Wolf Planning Process

[birdhunter]

For those who don't know, the ODFW Commission met on Friday and spent a considerable amount of time going over their planning process for creating a gray wolf management plan for Oregon. The Commission decided on creating a Wolf Advisory Committee (WAC) to recommend a management plan framework. This committee would consist of representatives from the various stakeholders; specifically: livestock producer, hunter, trapper, Eastern Oregon county commissioner, wolf advocate, range/forest land conservationist, educator, wildlife biologist/researcher, economist, two citizen representatives, public land manager, tribal representative and an ODFW representative. Right now, nominations for the committee are being taken and will close on May 15th. Only prerequisite I've heard of is Oregon residency. Members will be appointed at the June Commission meeting. There will be more on this in the press soon.

Additionally a wolf technical committee is being put together to provide assistance to the planning process. It will consist of: as USFWS representative, a Wildlife Services representative, a wolf manager from another state, ODFW economist, and a Nez Perce tribal scientist. There will be a professional facilitator and at least two other ODFW staff involved as well. The WAC is expected to come out with its final draft plan no later than February 2004.

The Commission also established a wolf planning goal statement and a framework for the plan. This plan looks like it is going to be incredibly detailed and extensive. Make the native fish policy look like a kiddies book. I don't have time to write out all the components right now, but it will address history, legal status, biology and ecology, suitable and available habitat, population objectives, monitoring, coordination with other agencies, livestock depredation, compensation, human safety issues, prey interactions, economic impacts, research, and budget just to name a few. The Commission specifically is VERY interested in livestock compensation issues and impacts on other wildlife. Can't say they'll make everyone happy, but there will be plenty on it.

So that's the just of it. Pretty big stuff and making lots of headway. I like all the elements of the plan, but I think ODFW is overly optimistic. This may be a very long process. Considering the extent of all the issues they need to address and the fact that the WAC wouldn't even be put together until June, 8 months it is a bit ambitious. Don’t get me wrong, we need to get this done and fast. We’ve dodged the bullet for the past few years. We may well have an issue coming up in the interim. But it took Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming years to create their plans. Maybe we've learned something from them, but still. Additionally, we're talking about a plan that will be (in my opinion) more thorough than any of the tri-states management plans. All good stuff and needs to be addressed, but geez. Also there's the whole money issue. Given our current budget woes, I don't know who's going to be around much less how they're going to be able to fund this planning process. Or fund the final budget for the plan. Then there’s the whole issue of funding compensation. What a nightmare. I think ODFW is doing a very good job and doing what needs to be done, but they may be biting off more than they can chew. Hopefully not.

So that’s where it stands to the best of my knowledge right now. Don’t worry, there will be plenty of time for public comment on all the aspects of the plan as it is developed.

[Bait O' Eggs]

I would like to nominate "Nosler Ballistic Tip" to the wolf advisory committee.

It is a very effecient worker, and should be able to fill all the positions with ease.

Why do I think Ben is wanting on this committee?? [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

[Gun Rod Bow]

Posted by Birdhunter,

Don’t worry, there will be plenty of time for public comment on all the aspects of the plan as it is developed.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Would this be public comment that will be sumarily ignored if it is that we do not want wolves in the state of Oregon?

Sounds to me like you and all the "public servants" have decided that it is a questions of HOW we manage wolves in Oregon rather than IF.

A s I recall during the public comment circus of last fall, the majority opinion was no wolves.

A great example of our public servants doing what they think is best rather than what we want IMO.

Thank you for making us aware, but it makes me [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

GRB

[birdhunter]

Now Roy, you know I don't have an opinion on this issue. Why would I want to be on that committee? In truth, I seriously doubt I would have the time with my work to be able to participate in it. I like what I'm already doing. Go when I can, but if I miss something it's no big deal.

GRB,

You're absolutely right about ODFW already deciding on a direction for a plan. Most of the testimony they recieved was divided into two camps. No wolves/no way or full protection/reintroduction. Legally we can't have the no wolves. They are protected on both the state and federal ESA's. With regards to the current state ESA, this means they have to "conserve" the species in the state. Wolves will have some level of protection until they are federally downlisted, regardless of what changes may be made to the state ESA. Is it better to stick our heads in the sand? I think the question of IF we would manage wolves was answered a long time ago. Would you rather have the feds do it? I sure don't. Oregon will be much better off in the long run having some level of control over the situation. Especially before problems start.

ODFW is taking the initiative and the middle ground. Legally they could have followed the full protection/active reintroduction crowd. As scary as it is, there is a significant portion of the state that wants that. You may want to check again, because a majority of the written testimony ODFW got (despite having most of their wolf town halls in predominately rural areas) was from the pro-wolf crowd. They are not giving in to either side and I think eventually we'll get something that addresses the concerns of the hunters and ranchers much more than it does the wolf advocates and city dwellers (as it should).

I doubt very much this process will make anyone happy, but as long as the plan addresses all the concerns of both sides and is representative of responsible wildife management, I'll support it.

[Straydog]

It would seem to me that it is more prudent to have a management plan in place for when the wolves are confirmed as being here than to line the state's parimeter with people to shoot them at the border. [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

Last I knew, wolves don't obey "Keep Out" signs very well.

[ 04-14-2003, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Gun Rod Bow]

Birdshooter,

I completely agree that state control is far better than federal. I am really concerned about the impacts to game stocks, and impacts to public access of lands.

If they always have been protected, why in the case of the radio collared wolf in the John Day area, it was removed and shipped back to Idaho.

Is this not a viable plan?

GRB

[elkaholic]

In this case I actually do think the Feds would be a better option. There is no responsibility for Oregon to recover or harbor one single wolf to be delisted federally.

It is the state ESA that has imposed stricter standards and it is gonna suck. The ro crowd is going to say the prey base is not depleted in total numbers, the secret is because just like in Idaho and YNP and in NE Oregon, when the prey base is static or declines the one who has to stop "take" is the hunter(two legged kind). Those wolves will get all they want, until management objective are met.

Don't be fooled, hunters will lose opportunity, just as planned by those who use the act to control. Watch it unfold if you care to stand back and let it happen.

[elkaholic]

GRB, In answer to why B45 was returned can be seen in the EIS when they put them in Idaho, MT and YNP. If they think or confirm they are from the introduced area and are found outside that area, they MUST return them the language says. The USFWS only option is for uncollared wolves to NOT confirm them or catch them and then the MUST return option doesn't apply. You can see this in the fact that over 80% of the dispersing age animals are uncollared. The collared wolves are in established packs in those states primarily. This gives USFWS, ODFW and Defenders of Wildlife an out by NOT confirming any of these sightings, publicly anyway. Pretty good strategy. We are being back doored fellow hunters.

ODFW (since Feb. 1) says any wolves found here fall under OUR ESA now and they don't want USFWS to take them back, but to be protected and nurtured here. This was not the reading or the policy of ODFW when B45 was here before.

Four wolf bills tomorrow are scheduled for work session in the House at 1 PM. All will give one form or another of control to the people effected in Oregon. That is you and I. If they pass I worry that the Governor will veto but at least the message is loud and clear. You and I can help form what the message should be. I will.

[birdhunter]

Will post more on this very soon, still recovering from the turkey opener. Had a good meeting today with a USFWS biologist out of LaGrande regarding the 4d rules and such. Think I can answer all of your questions. For everyone's benefit, below are the documents from the latest Commission meeting and the press release ODFW sent out regarding wolf planning.
Agenda Item Summary
Staff Report
Flowchart

Commission Approves Process to Move Forward with Wolf Management Planning

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission approved a wolf management planning process Friday that included a planning goal statement and a process to appoint members to a citizen advisory committee.

The Commission and ODFW Director Lindsay Ball said that the end result of the planning process will be a management plan for wolves in Oregon and not a recovery plan.

The Commission approved the following language for a working goal to initiate the planning effort: "The goal of this management plan is to ensure the long-term survival and conservation of gray wolves as required by Oregon law while minimizing conflicts with humans, primary land uses and other Oregon wildlife."

The goal statement will be used by a soon-to-be formed advisory committee as it begins work to assist ODFW with development of a management plan. The Commission will appoint 14 members to an advisory committee that includes the following: livestock producer, hunter, trapper, eastern Oregon county commissioner, wolf advocate, range/forest land conservationist, educator, wildlife biologist/researcher, economist, resident of rural Oregon, two at-large public representatives, public land manager, and tribal representative. In addition, an ODFW representative will work closely with the committee.

Friday's action was the first in an eight-step planning process that the Commission approved for implementation. The steps include: 1) Commission approves planning process; 2) Wolf Advisory Committee formed to recommend management plan framework; 3) Commission approves draft framework; 4) Committee uses finalized framework to recommend draft management plan and Commission approves sending it out for public review; 5) Public reviews draft plan; 6) Draft plan revised based on public comment; 7) Commission votes on management plan; and 8) Implementation.

Also Friday, the Commission called for nominations for people to serve on the wolf advisory committee. The deadline for nominations is May 15, 2003. Organizations or individuals may submit nominations for one, some or all of the stakeholder groups. Nominations should include the following information: the individual's background, a statement about why the individual is qualified and the perspective they bring to the discussion, Oregon residency status, and their willingness to commit time to the planning process.

Nominations may be sent to ODFW, Information and Education Division, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207. A two-person subcommittee of the Commission will review all the nominations and will present a recommended advisory group to the full Commission at the June 6 meeting in Pendleton.

The specifics of the management planning process adopted by the Commission will be posted to the ODFW Web site the week of April 14.

[byteme]

We were just trying to be neighborly and share a few wolves with you and you send them back. That's gratitude for ya! :grin:

[elkaholic]

Birdhunter, There is something about ODFW and Director Ball statement "this is not a recovery plan" that bothers me. Can you help me get this straight?

If counsel tells ODFW and Commission that they cannot ask the FEDS to take the wolves back to the recovery areas, and the state ESA says you cannot "take" any wolf, anywhere, for any reason (until and unless the commission issues a permit after a serious problem)until they are downlisted or delisted then how can anyone say there isn't a "recovery" going on. I agree there is no active reintroduction but clearly looks like a recovery, a willing recovery at that. Can you explain how this direction is not a "recovery"???? After all, isn't it a requirement under the state ESA to recover the endangered, passively or by aggressive protections?

Help me please.

[Gun Rod Bow]

elkahaolic,

I smell something, kind of like Wolf killed elk calf on a hot summer day.

The semantics used by Ball are meant to be deceptive. I really appreciate you keeping this information coming.

Birdhunter; I tried to read all the nominations, comitees, action items flow charts...no doubt...professional meeting makers at work.

When you cut to the chase, a few folks in ODFW have decided that they want wolves back in Oregon regardless of the wishes of the people of the state.

Once this genie is out of the bottle, there will be no way to put it back.

If hunters in this state think that cougars and black bears have depleted elk and deer herds, wait till they see 30-50 elk per year per pack going bye-bye.

The crazy thing is, it will self destruct the people behind it. Less Game=Less Tag Sales. Reduce tag sales, less money for ALL game manangement.

I am suspect of activists in the ranks of wildlife agencies who quietly dispise hunters and fisherman while surviving on our fees. I remember the "Lynx Hair Hoax". Those people were never even fired.

This whole thing is gonna be a wreck!

GRB

[roundbelly]

the wolf should be listed in the state of oregon as what it is a predator. with current federal protection. then if the federal protection is lifted, the wolf can be managed like any other predator.

[birdhunter]

Sorry haven't been able to respond lately. Been absolutely swamped. Will try to get to this tomorrow. Just didn't want you to think I was avoiding it or had forgotten.

[skein]

There's an excellent article in this month's American Hunter magazine about the wolf problem in Alaska. Next month they are going to concentrate on the Rockies and the Northwest. It was a pretty good read.

As I read the article, I couldn't help but think about Antelope. The town, not the critter.

I drove through there last weekend, and like most who visit, I thought a lot about the Rajneeshies (sp?) who by sheer numbers (tyranny of the masses) destroyed a way of life. Antelope still hasn't recovered and probably never will.

I feel the same about people who clamour for wolves, yet have no connection to the land or the animals that will ultimately pay the price in predation. Until there is a viable management plan in place, I'll bet wolves just end up looking like big coyotes to a lot of folks. That's not a good thing, but probably better than nothing at all.

Skein

[birdhunter]

Okay, so where were we....

Regarding GRB's question of why B-45 was captured and shipped back to Idaho in March of 1999. At the time that B-45 wandered over from Idaho, the nonessential experimental population over there was still relatively small. There was plenty of space and they were still trying to have enough breeding pairs to be able to downlist. Rather than having her run around Oregon without a mate, they thought it would be best to capture her and return her to Cental Idaho so that she would have a better chance of finding a mate and forming a breeding pair. In fact that's just what ended up happening. She's still alive and now the alpha female of a pack in Idaho.

But that was a one time deal. It was more of a biological issue associated with having enough wolves in Central Idaho, than about keeping wolves out of Oregon. Admitedly, at the time Oregon was not prepared to deal with wolves. It caught a lot of people by surprise. Now we're better prepared at least. We haver interim responses in place until this management plan gets finalized. The Service has said that they will not return any more wolves to Idaho. Right now, all the available wolf habitat over there is basically filled.

There are also some issues involving the legality of removing wolves from the state. Although the service has said they will not do it, relocating wolves is an option now that they have been dowlisted to threatened. Until this month, wolves in Oregon were endangered federally. Without getting too technical, the USFWS relied on their rules for the experimental population to manage wolves that disperesed outside of that area just like they would with other experimental wolves. 59 FR 60266 reads, "Wolves could (not MUST elkaholic) be live-captured and translocated to resolve conflicts with State or tribal big-game management objectives, when they are located outside of the experimental areas, or to enhance wolf recovery." Problem with that was, that the 9th Circuit court of appeals had ruled previously that gray wolves are protected by the ESA based on where they are found, not where they originate (US v. McKittrick). Heck, dig a little and those same final rules also recognize, "Wolves dispersing into areas outside of the experimental area, would receive all the protections of an endangered species under the Act, as did the wolves that recolonized an area near Glacier National Park in 1982." Now then, as a fully endangered species, 50 C.F.R. 17.21 c states: (1) take is prohibited; (3) a federal agent may only take endangered wildlife without a permit if it is to aid sick, injured, orphaned specimens, dispose or salvage a dead specimen, or remove a specimen that demonstrates a threat to human safety; (5) when acting in the course of his official duties a federal agent may take those endangered species provided that such taking is not reasonably anticipated to result in:

(i) death or permanent disabling of the specimen;
(ii) the removal of the specimen from the State where the taking occurred;
(iii) The introduction of the specimen so taken or of any progeny derived from such a specimen, into an area beyond the historical range of the species; or
(iv) The holding of the specimen in captivity for a period of more than 45 consecutive days.

What this basically means is that, when they were endangered, in Oregon the Service legally could have only removed wolves that constituted a threat to human safety, not livestock. Likewise any take could not have been lethal, the animal could not have been removed from the state or held in captivity. Basically there would be no management options for "problem" wolves as are found in the nonessential experimental rules and the new 4(d) (threatened) rules.

That is one hell of a lack of management flexibility. That is also why most people will tell you we really dodged the bullet the past couple of years in that we haven't had any wolf incidences while they were endangered. We were very lucky. Service took a big risk removing B-45 and they were really lucky it wasn't challenged legally. I think even most of the wolf advocacy groups understand that having no management over wolves will only hurt their cause.

But we're not out of the woods yet. Right now wolves are threatened across most of the west. That could change very soon. The Service will be getting sued over their decision to downlist by a host of environmental and advocacy groups. And they have a pretty good case on some of the legal technicalities. There is a good chance they may win, or at least get a stay of the rule. That means that we go right back to having wolves in Oregon being endangered. And I think you understand by now how big of a problem that would be.

Hope that answers that. Now, regarding ODFW and Director Ball's comments that this is not a "recovery plan". ODFW has been delt a really bad hand on this one. I know there isn't anyone on that Commission who doesn't wish they never had to deal with this whole wolf issue. The state ESA does not require you to recover an endangered species. It does require you to "conserve" them. Now this semantical difference is important. Conserve is defined in OAR 635-100-0100 as "(2) "the use of methods and procedures necessary to bring a species to the point at which the measures provided under ORS 496.171 to 496.182 are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, activities associated with scientific resource management such as research, census taking, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, habitat protection and restoration, propagation and transplantation." Now according to the Commission's legal council, the Commission has the legal authority to adopt a wolf plan and in doing so, so long as it would promote the conservation of the species in Oregon, the Commission could include any or all of the following tools in a wolf plan:

•Scientific take permits to permit take of wolves for research purposes. ORS 496.172(4).
•Damage take permits to regulate take of wolves that prey on livestock. ORS 498.012 and 496.172.
•Wildlife removal and holding permits to permit capture and translocation of wolves. ORS 497.308.
•Harassment permits to permit hazing of wolves. ORS 498.006.

However, certain options are not available to the Commission:
•The Oregon ESA’s conservation mandate prevents the Commission from requiring that all wolves migrating to Oregon from Idaho be captured and returned to Idaho.
•Similarly, both the Oregon ESA’s conservation mandate and the ORS 498.026 take prohibition prevent the Commission from selecting a “no protection” alternative that would allow wolves to be freely killed and/or captured in Oregon.

See ODFW legal counsel for the entire text.

No one at ODFW want's wolves regardless of the wishes of the state. I know plenty of people there that wish they didn't have to deal with wolves at all, regardless of their legal mandate. ODFW is forced to deal with wolves. They want to manage (read as: deal with) wolves, not recover them.

I'm a little shocked by GRB's suspicion that ODFW has been infiltrated by activists who quietly dispise hunters and fisherman while surviving on our fees. I really don't know how much contact you've had with the Commission, or ODFW staff, but I think that if you'd had you would realize that these are all good people caught in a very hard place and trying very hard to find some solution. Quite a lot of effort to spend your entire undergraduate and graduate career studying wildlife management just so that you could become a district biologist in the NE region and work there for 20 years on the off chance that wolves would be reintroduced into the N. Rockies and then disperse into Oregon where you could protect and nuture them, much to the chagrin of the hunters you secretly loath. But if the conspiracy theory makes you feel better than looking at this issue as an incredibly complicated and polarizing one with conflicting legal and social mandates, then I guess go for it.

Nobody's out to get you.

[skein]

Good response, Birdhunter. Thanks for the information.

Skein

[Gun Rod Bow]

Thanks for the info,

I'm not quite ready to gather the family and amo in the cellar to avoid the black helicopters, but...

You must admit, on a federal level in the past 10 yrs, there has been what can only be described as an assault on 1) gun rights 2) property rights 3) access rights to public land 4) hunters rights and access.

I will try to keep in context here. I have watched the wolf issue is Alaska and Idaho. Federal influences have created an atmosphere of balance of nature be d**ned, more wolves (predators).

In Oregon that has meant the elimination of poisoning and airial control of coyotes on federal lands. The resluting explosion of coyote population has severely impacted deer and antelope herds. I think this is now state practice too.

I have personally talked to ODFW people, in the field, usually under 30 yrs old who have this new world order view of wildlife management.

The herds in this state are still reeling from the effects of the hounds and bait bans. I realize ODFW didn't want that either. But who there is FIGHTING against this?

ODFW has seemed to side with anti hunters over hunters recently (EE Wilson hunt).

The Lynx hair planting fiasco which if I'm not mistaken was fed and (WA) state folks working together of which NONE were fired or prosecuted.

I really don't think I'm being paranoid, just have some recent wounds that haven't healed over yet. I want to fight for our game herds on all levels.

I do appreciate you keeping the info coming.

GRB
Angry White Male

[birdhunter]

GRB,

I'd agree that we're in the middle of a tremendous paradigm shift. In the past 10 years, policy in the west has been moving away from the dominant social paradigm of resource extraction to a new environmental paradigm that emphasizes the intrinsic and recreational values of things. It's a change from focus on economics to a focus on "environment". I think we need more of a balance between the two than what we currently have, but that's a whole 'nother thread. So yes, federal policy has definately been shifting that way as well. But keep in mind that wolves aren't the ones trying to take your guns or access away. They may be the inadvertant tool of those who do want to do it, but don't make the mistake of fighting the wrong battle.

Federal influences have been largely ignoring the rural minority in our society, which leads to a situation of "public opinion" be damned (as opposed to "nature" be damned). Lip service about compensation programs or overall game numbers doesn't make up for missing cattle or lost tag sale revenue. I understand that.

You need to realize that ODFW is not a political entity. They are an agency. As such, they cannot take sides. They can offer scientific and biological advice, but they follow the law. They don't create it. If the law says you can't use dogs or bait, then they have to come up with some way of managing cougar and bear within the context of that law. That was a very hard thing for many people in the agency to do. The voters effectively tied their hands. But their jobs is to serve the public, and what better representation of public opinion than what is statutorily required.

I understand how all of this appears to a lot of people. Why are we having to spend money on wolves when we're going to have to close hatcheries? Why are we protecting a predator that will not have do any good economically in a state already in poor financial shape? Why is the rural minority being forced to live with a predator that the urban majority wants? I'll be the first to admit that these are tough questions that seem (are?) genuinely illogical. But we can't revamp the entire system. So let's try to live with it in a way that affects people as little as possible. That's what I want to work towards. I hunt NE Oregon too. And don't make the mistake of thinking this is an eastern Oregon issue. It may be now, but I promise you, 10-20 years from now, there will be wolves in the Cascades as well. This issue is going to affect all Oregonians in the future.

I'd only ask that you have faith in the process and stay involved. And for gods sake keep an open mind. I tell this to both sides. That was the one thing at all of the wolf town hall meetings that everyone seemed to agree on: The other side needs to be better educated about this issue, then they'd change their mind.

I understand that this is a tremendously socially and politically charged issue. I really don't think biologically it's going to be that big a deal. Particularily if we have a plan in place that doesn't let it get out of hand. Time will tell.

[ 04-22-2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: birdhunter ]

[elkaholic]

Evening Birdhunter and GRB, Been out in Sunny NE oregon the last few days and missed out on your talk. I agree with a previous thread that said something about the Genie getting out of the bottle. Well, we're close to that.

Since you are getting technic BH, I need to have you interpret a CFR for me, it reads -

(iii) All wolves found in the wild
within the boundaries of this para-graph
(i)(7) after the first releases will
be considered nonessential experi-mental
animals. In the conterminous
United States, a wolf that is outside an
experimental area (as defined in para-graph
(i)(7) of this section) would be
considered as endangered (or threat-ened
if in Minnesota) unless it is
marked or otherwise known to be an
experimental animal; such a wolf may
be captured for examination and ge-netic
testing by the Service or Service-designated
agency. Disposition of the
captured animal may take any of the
following courses:
(A) If the animal was not involved in
conflicts with humans and is deter-mined
likely to be an experimental
wolf, it will be returned to the reintro-duction
area.
(B) If the animal is determined likely
to be an experimental wolf and was in-volved
in conflicts with humans as
identified in the management plan for
the closest experimental area, it may
be relocated, placed in captivity, or
killed.
(C) If the animal is determined not
likely to be an experimental animal, it
will be managed according to any Serv-ice
approved plans for that area or will
be marked and released near its point
of capture.
(D) If the animal is determined not to
be a wild gray wolf or if the Service or
agencies designated by the Service de-termine
the animal shows physical or
behavioral evidence of hybridization
with other canids, such as domestic
dogs or coyotes, or of being an animal
raised in captivity, it will be returned
to captivity or killed.
reintroduction area as soon as possible,
unless physical or behavioral problems
make it necessary to return the animal
to captivity or euthanize it.
(9) The status of the experimental
population will be reevaluated within
the first 3 years, after the first year of
releases of wolves, to determine future
management needs and if further re-introductions
are required. This review
will take into account the reproductive
success and movement patterns of the
individuals released in the area, as well
as the overall health and fate of the ex-perimental
wolves. Once recovery goals
are met for downlisting or delisting the
species, a rule will be proposed to ad-dress
downlisting or delisting.
(10) The Service does not intend to
reevaluate the ''nonessential experi-mental''
designation. The Service does
not foresee any likely situation which
would result in changing the non-essential
experimental status until the
gray wolf is recovered and delisted in
the northern Rocky Mountains accord-ing
to provisions outlined in the Act.
However, if the wolf population does
not demonstrate positive growth to-ward
recovery goals for 2 consecutive
years, the affected States and tribes, in
cooperation with the Service, would,
within 1 year, identify and initiate wolf
management strategies, including ap-propriate
public review and comment,
to ensure continued wolf population
growth toward recovery levels. All re-introduced
wolves designated as non-essential
experimental will be removed
from the wild and the experimental
population status and regulations re-voked
when (i) legal actions or lawsuits
change the wolves status to endangered

50 CFR Ch. 1 17.84

Now BH, As I read (A) it says they wolves WILL be returned to the experimental area if likely to be from that population. You and I know that the dispersers are likely not collared, but if found in Oregon are LIKELY to be from Idaho, so where is the MAY?

The only discretion given (i)(7) is that they MAY capture them. But if they get their hands on them, they "will" return them. This is where I say they must. This is also why they took B45, thwy tried to weasle out and were forced politically to do as the CFR said. This is also why there is over 40 sighting this year reported to USFWS and nobody wants to "confirm" anything. The agencies know they have to follow the law.

I like you BH. Can you tell me why this CFR is not being followed, for reasons other than repopulating states outside the area and they have more wolves in those states now than it can handle and there is no place to take them to?

Sorry, I don't agree with you that Agencies are not political. Their lobbyists are working the halls every day and hour to make and change laws.

I agree we need to keep the mind open and the senses sharp cause the wolf (poor thing) is just a instrument that is getting played. I hate the tune.

[birdhunter]

elkaholic,

You may have proven me wrong. Cherish that, doesn't happen too often. I tend very strongly to agree with you, that this CFR does say experimental animals will be returned to the experimental area if they are captured. But let me play devil's advocate and give you another way of reading it. Not that I agree with it (cause I don't), but it may be the USFWS's interpretation. So quick fun analysis of the CFR.

iii) All wolves found in the wild within the boundaries of this paragraph (i)(7) after the first releases will be considered nonessential experimental animals. In the conterminous United States, a wolf that is outside an experimental area (as defined in paragraph (i)(7) of this section) would be considered as endangered (or threatened if in Minnesota) unless it is marked or otherwise known to be an experimental animal; such a wolf may be captured for examination and genetic testing by the Service or Service-designated agency. Disposition of the captured animal may take any of the following courses:

(A) If the animal was not involved in conflicts with humans and is determined likely to be an experimental wolf, it will be returned to the reintroduction area.

(B) If the animal is determined likely to be an experimental wolf and was involved in conflicts with humans as identified in the management plan for the closest experimental area, it may be relocated, placed in captivity, or killed.

(C) If the animal is determined not likely to be an experimental animal, it will be managed according to any Service approved plans for that area or will be marked and released near its point of capture.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">But the key here is, they are not required to capture it in the first place. They "may" do it. And reading it in one sense, they may only have the option of capturing it if they don't know it's identity. That is, a known experimental wolf may not qualify as "such a wolf". "Such a wolf" may only encompass a wolf outside the experimental area and not marked or otherwise known to be experimental animal. In otherwords, only an unknown wolf. The reasoning here, is that the purpose of the capture is for "examination and genetic testing." There would be no purpose for examining or genticaly testing a marked or otherwise known to be experimental animal. They already know the identity of it. Courses of disposition support this logic. An animal determined likely to be an experimental, will be returned to the reintroduction area. Doesn't say known experimental animals will be returned.

So that's the clinch. I think you and I can look at that statute and understand what it's really saying. Experimental animals go back into the experimental area. But that isn't necessarily the only way it can be interpreted. And belive me, the most straightforward or logical interpretation is not the one that is always used. Welcome to the fun field of environmental law.

Keep in mind this is only looking at the existing experimental CFRs. This doesn't even begin to address the legality of the Services' rules, as we got into with the 9th Circuit's McKittrick interpretation that wolves are protected by the ESA based on where they are found, as opposed to where they originate. And again, that would mean it didn't matter if they came from the experimental area, they would be considered endangered if the they were found in Oregon. And being endangered means no lethal take, no removal from the state and no holding in captivity. No management 'tall.

So hopefully you're still with me and I haven't confused the heck out of you. This isn't easy stuff. But we can all thank our lucky stars that the wolf has been downlisted and at least for now is subject to much more flexible federal 4-d rules. Right? Well let's take a quick look at some of those rules and how they interact with the experimental rules (which are still on the book). This is just the federal rules btw, and doesn't even get into the interaction with our own wonderful state ESA and it's take prohibitions(get an idea of how complicated this stuff is?).

For the benefit of everyone I'll post the whole thing and couple of relevant sections and you can cut and paste to your heart's content. I present 50 CFR Part 17.40 (n). Cheers.


§ 17.40 Special rules; mammals.

(n) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Utah north of U.S. Highway 50, and Colorado north of Interstate Highway 70, except where listed as an experimental population.
(1) Application of this special rule tothe experimental populations located in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Paragraphs (n) (2) through (6) of this section do not apply to gray wolves within the experimental populations areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming established under section 10(j) of the Act and delineated in § 17.84(i).
(2) Definitions of terms used in paragraph (n) of this section.
(i) Active den site. A den or a specific aboveground site that is being used on a daily basis by wolves to raise newborn pups during the period April 1 to June 30.
(ii) Breeding pair. An adult male and an adult female wolf that, during the previous breeding season, have produced at least two pups that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth.
(iii) Domestic animals. Animals that have been selectively bred over many generations to enhance specific traits for their use by humans, including use as pets. This includes livestock (as defined below) and dogs.
(iv) Livestock. Cattle, sheep, horses, mules, and herding or guard animals (llamas, donkeys, and certain special-use breeds of dogs commonly used for guarding or herding livestock) or as otherwise defined in State and tribal wolf management plans as approved by the Service. This excludes dogs that are not being used for livestock guarding or herding.
(v) Noninjurious. Does not cause either temporary or permanent physical damage or death.
(vi) Opportunistic harassment. Harassment without the conduct of prior purposeful actions to attract, track, wait for, or search out the wolf.
(vii) Problem wolves. Wolves that attack livestock, or wolves that twice in a calendar year attack domestic animals other than livestock.
(viii) Public land. Federal land and any other public land designated in State and tribal wolf management plans as approved by the Service.
(ix) Remove. Place in captivity or kill or release in another location.
(x) Wounded. Exhibiting torn flesh and bleeding or other evidence of physical damage caused by a wolf bite.
(3) Allowable forms of take of gray wolves. The following activities, only in the specific circumstances described in paragraph (n) of this section, are allowed: opportunistic harassment; intentional harassment; taking on private land; taking on public land; taking in response to impacts on wild ungulates; taking in defense of human life; taking to protect human safety; taking by government agents to remove problem wolves; incidental take; taking under permits; and taking per authorizations for agency employees. Other than as expressly provided in this rule, all the prohibitions of § 17.31(a) and (b) apply, and all other take activities are considered a violation of section 9 of the Act. Any wolf, or wolf part, taken legally must be turned over to the Service unless otherwise specified in paragraph (n) of this section. Any taking of wolves must be reported to the Service as outlined in paragraph (n)(6) of this section.
(i) Opportunistic harassment. Landowners on their own land and livestock producers or permittees who are legally using public land under valid livestock grazing allotments may conduct opportunistic harassment of any gray wolf in a noninjurious manner at any time. Opportunistic harassment must be reported to the Service within 7 days as outlined in paragraph (n)(6) of this section.
(ii) Intentional harassment. After we or our designated agent have confirmed persistent wolf activity on privately owned land or on a public land grazing allotment, we may, pursuant to § 17.32, issue a 90-day permit, with appropriate conditions, to any landowner to harass wolves in a potentially injurious manner (such as by projectiles designed to be nonlethal to larger mammals). The harassment must occur as specifically identified in the Service permit.
(iii) Taking by landowners on private land. Landowners may take wolves on privately owned land in the following two additional circumstances:
(A) Any landowner may take a gray wolf that is in the act of biting, wounding, or killing livestock or dogs, provided that the landowner provides evidence of animal(s) freshly (less than 24 hours) wounded or killed by wolves, and we or our designated agent are able to confirm that the animal(s) were wounded or killed by wolves. The taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(B) A private landowner may be issued a limited duration permit pursuant to § 17.32 to take a gray wolf on the landowner's private land if:
(1) This private property or an adjacent private property has had at least two depredations by wolves on livestock or dogs that have been confirmed by us or our designated agent; and
(2) We or our designated agent have determined that wolves are routinely present on that private property and present a significant risk to the health and safety of livestock or dogs. The landowner must conduct the take in compliance with the permit issued by the Service.
(iv) Take on public land. Under the authority of § 17.32, we may issue permits to take gray wolves under certain circumstances to livestock producers or permittees who are legally using public land under valid livestock grazing allotments. The permits, which may be valid for up to 45 days, can allow the take of a gray wolf that is in the act of killing, wounding, or biting livestock, after we or our designated agent have confirmed that wolves have previously wounded or killed livestock, and agency efforts to resolve the problem have been completed and were ineffective. We or our designated agent will investigate and determine if the previously wounded or killed livestock were wounded or killed by wolves. There must be evidence of livestock freshly wounded or killed by wolves. The taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(v) Take in response to wild ungulate impacts. If wolves are causing unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate populations, a State or tribe may capture and move wolves to other areas within the States identified in paragraph (n) of this section or experimental populations areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming established under section 10(j) of the Act and delineated in § 17.84(i). In order for this provision to apply, the States or tribes must define in their wolf management plan such unacceptable impacts, describe how they will be measured, and identify possible mitigation measures. Before wolves can be captured and moved, we must approve these plans and determine that such actions will not inhibit wolf population growth toward recovery levels. In addition, if, after 10 breeding pairs are established in the State, we determine that wolves are causing unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate populations, we may, in cooperation with the appropriate State fish and game agencies or tribes, capture and move wolves to other areas within the States identified in paragraph (n) of this section or experimental populations areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
(vi) Take in defense of human life. Any person may take a gray wolf in defense of the individual's life or the life of another person. The unauthorized taking of a wolf without an immediate and direct threat to human life may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(vii) Take to protect human safety. We or a Federal land management agency or a State or tribal conservation agency may promptly remove any wolf that we or our designated agent determines to be a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to human life or safety.
(viii) Take of problem wolves by Service personnel or our designated agent. We or our designated agent may carry out aversive conditioning, nonlethal control, relocation, permanent placement in captivity, or lethal control of problem wolves. If nonlethal depredation control activities occurring on public lands result in the capture, prior to October 1, of a female wolf showing signs that she is still raising pups of the year (e.g., evidence of lactation, recent sightings with pups), whether or not she is captured with her pups, then she and her pups may be released at or near the site of capture. Female wolves with pups may be removed if continued depredation occurs. Problem wolves that depredate on domestic animals more than twice in a calendar year, including female wolves with pups regardless of whether on public or private lands, may be moved or removed from the wild. To determine the presence of problem wolves, we or our agents will consider all of the following:
(A) Evidence of wounded livestock or other domestic animals or remains of a carcass that shows that the injury or death was caused by wolves;
(B) The likelihood that additional losses may occur if no control action is taken;
(C) Any evidence of unusual attractants or artificial or intentional feeding of wolves; and
(D) Evidence that, on public lands, if animal husbandry practices were previously identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual operating plans for allotments, they were followed.
(ix) Incidental take. Take of a gray wolf is allowed if the take was accidental and incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and if reasonable due care was practiced to avoid such taking. Incidental take is not allowed if the take is not accidental or if reasonable due care was not practiced to avoid such taking; we may refer such taking to the appropriate authorities for prosecution. Shooters have the responsibility to identify their target before shooting. Shooting a wolf as a result of mistaking it for another species is not considered accidental and may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(x) Take under permits. Any person with a valid permit issued by the Service under § 17.32 may take wolves in the wild, pursuant to terms of the permit.
(xi) Additional taking authorizations for agency employees. When acting in the course of official duties, any employee of the Service or appropriate Federal, State, or tribal agency, who is designated as an agent in writing for such purposes by the Service, may take a wolf or wolf-like canid for the following purposes; such take must be reported to the Service within 15 days as outlined in paragraph (n)(6) of this section and specimens may be retained or disposed of only in accordance with directions from the Service:
(A) Scientific purposes;
(B) Avoiding conflict with human activities;
(C) Improving wolf survival and recovery prospects;
(D) Aiding or euthanizing sick, injured, or orphaned wolves;
(E) Disposing of a dead specimen;
(F) Salvaging a dead specimen that may be used for scientific study;
(G) Aiding in law enforcement investigations involving wolves; or
(H) Preventing wolves with abnormal physical or behavioral characteristics, as determined by the Service, from passing on those traits to other wolves.
(4) Prohibited take of gray wolves.
(i) Any manner of take not described under paragraph (n)(3) of this section.
(ii) No person may possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or export by any means whatsoever, any wolf or wolf part from the State of origin taken in violation of the regulations in paragraph (n) of this section or in violation of applicable State or tribal fish and wildlife laws or regulations or the Act.
(iii) In addition to the offenses defined in paragraph (n) of this section, we consider any attempts to commit, solicitations of another to commit, or actions that cause to be committed any such offenses to be unlawful.
(iv) Use of unlawfully taken wolves.
No person, except for an authorized person, may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship a gray wolf taken unlawfully.
(5) Federal land use. Restrictions on the use of any Federal lands may be put in place to prevent the take of wolves at active den sites between April 1 and June 30. Otherwise, no additional land-use restrictions on Federal lands, except for National Parks or National Wildlife Refuges, will be necessary to reduce or prevent take of wolves solely to benefit gray wolf recovery under the Act. This prohibition does not preclude restricting land use when necessary to reduce negative impacts of wolf restoration efforts on other endangered or threatened species.
(6) Reporting requirements. Except as otherwise specified in paragraph (n) of this section or in a permit issued under § 17.32, any taking of a gray wolf must be reported to the Service within 24 hours. We will allow additional reasonable time if access to the site is limited. Report wolf takings, including opportunistic harassment, to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator (100 N. Park, #320, Helena, MT 59601; 406-8211; 449-8211;5225 extension 204; facsimile 406-8211; 449-8211;5339), or a Service-designated representative of another Federal, State, or tribal agency. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (n) of this section, any wolf or wolf part, taken legally must be turned over to the Service, which will determine the disposition of any live or dead wolves.


You made it this far? Well I'm gonna post a new reply before this one spirals rapidly out of control I have some more Service commentary from the final rule, regarding Oregon I know will be of interest. I'll also point out the important things to worry/consider in the final rule and maybe get around to actually answering the question that elkaholic was asking.

[ 04-23-2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: birdhunter ]

[birdhunter]

Okay, this post is just some USFWS jargon from the final rules that deals explicitly with Oregon:

Under this final rule, any animals outside the core recovery areas are protected by the Act as threatened wolves, and we will continue to provide protection recommendations for den and rendezvous sites to Federal agencies on a site-specific basis.

We also anticipate additional movement of wolves from the northern U.S. Rockies and Canada into western Washington and Oregon and into the Cascade Range. For example, one radio-collared wolf from northwestern Montana was found dead in 1994 from unknown causes in eastern Washington, and a radio-collared young female wolf from central Idaho dispersed into eastern Oregon in early 1999. She was recaptured and returned to the Central Idaho Recovery Area where she would have a better opportunity to find a mate. Since 1999, 2 other dead wolves (1 radio-collared in Idaho and one not radio-collared) were found in eastern Oregon. These wolves were killed by a vehicle collision and an illegal shooting, respectively. Furthermore, suitable habitat and prey conditions exist in other areas to which wolves may be able to disperse from current populations. Given that wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains have dispersed over 800 km (500 mi), it is reasonable to assume that occasional but routine wolf dispersal will continue to occur within 400 km (250 mi) of the current boundaries of the wolf population.

While we have no plans to actively pursue wolf restoration in other areas of the Western DPS, we will not act to routinely prevent natural wolf recolonization in such areas. Wolves that naturally disperse into other States will be managed on a case-by-case basis, and we have the authority to manage these wolves. Generally, if there are no conflicts with human activities, such wolves will likely not be returned to the area of their origin. If wolves move outside of the recovery areas and depredate livestock, they will be killed rather than moved. In addition, States or tribes considering wolf restoration planning for lands under their jurisdiction may request us to provide technical assistance for those efforts.


Issue 24: The incidental take language in the proposed rule may undermine support by traditional wildlife users in Oregon, because it is dissimilar to the current rules for the nonessential experimental populations.

Response: The final special regulation for the Western DPS is intended to have similar incidental take provisions as those that have applied to the nonessential experimental populations, as specified in 50 CFR 17.84(i)(3)(viii). This is a change from the provisions of the previous endangered status, under which no incidental take of wolves was allowed outside of the nonessential experimental area. Mistakenly shooting a wolf will not be classified as incidental take under the new special regulation; similarly, such an action has not been considered permissible as incidental take under the existing regulations for the nonessential experimental populations. One of the basic rules of hunter and gun safety is to be sure of your target. Just as is the case in current law in most States, a hunter who shoots a protected animal through mistaken identity is liable for that action. Both the new special regulation for the threatened Western DPS wolves and the existing regulation for the nonessential experimental populations stress the need for shooters to exercise reasonable due care to identify their target and avoid taking a gray wolf.


Issue 5: The Service should be responsible for any experimental population wolves that enter Wallowa County, Oregon.

Response: The Service can manage any wolves that leave the nonessential experimental population areas, including those that might disperse into Oregon. The experimental population rules allow us to retrieve or manage any wolf known to be an experimental population animal regardless of its location. The Service has stated that any wolf that disperses outside of the experimental population area and attacks livestock will be killed. A wolf that has not caused conflicts with people or livestock may be monitored, but it generally will not be captured or managed. The Service has no interest in spending time or funding on lone wolves that may have dispersed into other States and are not causing problems. The Service’s only active recovery programs in the northern Rocky Mountains will be in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The Service has no plans or interest in management for wolf restoration in adjacent States. After delisting, wolf populations and their management would be the ultimate responsibility of those respective State and tribal governments and their natural resource agencies.

[birdhunter]

Hopefully this isn't information overload. Just trying to provide everyone with the same information. So, what should we be concerned about with the final rules and how do the CFR's interact. Two big things, I think. First is Federal land use restrictions. Now, the Rule says that restrictions on the use of any Federal lands "may" be put in place to prevent the take of wolves at active den sites between April 1 and June 30. Those are the only land-use restrictions on Federal lands that we might expect. My concern with that is that the area around an active den site taht needs to be protected is not defined. Is it half an mile? A mile? 2 miles? Experimental population rules listed a 1 mile radius for land use restrictions to prevent take around active wolf dens when the breeding pair count was less than 5. I think we could expect something similar. Now, this is just on federal land, and I'm not saying it will happen, and the timing doesn't seem like it would affect most hunting seasons, but it is something to keep in mind.

Now, the next biggest issue as I see it is with regards to wild ungulate impacts. Rule states: If wolves are causing unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate populations, a State or tribe may capture and move wolves to other areas within the Western DPS. That means wolves could not be killed, but rather relocated for impacts on big game. Here's the catch, and I hope to god the service isn't dumb enough to try it, but most of the available wolf habitat is filled. You can't really take wolves and put them into areas that are already filled with wolves and you can't kill them for it. So where do they go? Maybe suitable habitat within the Western DPS that doesn't have wolves? That means all of Oregon, Californa, Nevada, Washington, etc, you get the idea. A "relocation" that ammounts to a de facto reintroduction. Perfectly legal under these CFR's. Again, not saying that the Service would ever try it, but it's something to keep a very close eye on.

What's more, in order for this provision (take wolves impacting wild ungulates) to apply, the States or tribes must define in their wolf management plan such unacceptable impacts, describe how they will be measured, and identify possible mitigation measures. Before wolves can be captured and moved, the Service must approve these plans and determine that such actions will not inhibit wolf population growth toward recovery levels. If no plan is created, then only after 10 breeding pairs are established in the state, and the service determines that wolves are causing unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate populations, then the Service may capture and move wolves to other areas within the Western DPS.

If that isn't a damn good reason for a management plan, then I don't know what is. Do you want to wait till there are 10 breeding pairs of wolves in Oregon before we can do something about their impacts on wild ungulates? This is exactly why we want state control of these critters as soon as possible. And this is exactly why we need a management plan.


Whew. That's enough out of me for one night. I'll try to get back to elkaholics questions/comments tomorrow. 'nite all.

[elkaholic]

One more question BH, If the 10 breeding pairs and land use restrictions only apply to Federal land, and a state management plan only applies to state lands, from a federal perspective we do not need a plan? Bangs says NO.

And remember, there never will be documented, proven, ,,,, anything that the enviro's will ever agree to that wolves are actually a negative impact on ungulates.(site specifically or as a whole) It is a hollow argument. They will say drought, too many cattle eating their grass, too many hunters killing them, too many unfenced highways and cars running over them, but never wolf caused!!! Hunters will be asked to cut back on take first, you watch, wolves have never been blamed since 95 and will never be removed for that reason. This is an extremely bad/weak reason to create a plan.

I'm tired too. Bye