Wolf Intro Comment to ODFW

[Gun Rod Bow]

Following is the e-mail I sent to ODFW regarding Wolf introduction to Oregon. The are in the public comment phase of a study. I encourage you to write a few lines and voice your opinion.

GRB

You can e-mail them direct at odfw.comments.@state.or.us

Thanks for the opportunity to comment, I'll try to keep it breif.

Generally I am against introduction of Wolves to Oregon.

The oversimplified argument that they were part of the eco-system prior to "white man's development" is naive. Unless, we want to dissmantle every highway that blocks migration, turn every farm back into wilderness, remove all cities, stop all fishing, breach every dam, let every forest fire burn, remove all but about 5% of current human inhabitants of the state we can't have it back.

We have to live with the environment as it is now.

The biggest problem I have seen in other states is lack of local control. Lack of a plan to control (shoot) problem wolves without weeks of study. Lack of any plan to control (shoot) wolves at all.

We have seen recent major damage to game and fish due to overpredation by commorants, terns, seals, sea lions, cougars, bears, coyotes, etc... because in the modern era, no one wants to go ahead with predator control. It isn't pretty, just necessary.

Since "White Man's Development" we have seen huge INCREASES in deer, elk and new species that are generally liked. IE. Pheasants.

Logging and farming are the biggest reason we have the increases in deer and elk. The money it takes to manage MOST wildlife projects comes from sportsmen via lisense and tags and Pittman/Robertson funds. Without hunting of deer and elk, there will be no money for wildlife management.

Situations like preying on Bighorns. Instead of the other animals you want them to eat, has been an ugly problem with wolves that no one likes to comment about.

In Oregon we are still trying to find the balance with bears and cougars due to lack of hound and bait hunting. It is painfully apparent the past few years have seen radical declines in deer and elk heards in NE and other parts of Oregon.

Adding another primary preditor can be nothing but negative.

It sure seems the designed increase of animal preditors is an attempt to reduce/eliminate the need for human hunting.

Thanks for the opportunity to voice my Opionion.

[Bounty Hunter]

Originally posted by Gun Rod Bow:

The oversimplified argument that they were part of the eco-system prior to "white man's development" is naive. Unless, we want to dissmantle every highway that blocks migration, turn every farm back into wilderness, remove all cities, stop all fishing, breach every dam, let every forest fire burn, remove all but about 5% of current human inhabitants of the state we can't have it back.

We have to live with the environment as it is now.

.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I think you are oversimplifying to the other extreme, but thanks for sharing your opinion and letting everyone know about the opportunity to comment.

[Gun Rod Bow]

BH,

Oversimplified maybe. But what part of

"We have to live with the environment as it is now."

is factually incorrect?

The crowd that want's for 6 billion humans to live on this earth with no side effects are just not in touch with reality. Believe me, I'm not in the Trash the Earth crowd either. I just hate to see sea lions gobbling the last native steelhead while we all ring our hands.

There are tons of wolves in Canada. Wolves in Alaska have been rapidly expanding to the point of wiping out, yes wiping out ALL moose from large tracts that historically had healthy populations of both.

Wolves need large, roadless tracts of land with little or no human hunting pressure to affect their food supply. That is not a description of Oregon.

To believe that man, who has radically changed the environment, can take a hands off approach to predator control, is as foolish as the people that think hunting is MEAN but they will drive through McDonalds to get a chicken sandwich.

Just how I see it.

I appreciate your thoughts.

GRB

[biederboat]

One thing I will agree with is that I think a significant portion of the people who want to introduce wolves (and protect cougars and bears) do so with the hope that it will have the effect of creating less hunting opportunity. The ratio of being able to see them in the wild as opposed to suffering the negative effects of having them introduced (livestock attacks, less deer/elk) will be about 1 to many. I have enjoyed seeing them and certainly see their value in National Parks like Yellowstone. However I'm not sure I see their value in Oregon.

Biederboat

[Gun Rod Bow]

The reason this shows up twice is I also put it on the fishing page. I thought it was that important.

The system administartor then moved it here.

GRB

[birdhunter]

"Wolves need large, roadless tracts of land with little or no human hunting pressure to affect their food supply. That is not a description of Oregon."

Could you please tell me how Wisconsin is able to support a population of 323 wolves? Is that state largely roadless and devoid of human hunters?

[lightline]

From what Iv'e been hearing our Idaho friends are not real happy about the thirty five wolves that was released in the chamberlain basin country a few years ago. I was told by a man that just came from there that the count was some where around four hundred now. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to introduce them in this state. The only place's to introduce them are where our elk herds are in bad shape allready.

[Rauly]

Birdhunter
Northern WI. is that way. Don't forget that it boarders a vast area of roadless Canada.

Rauly

[Bounty Hunter]

GRB.

You are oversimplifying to the opposite extreme by assuming that we would have to "dismantle" everything.

There are fishladders and other technological advances to help fish pass the dams (if we keep the flows up), there are greenbelts to help animals migrate under and past highways, there are other ways to manage forest fires etc...

And remove all cities?!?!?

An all or nothing stance is no solution.

[nerta]

There are no corridores(sp) for the wolf to migrate through out the state of Orygun. Look at how our wilderness areas are displaced from each other. The largest being in the cascades east of the valley. and small ones spread out through eastern orygun. How I fell about them ( do they they taste better than coyote ) cause it's real stringy and tough when made into jerky, not hardly worth eating!!

[eightball]

The wolves in Idaho multiplied far beyond the expectations of the EXPERTS. I have talked to some people in the know about the wolves there. Very little mortality in the litters. And only a few adults being culled that get caught eating cattle. The rest of the country has enough wolves. If people want to see wolves, go to the Zoo. Or move to where they have wolves. Wolves are not that easy to see. They are rather carefull. I agree with some who think it's a tactic to lock people out of the wilds. Also many of the same ones who would opt for gun bans. Then whats next? Our fishing poles?

[Gun Rod Bow]

Bounty Hunter,

Please check the other stand on this same topic. Skein made some excellent points with excerpts from newspaper articles. I may have been a little heated up when I first posted this, but I still believe now is the time for thorough evaluation of this topic before "the fox is in the henhouse".

There is room for sportsmen on both sides of this issue. I really do not have an all or nothing attitude about this. But the people on the radical environmental side are the major scary aspect of this issue.

I really believe we could tollerate some wolves. If they are locally managed, numbers kept under close control, and sportsmen, who pay for these projects are a primary concern.

Unfortunately that has not been the case in all of the scenarios of reintroduction. The same folks that think it is OK to torch ski lodges, forestry buildings, log trucks and plant Lynx hair would use this as another reason to halt hunting and keep citizens out of the National Forests. The Sky Lakes Wilderness was set aside mostly to protect the Pine Marten. Now that they are quite common, the opposition has stopped the Pelican Butte ski area and successfully stopped logging in that section of the Cascades because they think, maybe there might be a Wolverine up there. There has been absolutlely no physical evidence of Wolverines. It is just the next poster child.

If there were Wolverines, I think they could subsist with snow mobilers, hunters, ski areas and responsible timber harvest. It is the people on the other side that won't let a compromise happen. Are you aware that PETA is pressing Govenor Locke of Washington to halt all fishing on state owned lands. Don't scoff, it's true.

America is unique in the world, that the public lands were designed for public use. Environmental groups, many individuals in government, animal rights-ists....want to change that.

I have been fortunate enough to spend time in the woods with wolves and wolverines. By seeing them I knew I was in country with very low impact by humans. Very cool experiences. Places way more remote than all the parts of the Eagle Caps, Sky Lakes, Mt Jefferson, Steens, Trout Creeks, John Day or other wild areas that I have crept around in this state.

The Wolf will become a HUGE lever for the bad guys to use for their exclusionist policies.

Thanks for your thoughts.

GRB

[Bounty Hunter]

Nerta,

Again, oversimplified. You don't need a wilderness area.

[birdhunter]

Rauly,

Northern and Central Wisconsin? Here's a map showing the distribution of wolves in the state a few years back. It's expanded since then. Ths Wisconsin population is a viable, established and growing population. It is not comprised fo dispersers from Canada, Minnesota or Michigan. Wisconsin wolf distribution. My suggesting here is that if Wisconsin can support wolves, Oregon is more than capable of it.

Here is another interesting studies on deer predation in Wisconsin: Impact of wolves on deer.

"Wisconsin's wolf population in 1999 consisting of about 200 wolves probably consumed 3,000 -3,600 deer. The total 1998 harvest within the central and northern forest zones where wolves occur was 112,936 by firearm hunters, 29,266 by bow hunters and another 10,000 by motor vehicles. Mortality due to wolves occurs year round which is much different than hunting mortality which is compressed into one season and has less effect on herd dynamics and hunter opportunity, because some wolf predation is compensatory."