Oregon, a Great Place To Be a Wolf

 

OR 12 Wenaha pack male. ODFW photo

OR 12, Wenaha pack male. ODFW photo

Last Friday, wolves in Oregon were granted at least five more months before the decision may be made to remove them from the state Endangered Species List. During this time period, information will be gathered on the possibility of delisting them in certain areas, rather than state wide, or to leave them all on the list. Most likely, wolves in the eastern part of the state would lose protection while those in western Oregon would maintain it. There are 77 known wolves in the state and four breeding pairs, most residing  in northeast Oregon.

Not only does this reprieve give wolf advocates more time to rally against delisting but it will also likely come after the scheduled five-year review to the Oregon Wolf Plan. This is important because without state protection for wolves, the plan would likely be weakened, allowing an increase in lethal action against wolves as well as a decrease in the use of nonlethal methods to prevent problems.

The April 24th meeting of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission was held in Bend, Oregon. Staff from ODFW presented their Biological Status Review of Wolves in Oregon to the commission, as well as to an audience both for and against the delisting. I’m told that wolf advocates outnumbered opponents 33 to 5. The commission listened to nearly four hours of testimony, most of it from those who believe wolves should retain protection under the state’s ESA.

Several folks we know of spoke up, including Rob Klavins of Oregon Wild who is quoted as saying, ““The idea that 77 animals of any kind represents recovery doesn’t pass the laugh test.”

Amaroq Weiss, West Coast representative for the Center for Biological Diversity, said there is “simply no science anywhere on earth” that would support delisting such a small population.”

Wally Sykes, member of Wallowa County’s wolf compensation panel, stated 77 wolves is far too few to provide genetic diversity.

And Suzanne Stone, Northwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife, is reported as saying that ODFW’s field staff has earned the public’s trust, but that delisting is not warranted.

OR25, a yearling male in the Imnaha Pack, after being radio-collared on May 20, 2014. Photo courtesy of ODFW

OR25, a yearling male in the Imnaha Pack. ODFW photo.

Other wolf news is that OR 25, a black male from the Imnaha pack has recently dispersed from his homeland in northeast Oregon to the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, north of Mount Jefferson. Russ Morgan, ODFW’s wolf coordinator, reports that the wolf was collared last year and is now a two year old, a common time for dispersal.

Map from The Bulletin

Map from The Bulletin

News was released that there are three (not two as previously reported) wolves in the Keno unit in southwest Oregon. This group is within howling distance of Journey’s family, known as the Rogue Pack. This ups the number of wolves in this part of the state to at least seven, not counting pups that we hope were born this month. I’m blessed to live a few miles from this “area of known wolf activity” and travel there frequently to be in their presence.

Last month, a proposal was made to allow Oregonians the option of purchasing a specialty license plate featuring a wolf, specifically the much celebrated OR 7. Funds from sale of the plate would provide valuable monies for non-game projects within the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

We wouldn’t be wise to put our guard down yet, but it seems a fine time to take a deep breath and breath in the fresh, spring air of a state that has become a leader in the preservation of all of its natural resources, including wolves, a species that creates much more dissension than they earn. With this proactive approach to allowing the wild places to be truly wild, Oregon is a great place for wolves, and for humans.

OR 7, May 3, 2014. ODFW photo

OR 7, May 3, 2014. ODFW photo

 

 

 

 

3 thoughts on “Oregon, a Great Place To Be a Wolf

  1. The option to delist wolves “in certain areas, rather than state wide” is interesting. Do I understand this right? “Most likely, wolves in the eastern part of the state [where most wolves are] would lose protection while those in western Oregon [where fewer wolves are] would maintain it.”

    In contrast, the Minnesota Wolf Management Plan did the opposite: wolves in the northeast part of the State [where most wolves are] were given more protection, while those in the rest of the State [where fewer wolves are] were given less protection. The idea was to protect a place for wolves in their core habitat–more heavily forested and with fewer roads and people–but not to even try to protect them in the more agricultural areas of the State, in which they would be less socially-acceptible.

    That part of the Minnesota Plan was found faulty by a federal court in December 2014, according to the Endangered Species Act (i.e. according to the rules of the transfer from federal to State wolf management). For that and other reasons, the Gray Wolf was relisted in the Western Great Lakes States.

    One might guess that doing the opposite of what Minnesota did would pass a similar court test, but I’m not sure. It might compromise dispersal from the source population (in the northeastern part of Oregon) to the rest of Oregon and other States. That might be seen as a violation of the Endangered Species Act.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s