Wash. and Ore. tell feds to let states handle wolf issues
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — As wolves reintroduced into the Northern Rockies push west through the Cascade Range, the states of Oregon and Washington are telling the federal government they can handle it from here, thanks.
Both states have already taken over the hard part, riding herd on the conflict between wolves and cattle in the eastern part of each state, where almost all of the packs are located, and deciding when they need to shoot wolves for developing too much of a taste for beef.
"We don't see a real need for continued federal protections when the state protections are there," Dave Ware, Washington state game division manager, said Monday.
Tim L. Hiller, carnivore-furbearer coordinator for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, agreed.
"It seems very redundant to have a regulatory process at the state and federal level for that portion of Oregon," he said.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife introduced wolves into the Northern Rockies in the 1990s after they had been wiped out by bounty hunters across the West. Since then, wolves have migrated into the Northwest from Idaho, Montana and Canada.
Two of Washington's dozen wolf packs have pushed as far west as the Cascades. None of Oregon's five packs have left the Northeastern corner of the state, though single wolves have set out looking for new territory. Each state has one pack that has developed a taste for beef.
The Pacific Northwest and California are one focus of a nationwide evaluation of whether the federal Endangered Species Act protections given wolves back in 1978 should be lifted in view of new scientific information.
"We've learned a lot since then," said Hilary Cooley, Pacific Northwest wolf coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "So we would like to fix it."
The issue is whether the wolves in the Northwest amount to a distinct population that needs protection, whether by geography, genetics or behavior. One big factor in the decision will be just how much good wolf habitat is available.
The service has already lifted wolf protections in the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes, with Wyoming to follow this month. Federal biologists have already decided the current listing, which includes the Northeast, Southeast and Southwest, does not make scientific sense. The Southeast and Southwest each had a different species — the red wolf and Mexican wolf. The Northeast probably had a different one, the Eastern wolf. They hope to come up with a recommendation by the end of this year whether to keep or lift federal protection for wolves in areas where they are not currently established, but are likely to spread in the future.
Meanwhile, California has been forced to consider the issue now that a wandering wolf from Oregon, known as OR-7, has trekked down around the Lassen Volcanic National Park area, the southern end of the Cascade Range. California has not weighed in on a federal listing, but is considering whether to put wolves on the state Endangered Species List.
Ranchers in Oregon and Washington would like the states to gain full control, but environmentalists want the federal government to remain in charge.
Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen's Association, said ranchers still don't trust the state when it comes to dealing with wolves, but feel they have more resources and better flexibility than the federal government.
"Dave (Ware) and his folks are doing everything they can to reach out and demonstrate a commitment to the livestock industry that they will follow through with what they promised," Field said. "There has got to be patience on both sides of the issue if we are going to come to a resolution that is going to work."
Environmentalists have fought state decisions to shoot wolves, arguing it is the ranchers who need to do a better job, not the wolves. They feel federal protection provides for greater scientific validity in recovery plans, better habitat protections, and higher penalties for poaching, a leading cause of wolf losses.
"Wolves do demand changes from the livestock industry," said Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity.He said ranchers have operated for too long on the idea there should be no predators on the landscape.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
I don't understand why this issue always comes up in Oregon. There are a handfull of wolves and people are talking about an open season on them, it makes no sense. Oregon needs to look at Minnesota as an example (or maybe the people of Oregon need to change their mentality). Minnesota has 2 million more people than Oregon, and over 3,000 wolves, yet they some how are able to live together with them. The ranchers have a sense of entitlement and it needs to stop.
I agree that they should let the States decide, just as they do with elk, bear, cougar, deer, etc. Â There needs to be a balance, and if the protection of wolves needs to be lifted to keep that balance and tags need to be offered to trim down their numbers, then so be it. Â It is all about conservation after all. Â I think everyone should take hunting classes, even if they aren't going to hunt. Then you can better understand the "Why" of it that seems to elude so many. Â It isn't just about sport, or putting meat in your freezer. (Though people do it for those reasons as well) It also controls numbers of herd animals, many who die during the winter months anyways, or from hoof rot or other diseases. Â I am not a hunter, but I am married to one and I have taken the classes. Â They are very enlightening if you want to better understand the laws surrounding hunting and the benefits to wildlife that it offers.
we eraticated them once.... we will do it agin....if our goverments state or fedral dont do there job....only time will tell....i personally will shoot everyone i see.....
Â
 @really You'll shoot "everyone" you'll see?  I am assuming you're referring to wolves and not to every person you meet--as your horrible grammar suggests?  I would love to see you try.  Kill a protected species and it's a pretty hefty fine as well as a good amount of jail time.  But hey--they offer continuing ed in prison.  That would probably be of benefit to you.
 @really Yes, humans eradicated Oregon wolves in the past - and we have done many other stupid things, too. We are now attempting to find a better balance with nature. We should learn to live with wolves in Oregon - it isn't an either - or proposition.
And if you shoot everyone that you see, there are many who will happily see you put in prison for doing it. I know I would.
Saw one today near Ukiah. 3x bigger than a coyote. Pretty neat to see it...But I don't want them around.
Wolves are canines. They will survive easily. They will breed and multiply and are a hardy breed. They should be handled like any other wild animal. If they get out of control they need to be dealt with and that should include hunting them.
 @RalphCramdenÂ
I agree. We should offer region and hunting type tags when needed.
Â
The state could issue single or multiple county tags so that hunters have the opportunity to hunt but only in area where the animals pose a threat or whose numbers are threatening.
Â
Speaking of threatening, I really don't have much love for beef ranchers in the west. For the most part, they let their herds run all over without limits, get free use of public lands, and then get ticked when other wild animals attack their herds. I think the free use of tax payer funded lands fro grazing is a small price to pay to lose animals to other "users" of those wild spaces.
 @Repoman  @RalphCramden Just remember those Rancher provide the beef you eat. And every cow a wolf kills takes away several generations of that beef.
Â
Just for example if that cow was going to have ten more calves before she died of a natural death, and half were heifer calves. Before those ten years are up there could be 5 more cows ready to or already having calves. The loss of one cow is not really the loss of one cow but every heifer or bull calf she would have dropped in the rest of her life time. And the heifers would soon be dropping more calves.
Â
And wolves can have two litters of pups every year. the first litter could be dropping more litters by the time or shortly after the second litter. It does not take long until they have wiped out the game animals in their area, and then they start looking to domestic animals and even small children. Which eventually could grow to adults. Hunger is the driving force. When game is gone they will move to ranches, farms and eventually cities just as coyotes have.
 @RepomanÂ
Tags could be well worth it as folks will pay big money to hunt a wolf.
Â
Most of the open grazing land is not used for anything. If it weren't for cattle and ranchers no one would be there.
Â
I own land in an area were I never see another car, truck, person for weeks at a time. The only thing I see is F15's play fighting in the sky. When I drive in there the only tracks I see are the tracks I left a year ago.
 @Rosie  @RepomanÂ
Â
And the large herds of elk, deer and antelope should all be shot to prevent any damage to the flora and fauna. Once they are gone the land will be well protected.
Â
i will volunteer to rid the land lf all the elk, deer and antelope.
Â
Were you aware that the number of cattle allowed on public lands is less that the number of elk, deer and antelope?
Â
Oh and don't forget the coyotes that can dig massive holes in the ground going after sage rats and other ground dwelling critters.
 @RalphCramden  @Repoman Ralph - saying that the land isn't used for anything is like saying our national parks aren't used for anything. Those areas are part of a wild ecosystem that houses the plants, animals, and water features that cattle trample over. Introduction of cattle to an area has a profound effect on native flora and fauna, and is very detrimental to the streams, rivers, and other water bodies that they drink from. In areas as dry as eastern Oregon, this is important.
Â
I'm surprised that this subsidy isn't questioned more often, especially in light of the degradation cattle grazing causes on public lands. Unless the full cost of this damage can be quantified and paid for by ranchers, cattle should be kept on private land. It may be cheap for the cattlemen, but that's about it.
@None - Seriously? Wolves don't belong in any western state? So strange, considering they were here long before we were. There's a natural balance. Deer and elk herds have grown exponentially. Wolves thin these herds, eating weak and diseased animals.
Â
It's called natural selection, my friend. Well, unless you believe wolves were introduced to the NW via Noah's Ark. In that case, not much to argue about here.
@Paul Wagner They were in Portland before YOU TO! So, do you want them back there??? Oh no...of course not...thats where YOU live .....you don't want them around you but its ok for the people on the east side............
@rem417 I live in the Portland area and I would love to have them back. It would help solve some of the other problems here. Thining the herd. Sieriuosly, if you choose to live in rural Oregon, you get the preditors along with the prey animals. Quit whining about the very few losses to livestock. It's now part of the cost of doing business.
It's OK ot allow the wolves to decimate the elk herds?? Sure, I agree that cattle destruction invariably contributes to higher beef prices, and protection should be afforded by trimming wolf populations, but at the same time, the states must consider the loss to other wildlife as well. Wolves are slowley changing and upsetting the balance of nature established for over a century. Bleeding heart wolf lovers may try to convince you otherwise, but wolves DO NOT belong in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, or any other Western state.
@None They were here long before you and I were . They were slaughtered because of the greed of cattle ranchers . As for the Elk population , because the wolves are not here to keep the numbers in check , we have hunting seasons. Wolves are a part of the United States , even here in the northwest( hence the name Timber Wolf). Saying otherwise is anignorant , stupid uneducated thing to say. As for the states again wanting to kill the wolves.... the greed of the cattle rancher. As for the balance, we upset the balance by slaughtering the wolves  , Grizzly bears as well, allowing the deer Elk and othe rgame animlas that thet did keeep in check breed out of control. Again requiring Hunting seasons.
Â
 @None Wolves absolutely belong in Western states, to say otherwise is foolish. They were here for thousands of years before we decided to eliminate them from the West. They keep herds healthy by going after the weak and old who are generally easier for them to hunt. Upset the balance of nature? I had to laugh at that, for it is us who "upset" the balance by removing them in the first place. Their numbers are not even in the hundreds yet, and people are already whining. I think cattle ranchers should look into protective measures for their herds such as fences and donkeys (yes that's right) instead of the kill 'em all mentality. Before you call me a "bleeding heart liberal", know that I am a hunter {trask unit usually} and definitely not liberal, I just love and respect wolves as an apex predator.
 @None Actually, the wolves are helping to reestablish balance in nature. The wolves were in those states long before people, and its only because of the shortsightedness of man that they were wiped out. They belong here and have every right to be here. If people in the western states can't adjust, then they should move since the wolves were here first.
Smoke a pack a day.
 @Beergod I disagree. And if I see someone illegally killing wolves, I will report them and assist the authorities to convict and punish the perpetrator.
@Beergod You are an idiot.