Commentary: Wolves are not an economic or
ecologic advantage for the region
By Jean Mallory,
president of Wallowa County Stockgrowers
Amaroq Weiss, Defenders of Wildlife (DW), in
the December 14 edition of The Wallowa
County Chieftain, trots out yet another in a
long line of misleading articles regarding
wolves in Oregon. Continually repeating that
wolves are a certain economic and ecologic
boon does not make it so. It's misleading.
Ranchers, especially those of us in Wallowa
County, believe that the public should have
the whole picture.
Economy
Citing a Montana study that reports millions
of dollars spent by tourists at Yellowstone
National Park in hope of seeing a wolf,
Weiss asserts that wolves will provide
"tremendous economic benefit" through a
"huge tourist draw" in Oregon. Comparing
wolves in Yellowstone National Park to free
roaming wolves in Oregon is, at best,
comparing apples to oranges. It is not clear
from the article how the surveys were done,
or data compiled, to support the claim.
Wolves or no wolves - eco-tourism is a
booming industry. Do these figures take into
account that tourists were probably going to
Yellowstone anyway to experience its other
natural wonders?
In addition, the "wolves will increase
tourism revenue" argument is based on the
concept of "watchable" wildlife. The terrain
in Wallowa County is much different from
Yellowstone National Park. It is highly
unlikely that visitors are going to see any
wolves while driving along our public roads
(increasing, by the way, traffic on roads
that federal agencies do not have funds to
maintain). Will disappointed tourists
continue to provide economic benefit?
And, there is the economic cost of wolves.
Several Wisconsin university professors
compiled "The Negative Impacts to Livestock
Producers Caused by Gray Wolf Harassment of
Livestock. Compensation programs grossly
underpay ranchers for lost animals - only
one in eight cattle killed by wolves are
ever found. Also reported as major costs are
those associated with efforts to mitigate
predation, including night confinement,
improved fencing, early weaning, increased
feeding costs from a loss of grazing areas,
increased disease due to confinement, and
reduced value to the meat.
One of the largest of these costs is the
cost of reduced gain due to the livestock
being harassed by the wolf. Faced with
predators, nervous cattle tend to congregate
and move more. They eat less and expend more
energy. This translates into reduced average
daily gain (ADG) at an estimated half pound
per day. In Wallowa County alone, that would
equal a $1,012,500 per year loss, just due
to calf ADG reduction. This does not include
unbred cows due to lack of bull coverage,
reduced cow condition, death loss, or
injured animals.
The economic question we should be asking
ourselves is: will this promised economic
benefit from wolves provide a significant
increase in revenue to the State of Oregon,
given the decrease in revenue it will
certainly cause to the cattle industry,
which provides $619 million to the state
economy annually?
Ecology
Weiss leans heavily on a research report,
done by the OSU Department of Forestry, on
changes in aspen and cottonwood growth in
Yellowstone, to show that "tremendous
ecological benefits" occur with the presence
of wolves. That study contains only
vegetation data and lacks wolf/elk
interactions data. They only think that the
vegetation change is related to the return
of wolves. Much more work is needed before
this is can be more than someone's opinion.
In personal communication with those in
Idaho dealing with wolves, just the opposite
is occurring. When wolves are in an area,
the cattle and elk are found concentrated in
the riparian areas and increased utilization
is seen. This brings the Yellowstone data
further into question.
What has been the cost to wildlife? Since
wolves were introduced in 1996, elk numbers
have been reduced from a high of 17,000 head
to about 9,500 animals in the Yellowstone
herd. The herd is also notably older, 50
percent of the population is nine or more
years old. Average ages in other Montana elk
populations are generally in the range of
four to five years. An aging herd increases
the likelihood of further collapse of the
numbers. We add to this the high number of
elk calves taken by predators - only 12 to
14 calves per 100 cow elk survive to one
year. Recruitment of about 30 calves per 100
cows is needed to maintain a herd.
Wolf advocates are fond of saying that
wolves only prey on sick and weak animals,
but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
reports indicate that wolves may have an
affinity for bull elk. In one 30-day period,
three packs were recorded to have killed 20
bulls and 11 cows or calves.
All this has negatively impacted the
opportunity of hunters. Antlerless elk
permits for the Yellowstone herd have been
reduced from 2,880 in the year 2000 to 100
in 2006.
Wolf numbers are quadruple what federal
officials said was necessary for biological
recovery, but removal of federal protections
has been delayed by political and legal
squabbles. Idaho governor Butch Otter,
stated on Jan. 11, 2007, that he was going
to push for killing all but 100 wolves in
Idaho when USFWS turns wolf management over
to the state, and that he will be in line to
apply for the first license to shoot one.
What went wrong?
Timm Kaminski, a biologist with the Mountain
Livestock Cooperative, played a key role in
writing the first Northern Rockies Wolf
Recovery Plan for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in 1986. He also worked as the Idaho
Wolf Project Leader for the Nez Perce Tribe
and spent nine years on the Wolf Recovery
Team in the state.
Kaminski states that during the wolf
reintroduction planning process in the late
'80s, officials made some erroneous
assumptions about wolf behavior around
cattle and sheep. For instance, they
believed that most wolf packs would remain
deep in the backcountry of wilderness areas
in regions like Greater Yellowstone and
central Idaho. In reality, most packs moved
out to the boundary areas where there is
grazing.
Early planners also thought that wolves
wouldn't eat livestock as long as they lived
near an abundance of natural prey. "Wrong,
wrong, wrong," Kaminski said. Wolf
predations on livestock have increased
dramatically since 2003, despite early
predictions and control efforts. In the
Greater Yellowstone Area, 20 of 27 packs
that overlapped grazing lands killed
livestock in 2004. Wolf control officials
killed seven packs that year. By 2005, 32
packs killed livestock and officials had to
kill 10 packs. In 2005, government officials
killed 152 wolves, according to Ed Bangs,
who runs the wolf recovery program for USFWS.
That's about 12 percent of the wolf
population. Officials traditionally have
removed about 7 percent of the population
for preying on livestock, but the ratio has
grown as the wolf population has expanded.
"We've got a lot more wolves than we thought
we'd have," Bangs said. "They're spilling
out into livestock country."
But even removing the wolves, either by
killing the animals or relocating them,
rarely solves the problem. Relocated packs
will most likely return to the site or find
new livestock to hunt. On the other hand,
killing a pack often leaves survivors that
infiltrate or start other packs. Eventually,
the packs that absorb these survivors
usually start to kill livestock as well.
Biologists have learned that a wolf that
develops a taste for beef or lamb keeps
coming back. Many of these packs hunt
livestock consistently.
"If you are a producer, you don't get much
rest," Kaminski continued. "Calving season,
for example, is difficult. So is winter."
Human safety
People are not allowed to shoot wolves
nor harm them in any way. The wolf learns
quickly that humans are not a threat and
they gain no respect for them. The D.W.
stated for a long time that there had been
no human attacks in the North American
continent. They now state that, it is "a
very rare event" caused only by wolves with
rabies, wolves acting in self-defense or
were wolves interacting with domestic dogs.
The bottom line is that wolves are killers
that have been imposed on us by the USFWS in
cooperation with groups like D.W. Wolves
threaten the cattle industry and the
cattleman's way of life. Will our livelihood
go the way of the loggers, who say they lost
their livelihood under the talons of the
spotted owl?
The D.W. talks of the value of presence. It
also needs to discuss the loss of freedom by
those that live in the areas where wolves
are present - along with the ability to
work, hike, camp, fish and recreate in the
wilds without the fear of attack. This will
be lost to all.
In Wallowa County, the wilderness and the
canyon lands are probably looked at as prime
places for wolves. Today, the Eagle Cap
Wilderness is nearly devoid of many kinds of
wildlife for much of the year. In the
winter, the snow is too deep, and in the
summer, the cougars have driven most of the
elk and deer much closer to people. As for
the canyons, predators have driven most of
the wildlife out of them in winter. Where
are they? They are on the Zumwalt Prairie,
which is 100 percent private land, and the
surrounding areas, not far from people. This
seasonal use of these remote areas is a
major problem with wolves. As they migrate
to these populated areas, the wolf/human and
the wolf/ livestock interaction will be
highly concentrated. If Wallowa County is to
be an example, then these concentrations
need to be taken into account.
Many groups have supported local ranchers in
their effort to put reason in Oregon wolf
management. Wallowa County passed an
ordinance making it illegal for wolves to be
here and holding USFWS responsible for their
removal. Union County, The Oregon
Association of Counties and the National
Association of Counties passed similar
resolutions.
Wallowa County hosted the biggest town hall
meeting in the state concerning the wolf
plan in Enterprise. Of the 280 or so
attendees, there was only one person who
testified in favor of a planning process for
wolves.
Apparently, the tactic of the environmental
community is to continue to spout propaganda
long enough and loud enough that eventually
a misinformed public will believe it for
truth.
Jean Mallory is the president of Wallowa
County Stockgrowers. |
