officers to do right now, besides chasing down reports of some "bad guy" who may or may not have shot a wolf.

Birdhunter: You state "I hardly think that the monitoring of wolves, made up mostly of graduate student studies, is going to break the state's budget." Well, you wouldn't think the measly amount to keep the north coast hatcheries operating would break the budget, either.

"Any damage control will be performed by Wildlife Services (Feds)." Well, I'm pretty sure we all pay federal taxes, too. Just because it may come out of the federal coffer, doesn't mean we aren't paying for it.

"So you want wolf control and management, yet you don't want the state to spend any money on it. How does one do that? We already lost our hatcheries so that school programs wouldn't get cut. ODFW's budget and the Education system's budget are two seperate things. Any money spent on Gray Wolves in the state would come out of ODFW's budget and would not affect education." It all comes out of the general fund....Gee, thanx Mr. Sizemore.

Wolf control and management is pretty plain and simple. De-list it, classify it with coyotes, and let the public handle it. Unfortunately, I realize the reality, and everyone else should too: It's nearly impossible to get something de-listed, regardless of the facts.

So, we're stuck with the wolf. Doesn't mean that we have to like it. :depressed: :depressed:

Kyle

[OneLastCast]

I have been known from time to time to drag something out, just for argument's sake. In this case, I felt that there was some more information to bring to light.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Thanks for dragging it out. Birdhunter, BOE and you mades some good comments. It is always interesting to read a intelligent, civil discourse. And heaven forbid we might learn something.

Just a note regarding predators. Two weeks ago was the third cougar deer kill in as many months around my house. This last one was within 500 feet of my front door. It doesn't bother me but it sure seems to keep the weekenders in their homes after dark. Since the end of hound hunting I have seen cougars four times within a quarter mile of the house and the evidence of their kills many times. The slow and stupid deer seem to be disappearing. Maybe it's time to open a hound season again?

OneLastCast

[birdhunter]

I just got back down from that meeting in Portland. Very interesting stuff. I'll fill you guys in on a report when I have some time in the next couple of days.

Roy, guess who I sat next to? He had some very interesting stories to tell. :tongue:

Flatlander!!

[Bait O' Eggs]

Dont tell me my brother was sitting in on the meeting (???? thats the only guess I have, that you might know????)

More of those non cost for the state

[birdhunter]

Yip.

:tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

[Bait O' Eggs]

I know he cant catch me, [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

So I guess it is still shoot 'em on site. :shocked: :shocked: :tongue: muh ha ha ha ha ha

[SLEDDER]

Bring on the wolves I need something else to trap. Other than the fact that I would like one stuffed in my living room, I am against man sticking his nose into the wild trying to make things "better".

[birdhunter]

Okay, so the meeting consisted of several big whigs giving briefings to the commission about the wolf programs in Idaho and what Oregon may want to consider doing.

First speaker was Ed Bangs. He's the gray wolf coordinator for the USFWS in the Western region. The interesting things he had to say were that from 1974-2003 the program will have cost taxpayers 17 million (Sorry Rogue, the program did cost more than I had previously quoted. My quote was for the actual reintroduction and monitoring. This one includes all the lawsuits, court costs and planning). However it brings in 20 million a year to the area in wolf related tourism. This is mainly in areas with exsisting infrastructure (ie Yellowstone).

At the end of 2002 there are expected to be 560 wolves in the Western US. Human caused mortality is the limiting factor.

They have done studies which show that there is room in the Oly Penn and N. California/S. Oregon for wolves, but they will not do any releases in the areas.

1 pack will consume the equivalent of 120 cow elk a year. That is roughly 9 lbs meat/day/wolf.

The next speaker was Kurt Mack a biologist for the Nez Perce tribe. He talked about the biology of wolves and some of the findings they've had. The avearge life expectancy for these wolves is 8-10 years. The oldest wolf they had was 14 years.

Wolf populations grows by increasing in distribution rather than density. Average pack size in Idaho is 10 animals operating exclusively in 350 sq. miles.

Within that 350 sq mile area there are approximately 2-3,000 elk. Of those wolves will kill 120 or 2% of the total population. Compare that to hunter harvest which takes 15-17% of the elk population per year.

Right now there are 260 wolves in Idaho. The average yearly increase was initially 60 –70% now 35%. Biological, the area could support 4-500 wolves, but is probably close to it's social carrying capacity.

Another interesting factor to take into consideration is the predator relationship between cougars and wolves. Wolves are chasers and as such they prey consistently weakest, oldest - essentially the slowest animals. Cougar on the other hand, are ambushers. They are not selective on the condition of the prey. The wolves also create a landscape juxtaposition. Wolves will often steal kills from cougars and chase them off. In areas wolves are present, the big cats tend to move to more broken terrain and less favorable terrain where wolves don't hunt. Wolves won't rid the state of cougars, but they do seem to have an affect on their populations.

Carter Neimeyer of the USFWS spoke next. He explained how to deal with problem wolves. They often use a ($5-600 hr) helicopter and ($1-200 hr) fixed wing support. Each control action takes approximately 4-5 hrs and this is mostly spend in transit. They estimate that the cost of removing an individual wolf is $1 – 2,000.

Rick Williamson a wolf management specialist for the USDA spoke next. He explained some of the preventative steps they're taking to avoid livestock depredation. Some of these include the use of multi bang guns, electronic photo cell guards, and radio collar guard systems.

Alreigh Isley of the Oregon's Cattleman's Association and Suzzane Laverty of Defenders of Wildlife also spoke, thy their's was very political and biased in nature.

One of the other important speakers was Bill Cook, a Assistant Attorney General dealing with wildlife issues. His talk was very similar to other things I've bosted about the relationship between the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Oregon ESA. He managed to miss several crucial statues however and I was less than impressed by his understanding of all the legal issues. To downlist the wolf on the state level will require a public rulemaking process, defensible scientific findings, and a focus on their status in Oregon.

So there you go, there's the just of it. I had to leave an hour early so I missed out on some of the Commission comments and Ron Sando of the Idaho Fish and Wildlife. Any questions or clarifications I'd be happy to help out on.

[birdhunter]

I just thought this should be included in the discussion. Hope you understand why.

Thinking Like a Mountain
By Aldo Leopold

A deep chesty bawl echoes from rimrock to rimrock, rolls down the mountain, and fades into the far blackness of the night. It is an outburst of wild defiant sorrow, and of contempt for all the adversities of the world. Every living thing (and perhaps many a dead one as well) pays heed to that call. To the deer it is a reminder of the way of all flesh, to the pine a forecast of midnight scuffles and of blood upon the snow, to the coyote a promise of gleanings to come, to the cowman a threat of red ink at the bank, to the hunter a challenge of fang against bullet. Yet behind these obvious and immediate hopes and fears there lies a deeper meaning, known only to the mountain itself. Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf.

Those unable to decipher the hidden meaning know nevertheless that it is there, for it is felt in all wolf country, and distinguishes that country from all other land. It tingles in the spine of all who hear wolves by night, or who scan their tracks by day. Even without sight or sound of wolf, it is implicit in a hundred small events: the midnight whinny of a pack horse, the rattle of rolling rocks, the bound of a fleeing deer, the way shadows lie under the spruces. Only the ineducable tyro can fail to sense the presence or absence of wolves, or the fact that mountains have a secret opinion about them.

My own conviction on this score dates from the day I saw a wolf die. We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.

In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy: how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable slide-rocks.

We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.

Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers.

I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.

We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness. The deer strives with his supple legs, the cowman with trap and poison, the statesman with pen, the most of us with machines, votes, and dollars, but it all comes to the same thing: peace in our time. A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run. Perhaps this is behind Thoreau's dictum: In wildness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Thanks for the report Ben. I will be interested in talking to my brother and getting his take on the meeting.

Is that Cattlemans report biased and political because you didnt agree with it ...just kidding I am sure it was.

You trying to bring a tear to my eye with Aldo's words? The best Leupold has a duplex cross hair in the middle of it. :tongue:

[ 04-16-2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Bait O' Eggs ]

[birdhunter]

Yeah the OCA and DOW didn't really do a good job of endearing their side to my heart.

Let me give you some of the highlights from each side.

Alreigh Isley of the Oregon Cattleman's Association maintained that:

Predator kills are on impulse and when a wolf "saw" a cow it would kill it.
It is illogical that humans are crowding in on predators or other wildlife.
The removal of 4,500 cattle and 15,000 sheep from the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area actually hurt game populations.
Demands compensation for WHEN not if a wolf kills a person.
Suggest the state passes legislation that makes the federal government compensate ranchers (I know, I know).
Recommends we de-list wolves in Oregon (despite the fact we have to look at their status in the state and they obviously aren't secure) and that we keep them out.
Finally he suggested that we manage wolves and other wildlife according to the ecology and biology of the habitat, not by societal whims. (and yet....)

Suzanne Laverty wasn't much better. She reperesented Defenders of Wildlife, the advocacy group that compensates ranchers for wolf kills.

She demanded that Oregon form a wolf working group to combat these issues. Well, Oregon already did. Back in 1999. They meet 4 times a year and it is sponsered by the USFWS. We've been working on this.

She then went on to explain how we can't delist the wolves because they need to be reintroduced throughout their range, i.e. the Oly Penn and S. Oregon/N. California. (riiiight)

Finally she and (I'm afraid to admit this) an OSU professor claim that wolves save riparian zones. The whole theory revolves around wolves chasing out elk who used to graze in the meadows and how now they are finding new trees, plants and animals in these meadows since the wolves were introduced. I think they're really stretching it with that one.

So that's why I didn't include them before. Like I said, I'm working for the Oregon Ag Legal Fund at the moment so I do have a connection to that front. Doesn't mean I have to accept everything that is said on the behalf of the livestock industry though.

Good enough for ya Roy?

[ 04-16-2002, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: birdhunter ]

[TheRogue]

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index...packkilled.inc

Now if there just weren't any to begin with.... :grin: :grin:

[Bait O' Eggs]

10 down 250 to go