Wolves In Oregon

[clearconscience]

There was an article in a magazine I can't remember right now about the US wildlife service and in one year they killed 200,000 wolves in the NW.
There was also some interesting piece about the poison they used that was kept in a warehouse in CO. One of the wildlife officers sold a large sum of it to some random person (terrorist?) a few years back. They never recovered it. I will try to find a link.

 

[Jamie6.5]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/oregon_gets_taste_of_living_wi.html

"You've got essentially a social experiment here," said Wallowa County Sheriff Fred Steen. "Wolves are a very efficient, four-legged piranha."

 

[Gunner3456]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/oregon_gets_taste_of_living_wi.html

"You've got essentially a social experiment here," said Wallowa County Sheriff Fred Steen. "Wolves are a very efficient, four-legged piranha."

Good find, Jamie. I can see ranchers in Wallowa and other counties killing those wolves every time they see them, just like they always have coyotes only wolves are worse for their herds.

 

[coyote223]

I don't hold a position on this. But what's this I learned about the balance of nature?

As I understand it, if the deer and elk populations drop, the predators starve and their populations drop. Then the prey gains ground and then... For thousands of years it worked.

No matter how bad the wolves, they can't kill all of the prey. Besides, I certainguarantee you that the ranchers will kill their azzes when they begin to prey on livestock. You can bet your life on it. The ranchers won't get caught, either. Heck, they already assume a right to all the deer and elk they want because they feed them. They take one any time the freezer is getting low.

Consider the large ranches in Eastern Ore, Wash, and Idaho, Montana, Wyo, etc. There is no way to police them. Man is the real predator.

Just rambling...

This post actually makes the most sense to me,,,




But the Hunting in a lot of Oregon is already in very poor shape. ODFW doesn't seem to be too interested in fixing it either. I still don't believe the Wolves will help matters, but thats JMO.

 

[daiello91]

Here's my opinion:

Even though I could support a small population of wolves that are aggressively managed, I am afraid the political climate, emotional responses and outcries from people not effected by wolves would not allow for proper management of such a population. Here's why;

I enjoy watching wolves on TV and would enjoy viewing them in the wild. However, the fact remains they decrease wildlife populations & negatively impact the communities they inhabit. A severe decline in wildlife can eliminate/reduce hunters & hunter opportunity. Hunters spend the largest amount of time & money on wildlife & habitat (increasing biodiversity & improving habitat). By eliminating or greatly reducing hunters you're greatly degrading conservation in the state of Oregon.

Looking at states which already struggle living with wolves: hunter opportunity is clear in Idaho where available tags have dropped by 90% in some areas and by 50% in most.

Oregon wildlife numbers are already injured due to rising cougar and bear populations since the late 90's. Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife claims approximately 6,000 cougars in the state while private groups estimate closer to 8,000. Both sides agree there are around 40,000 bears in the state. In addition, both also agree that bear & cougar populations are continuing to increase and agree deer and elk are in decline. Wolves will only perpetuate this issue. Poaching is a problem also, but those are not hunters...they're poachers which have no regard for laws.

It's clear, hunters fund a large portion of the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife budget, by increasing protection for a species who's population is over 60,000 continent wide will only alienate your customer base.
Please send your comments to [email protected].

 

[clearconscience]

My stepdad's brother lives in ukiah (spelling) and he runs a cattle ranch. He has been having a lot of problems with wolves killing his cattle, not always to eat them, but killing them. So apparently "someone" started killing them and burying them so they can't kill them. It's a pretty hefty fine and possibly jail time to kill the wovles without tags. So "hopefully" they stop.

But it's ridiculous, you pour a animal that does nothing, but kill and you can't do anything about it.

 

[theorren]

I, for one, am against the re-introduction of the wolves in Oregon. Without getting into a deep rant (I'm at work right now). Here's some food for thought.....

<broken link removed>

"Rancher Curt Jacobs told the Baker City Herald newspaper most of the lambs were killed but not eaten."

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have confirmed that a wolf or wolves were responsible for killing a number of lambs on two occasions between April 9 and April 13 on a privately owned ranch east of Baker City, Ore."

IIRC it took the farmer/ rancher from the news story some time to get the Feds/ ODFW to kill the wolves or relocate them. In short wolves are efficient hunters, they do not always kill to feed, but sometimes for fun.

 

[Gunner3456]

I, for one, am against the re-introduction of the wolves in Oregon. Without getting into a deep rant (I'm at work right now). Here's some food for thought.....

<broken link removed>

"Rancher Curt Jacobs told the Baker City Herald newspaper most of the lambs were killed but not eaten."

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have confirmed that a wolf or wolves were responsible for killing a number of lambs on two occasions between April 9 and April 13 on a privately owned ranch east of Baker City, Ore."

IIRC it took the farmer/ rancher from the news story some time to get the Feds/ ODFW to kill the wolves or relocate them. In short wolves are efficient hunters, they do not always kill to feed, but sometimes for fun.

I repeat. Those ranchers all across E. Oregon and Wash, Idaho, Montana, Wyo., etc are going to take care of those wolves. They have this strange notion that they own their land and their livestock, if you can imagine that. They make their living at it and wolves can and will devastate their income.

 

[2506]

Here's my opinion:

Even though I could support a small population of wolves that are aggressively managed, I am afraid the political climate, emotional responses and outcries from people not effected by wolves would not allow for proper management of such a population. Here's why;

I enjoy watching wolves on TV and would enjoy viewing them in the wild. However, the fact remains they decrease wildlife populations & negatively impact the communities they inhabit. A severe decline in wildlife can eliminate/reduce hunters & hunter opportunity. Hunters spend the largest amount of time & money on wildlife & habitat (increasing biodiversity & improving habitat). By eliminating or greatly reducing hunters you're greatly degrading conservation in the state of Oregon.

Looking at states which already struggle living with wolves: hunter opportunity is clear in Idaho where available tags have dropped by 90% in some areas and by 50% in most.

Oregon wildlife numbers are already injured due to rising cougar and bear populations since the late 90's. Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife claims approximately 6,000 cougars in the state while private groups estimate closer to 8,000. Both sides agree there are around 40,000 bears in the state. In addition, both also agree that bear & cougar populations are continuing to increase and agree deer and elk are in decline. Wolves will only perpetuate this issue. Poaching is a problem also, but those are not hunters...they're poachers which have no regard for laws.

It's clear, hunters fund a large portion of the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife budget, by increasing protection for a species who's population is over 60,000 continent wide will only alienate your customer base.
Please send your comments to [email protected].

And that's why I usually kill at least one bear every year, sometimes two. If everyone tried to do the same, I don't think we'd see bears running through the U-district. I buy a cougar tag every year, and even though I hunt in some of the most remote areas of Oregon/Washington, I've yet to see a cougar in over thirty years. I can't kill what I can't see. For now.

 

[CEF1959]

In short wolves are efficient hunters, they do not always kill to feed, but sometimes for fun.

Gee, I can't think of any other species that does that.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on an old pickup in Portland a few years ago:

Why hunters make better lovers:
They go deeper in the bush.
They shoot more often.
And they eat what they shoot.

Well, not always, I guess.

And some of us don't eat after we shoot....

 

[CEF1959]

I enjoy watching wolves on TV and would enjoy viewing them in the wild. However, the fact remains they decrease wildlife populations & negatively impact the communities they inhabit.

Aren't wolves (and bears) part of the wildlife population? And by "communities they inhabit" that are negatively impacted, you mean people who arrived in the last 150 years (most much sooner)? I think the Indians cohabited with the wildlife populations (all of them) for centuries.

 

[jordanvraptor]

Wolves kill Coyotes, Cougars kill Wolves, Lions kill Leopards, and Humans kill all of the above and more. Predators don't like competition. All animals compete over resources which is an instinct for self preservation. Humans are just better at it.

 

[Gunner3456]

Aren't wolves (and bears) part of the wildlife population? And by "communities they inhabit" that are negatively impacted, you mean people who arrived in the last 150 years (most much sooner)? I think the Indians cohabited with the wildlife populations (all of them) for centuries.

The wolves they are importing are not the same breed which was native here. They are far more destructive.

100 years ago Indians were stone age hunter-gatherers and they didn't own and tend livestock.

These wolves aren't part of the original balance of nature here, and bringing them here is a screw-up by man. Good intentions maybe, but still a screw-up.

 

[2506]

Aren't wolves (and bears) part of the wildlife population? And by "communities they inhabit" that are negatively impacted, you mean people who arrived in the last 150 years (most much sooner)? I think the Indians cohabited with the wildlife populations (all of them) for centuries.

Half-truths about American Indians' environmental ethic obscure the rational ways in which they have lived with and shaped the natural world.

 

[CEF1959]

The wolves they are importing are not the same breed which was native here. They are far more destructive.

No one is "importing" wolves. They're just letting them roam. They're allowing various species to roam as they did many many centuries before your ancestors showed up claiming a right to gun down anything that bubblegummed with their newfangled and unnatural fences and ranches.

When you kill off all the natural predators in an area, weird anomolies result. Sage rat explosions, deer explosions, etc.

 

[RVTECH]

I talk to company reps in the Eastern Oregon area almost daily and most of them are hunters/outdoorsmen etc. and they tell me the wolves are decimating the fawn and elk calf numbers dramatically, as well as killing sheep on a daily basis.

 

[Gunner3456]

I talk to company reps in the Eastern Oregon area almost daily and most of them are hunters/outdoorsmen etc. and they tell me the wolves are decimating the fawn and elk calf numbers dramatically, as well as killing sheep on a daily basis.

They are also killing farmers' calves and even some cows. That's all I can say.

 

[Jamie6.5]

No one is "importing" wolves. They're just letting them roam. They're allowing various species to roam as they did many many centuries before your ancestors showed up claiming a right to gun down anything that bubblegummed with their newfangled and unnatural fences and ranches.

This must be another one of those issues you didn't follow closely eh CEF?
They certainly did import wolves. From Canada. They did it to re-establish populations in Montana and Idaho. But they imported the larger Canadian Grey Wolf, a much more capable predator than was here previously.
The wolves in Oregon wandered in from those imported into ID.

We already have apex predator numbers out of control due to cougar hunting restrictions, followed closely by bear hunting restrictions.
By the time they get a handle on the wolf issue in OR, we will be lucky if there is any big game left at all.
Now, that may not bother non-hunters, but non-hunters aren't paying for game "management."
Hunters are, and are getting screwed out of their dollars by this asinine mindset.

 

[Nethiker]

Wolves have definitely impacted the hunting here in Montana. Cow calf ratios are down and the animal behavior has changed, they range higher and are more mobile. The hunters and ranchers are complaining and the first to say "I told you so...." but that is not the whole picture.

While hunter dollars may be down, tourism is up. The wolves are a huge draw to the Greater Yellowstone Area so I am not too concerned about the economic impact of wolf reintroduction. As for the long term effect of wolves on the ecosystem, I agree with the posts that point out nature's ability to find equilibrium. My real concern for the future of hunting in my area is not predation but drought. We are going on 12+ years of below avg. rainfall and this is having a huge effect on animal populations and distribution.

If we decide the wolves are out of hand and negatively impacting the ecosystem, I am confident we have the means to fix that. If we decide that we have screwed up our weather and it is hurting our hunting, we are SOL--and about more than just hunting.

 

[RVTECH]

Is it fair to say wolves had their chance (ecologically speaking) and couldn't survive the "Natural Selection" process? (no classical reference implied) I mean, look at the Coyote population - no shortage of them - I see them often here in the LaPine/Sunriver area. If anything their numbers seem to be increasing.