Oregon's Eventual Wolves

The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife has had an advisory group traveling the state to gain feedback on how to manage wolves once they return to Oregon. Scientists figure that the spreading population of wolves in Idaho will eventually result in their permanent return to Oregon. The last of Oregon's wolves were eradicated in the 1930s. Wolves from Idaho have recently started visiting, but are not breeding here yet (previous blog here). There is also a push for wolf reintroduction to Siskiyou County CA, which borders us here in SW Oregon.

While exciting many folks, the return of wolves to some of their former territory in Oregon is making others nervous. Such concerns drove a wedge in the advisory group, which could not come to agreement on how to manage the impending wolf population.

Ben Boswell, a county commissioner from Eastern Oregon, calls an effort to establish and manage wolves in Oregon a “fool’s errand.”

Boswell was one of two people on a 14-member advisory group to reject a draft plan for managing wolves in Oregon.

The group — representing interests from livestock producers to hunters to conservationists — spent 11 months creating the plan.

On Thursday, the advisory group presented the plan to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.

“I propose that wolves be kept from Oregon by whatever means are necessary,” Boswell wrote in a report to the commission. “Wolves have no biological, social or legal right to be in Oregon and certainly no one has a right to add a threat to our rural lifestyle.”

Is that the best way to start a balanced article on the results of the advisory group did...to quote a minority opinion from the most reactionary voice against the wolves? Attention grabbing, yes...unbiased??

What the heck is a biological right supposed to be anyway?

Sharon Beck, who represents livestock owners, also said she could not support the plan, mainly because of the compensation measures for livestock killed by wolves.

The plan calls for paying for cattle killed by wolves, but it does not address other costs, such as the increased work for handlers when livestock react after seeing wolves, she said.

The rejection by the two group members means consensus was not reached — a goal that members had hoped to achieve.

That did not dampen the mood for the other 12 advisory group members who urged the board to accept the entire plan.

Other group members called the plan balanced, fair, wonderful and wise. They said it incorporated everyone’s interests and still promoted the conservation of wolves.

The folks who are against wolf reintroduction are generally those who are economically dependent upon the livestock and game that wolves tend to kill. There's the:

- direct costs of livestock killed and maimed,

- the fact that nervous livestock have slower growth rates and lower birth rates,

- the bureaucracy required to gain what is often perceived as insufficient reimbursement for wolf damage,

- competition of wolves with big game hunters over certain game species (like mule deer and elk that the wolves naturally used to take), and

- the trickle-down effect of economic damage upon the rural communities dependent upon the above.

The wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park have killed over double the number of cattle and nearly four times the number of sheep than was originally estimated...plus a number of pets. However on a percentage basis, wolves kill only a fraction of a percent of the cattle and sheep on nearby ranches.

The Defenders of Wildlife, and environmental group, does pay ranchers for the cost of livestock killed by wolves and does reimburse them for various prevention efforts (like fencing). There is serious question though whether the reimbursements are sufficient to cover all the costs. The burden of proof can be difficult and time consuming. There's also the harrassment by wolves that adversely impacts the overall health of the livestock. Meanwhile, the Defenders of Wildlife are logically interested in spreading the costs of reimbursements across society, since most people support wolf reintroduction.

The crux of the debate in the areas near Yellowstone NP is exactly what has caused Oregon's ODFW wolf advisory group to fail to come to agreement...economics.

The draft wolf plan includes:

•A minimum of four breeding pairs for three consecutive years before the wolf can come off the endangered species list.

•Three different management plans depending on the number of wolves in the state.

•Two separate regions of the state — east and west — with different management based on the numbers of wolves in those regions.

•Education for livestock producers and landowners on nonlethal management techniques.

The number of breeding pairs required to take wolves off the endangered species list is not high, and much lower than around Yellowstone NP. Once the wolf is not officially considered endangered, both government and rancher management efforts can be more aggressive in dealing with wolves adversely impacting livestock and certain game numbers. That's good, but it still doesn't deal with the question of the adequacy of reimbursements for the financial damage wolves cause ranchers (muchless game hunter guides, who get no consideration until wolves are no longer endangered).

Even with the commission’s approval, there are three pieces of the plan that would require legislative action:

•Reclassification of the wolf to “special status mammal” within the game mammal category — which means there will be a wide range of management tools available and would allow hunting or trapping in response to management concerns.

•Funding a compensation program that reimburses livestock owners for confirmed and probable wolf kills.

•Options for killing wolves when they are harassing livestock that are not currently allowed under Oregon law.

Three very key issues depend upon our dysfunctional and financially challenged legislature to act...not promising. Meanwhile, the wolves are probably not going to wait much longer to try to permanently reestablish themselves in Oregon. Their population in bordering Idaho has risen from 114 in 1998 to 345 last year.

Rural communities dependent upon ranching and visitors coming to hunt are understandably angry that yet another environmental initiative mostly supported by outsiders will adversely impact them financially. Wolf advocates show that increased tourism around Yellowstone NP has boosted income for the area far more than ranchers have been harmed. True, but that argument does nothing to help the ranchers. Will tourism rise similarly in Oregon? Possibly...but how will that help the ranchers? Around here in SW Oregon, the wolves will probably live on federal lands and poach the nearby ranches the way that cougars do.

The advisory committee did a lot of hard work in studying the subject and trying to come up with a reasonable agreement. Most of them came from a perspective of supporting wolf reintroduction, which reflects societal beliefs. Unfortunately, it looks like they believed the environmentalists' estimates of the costs and impacts of wolf reintroduction, which historically thus far have proven low. How could anybody reasonably expect rural representatives on the committee to just roll over and betray their constituents?

Judging from the construction of the article above, the Salem Statesman-Journal can.