SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
We all know the fairy tales of big bad wolves from Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Little Pigs, but how much damage does a real wolf cause in Oregon today? If you talk to Curt Jacobs he'll say a lot. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has confirmed that a wolf (or possibly wolves) were responsible for killing 24 lambs on his property a few weeks ago. As a rancher, his livestock is his livelihood. State law says ranchers can haze a wolf that threatens their property, but anything more drastic could result in a fine of $100,000 and a year in jail. Most environmentalists think that is fair. Ranchers say they need to be able to do more.
Until this week the gray wolf was protected by the federal and state Endangered Species Act, but on May 4th they were delisted at the federal level. This basically means that now they're just protected at the state level, and managed according Oregon's Wolf Management Plan.
But now the Oregon Cattlemen's Association (OCA) is pushing the Oregon Legislature to change the Wolf Plan. They want it to say that a person may "take" a wolf seen "attacking, biting, molesting, chasing, or harassing livestock, herding and guarding animals, working and sporting dogs and family pets." Bill Moore, the president of the OCA says:
Imagine a marauder came onto your property to maim, kill and steal from you; and you couldn't do anything but yell and wave your arms. Our animals are our livelihood, our income. And we need to be able to protect them.
Environmentalists are thrilled gray wolves have returned to Oregon and believe they should be protected. On the Oregon Wild blog Rob Klavins writes:
Ultimately, it is human tolerance that will determine if wolves regain their rightful place in the Oregon landscape, or if we again show that the only animal that kills for fun and wipes out entire species walks on two legs. Those who vilify or deify wolves may lead us to the same destination.
How much protection should wolves have in Oregon? Should ranchers be allowed to kill them to protect their property? If not, what should they be allowed to do? Are you a rancher who is worried about your livestock? What do you want to be able to do? Are you an environmentalist fighting to protect wolves? Why are they important to you?
GUESTS
- Curt Jacobs: rancher who lost 23 lambs as a result of wolf kills
- Bill Moore: President of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association
- Suzanne Stone: Northern Rockies Representative for Defenders of Wildlife
- Russ Morgan: Wolf Coordinator of the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
Tagged as: eastern oregon · ranching · rural-urban divide
Photo credit: Ucumari / Flickr / Creative Commons
-
This is a great point, I think that there is a better solution than just "death to the animals". If the solution is more expensive than I think that is the price we must pay to live in harmony with and respect nature. If society benefits from what the ranchers are producing, we may need to pay a higher price for the products or subsidize the cost of protecting their livestock from predators, through tax dollars.
-
You pose the question -- should ranchers be able to protect their property? Well, what about when their property is on our property?
Grazing on public lands is the epitome of the tragedy of the commons.
Our public lands are owned by all of us - hunters, hikers, city folks, ranchers, doctors, fishermen, and janitors. Not just a small number of cattlemen who profit off our public land.
If it comes down to them, their cows, and a welfare-supported industry vs. the vast majority of landowners (the public) and native wildlife, I vote for the latter. Wolves are more valuable alive than dead - According to a report by the University of Montana wolf related-tourism brings in $70M annually that wouldn't be spent there otherwise. Say nothing of our multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation industry.
As Mr. Sprout said on your show a few weeks ago "no, ranching isn't profitable. But it's what we do." Sounds more like a lifestyle choice than a real industry. His family may have been here since 1860 but wolves, elk, trout, and coyotes have been here a lot longer.
As your questions demomstrate, ranchers have done a good job framing the argument here. They won't show you a picture of a dead gut-shot wolf or post this on OPB, however it did appear on an Idaho website where wolves are now a "game species":
"We need to get the word out to hunters this fall, always aim for the guts untill you see one you want on the wall then go for the vitals on the last one and tag it. The rest will simply run off and become food for the other critters. Together we can ruduce there numbers in a hurry...read the regs. they say you cant kill a wolf doesent say anything about shooting'em"
-
A reply to the above quote that equates wolves to "marauders" . . .
It is common in my rural community for groups of men in the name of entertainment to drink, get high and drive out to uninhabited properties (clear-cuts) adjacent to inhabited properties (such as my own) to shoot random targets, litter, and vandalize property (no matter that there are animals and children just behond the trees that they cannot see). These men are contemporary maurauders, they are dangerous to my family, my animals and my property yet no one in their right mind would give me permission to shoot them, the idea is horrifying.
How can you validate killing an animal who is simply living it's life as it would if you were not there - no intoxicants or vandalization involved?
The comparison does not hold. Rather, it provides an over dramatic reason to kill wild animals for the sake of killing.
It seems that there must be a way to protect the sheep that are in danger. Our very large dogs do a good job of keeping most everything off of our property, is that a possible strategy for protecting the sheep? Otherwise, it seems like a strange choice to continue to ranch sheep in an area where they are vulnerable to predation.
-
Oregon already has a wolf management plan that was already a big compromise by wolf advocates and other stakeholders. To gut it and replace it without even giving it a chance to work the first time wolves kill a couple of sheep is the same knee-jerk "logic" that led us to kill every last wolf in the state in 1946.
There are less than 10 wolves in the state and the first two were shot by poachers. The last thing we need to do is make it easier and legal for wolf haters to kill this very endangered species!
Here's the Oregonian's take.
While wolves are endangered, ranchers will be compensated. Once we have a viable population, the plan allows them to be "managed" including with lethal controls.
Why is OCA crying wolf? OCA's proposed legislation calls wolves a game species. Is that really appropriate when there are less than 10 in the state?
-
Wolves are beautiful animals and important to functioning ecosystems. They’re a native species and have a right to at least re-establish themselves before by being blasted by ranchers.
I sympathize, but we’ve been down this road before – it’s why we killed every last wolf in the 40’s. This is such a heavily subsidized industry (using public lands for private profit is a subsidy) already.
Unlike humans, wolves do a good job at controlling coyote numbers. If ranchers were really concerned about reducing livestock losses, they would welcome wolves back and eliminate domestic dogs – between those two animals they take over 6,000 sheep and cows a year in Oregon. Wolves – 24 lambs and 1 calf in the last 75 years!
The Oregon Wild blog gave some good perspective on the numbers and seemed pretty balanced. Where wolves have recovered, they represent less than 1% of all livestock losses. Seems it’s not wolves that are the problem.To the OCA representative - why should we subsidize and support your industry when you want to kill our wildlife?
-
If it's not too far off subject I'd like to know when wolves are expected to arive in the Mt. Hood National Forest area. I think it would be great for them to be able to return to their native habitat, but as someone who spends time in the area I'd just like to know that they are there.
I agree with wes44 that wolves are beautiful and I would add fasinating animals.
-
A request for perspective shift on two levels . . .
One, to inhibit the drama involved with describing actions of predatory animals - carnivors kill animals to eat, it's nothing new and nothing new to humans. Listen to the desciption of a man gutting a dear or fish and it would sound no different than what I just heard as a description of the killed lambs. I would ask you to inhibit the manipulation of an emotional tug when describing the every day actions of a wolf (any predator) getting nourishment. The drama is provocative not informative. In a charged issue like this the emotional pull feels inappropriate.
Two, I would like to request a shift from the presentation of this kind of charged issue as a polarization of opposites to a broad collection of opinions and choices for action. There are always more than two sides to an issue. After I found myself fuming for hours about the issue, I realized what I want is a forum that presents more than two sides, more than for or against, pro or con, right or wrong.
"Rancher" vs "Environmentalist" - is an old and inacurate plot relying on old and inacurate labels that folks are still eager to draw lines in the sand over. An oppositional forum results in conflict and does not produce resolution or forward movement on an issue. Please let go of this old and ill-fated perspective.
The issue is about grey wolves in Oregon, there are many possible choices to make with many corresponding consequences. Can we shift the discussion to the many choices affecting a broad community and a larger ecosystem rather than an opposition between predators and ranchers or environmentalists and ranchers? Lets grow forward in our thinking and our actions.
I am greatly appreciating the respectful and non emotional discussion, thank you.
-
This is the first killing of livestock by wolves in 75 years (and in the 10 years since they have returned).
In response, OCA has proposed legislation that calls wolves a game species. Is that really appropriate when there are less than 10 in the state?
-
I would like to put in a positive word for guard llamas. There are studies that show that they can be more effective than guard dogs at deterring livestock predation by wild dogs. They aren't a panacea, but they can be an effective part of a protective program. They definitely cut back on coyote predation. They live longer than guard dogs (15-25 years). Unlike dogs, they don't attract wild dogs. Only one is needed, and using more than one on a livestock herd decreases their effectiveness. They alarm call when coyotes and wolves approach the livestock and lead them away from the danger. They can't stand against one than one wolf, but they are effective. FYI...Idaho, Oregon and Washington all use them.
-
Wolves were here first. If humans continue to spread into the wilderness where will wolves live? Haven't we learned we're supposed to live with these creatures instead of exterminate them when we consider that they've become a nuisance?
There was a show on OPB about a "wolf whisperer" who developed an automated "wolf howl" so farmers could protect their livestock non violently. Has that system been considered in Oregon? Is it effective?
-
Since we're doing a comparison of wolves and domestic dogs, let's take a look at these kills.
These were kills for sport, not for food. The number of lambs killed were completely out of proportion to the number of animals (how many sheep and cows per dog relative to the number of sheep and cows per wolf).
I am very much in favor of wolves in the wild, however I also strongly disagree with many current predator management practices. When the predator looses the fear of human presence, they will range in close proximity to humans. This is simply because they have spent centuries learning to make use of opportunity. We need to find effective methods of keeping them wary of human presence. They are very intelligent; if they recognize they can be near humans without repercussions, they will do so. This creates a long-term danger to our children and our children's children. I think the best option would be to allow ranchers to control wolves, however to do so in such a manner that they also need to support habitat or reintroduction of the wolves into the environment.
This could be a specializd tag where the rancher could (without proof of livestock damage) arrange to be the primary control agent. This could be multi-layered, including supply and training of non-lethal supplies (traps and guns, electronic deterrents, etc.). This will also include lethal options, however they would be conisdered only after the rancher has deemed that other options are not realistic (note this is the rancher's decision). They would provide a reasonable portion of the cost. Any animals captured would be relocated sufficiently far away to not pose a recurring threat.
The rancher is primarily a businessman. If the cost of the program is minimal if the population stays fairly solid, however the cost per rancher increases as the wolf population diminishes, the plan would reach a balance that would work for both sides.
-
Regardless of right and wrong; it is painfully obvious where the bulk of the online audience resides.
This quote from today is so true: "Wolves are beautiful animals and important to functioning ecosystems. They’re a native species and have a right to at least re-establish themselves before by being blasted by ranchers."
That said, the irony is that it is also a known fact that the range of the wolf, black bear, cougar, and other native predators included the Willamette Valley and the population centers there in.
Friends, let us then restore 100% of the range of the predators! It is time to reintroduce predators to the Willamette Valley! Let us not stop there let us mandate that the ancient migration corridors through the west hills and fertile bottomlands of the Tualatin, Fanno, Willamette, et al, waterways be immediately restored to their natural state so that the predators food supply can be restored allowing the predators a chance to thrive. You that live there can just adapt, or better yet leave.
You that advocate for, I ask you what if it were your domesticated anamals, dogs, cats, children… self?
I say restore the full range NOW! What is good enough for the distant ranchers is good enough for the cities. -
I agree, if only this were possible! Someday it could happen weither it's in 100 or a few thousand years.
-
We have to get over this notion that an individual problem wolf is somehow too sacred to kill. We do this with other animals all the time, whether swatting a mosquito or poisoning rats and mice, etc. What's the difference other than misdirected anthropomorphism that clouds this issue in almost every forum. Given the ready spread of wolves an individual like this will have little or no effect on the population dynamic of the recovery plan, and in fact may well prevent future wolf deaths if these particular wolves are not allowed to teach their offspring the same behavior.
-
It should not come as a surprise that the wolf issue divides along a line between livestock producers and those who will never wake up one morning to find that wolves have killed their animals.
I heard the comment from Curt Jacobs, who has already faced this reality, when he said that he thinks livestock producers can live with wolves, but not in their backyards. Literally, this is where two young wolves killed 24 lambs that belonged to Jacobs and his wife.
If wolves kill privately owned livestock when they are on public land, it is quite a different issue than when they come on private land.
I really always thought the wolf management plan for Oregon could have been really simple: when wolves are marauding on private land, they're fair game and when they're on public land, they should be protected.
-
A few years ago, I leased bird-hunting rights on a very large tract in E Oregon. On one occasion, our dogs treed a cougar. There were no livestock around, only deer and birds, as we did not hunt on land being actively grazed. Nevertheless, after the rancher learned of this event, the cougar was shot by the next night, and we had been asked to "shoot on sight" the next time, and shoot hawks too. This seemed to be the general attitude of the local community re any predator. I don't think it would be any different if there is permission to deal with wolves by lethal means, especially when nobody is looking.
-
I'd like to recommend a book that discusses the larger issue of the NEED for predators. Here's an excerpt fromm Where the Wild Things Were by William Stolzenburg:
"As the great meat-eating beasts go missing, an emerging cadre of concerned scientists is finding that their absence portends trouble for the biosphere at large."
The sub-title of the book is: Life, Death, and Ecological Wreckage in a Land of Vanishing Predators. I found it interesting, informed and balanced.
-
Question: is the predation seasonal...two thoughts with regard to this:
1. Is it greater in the spring during lambing/birth season?
2. Is it less in the fall, when wild game is more present (as your guest has said)?
If so, can this be a used to help wolf management?
There will always be ranchers at the end of "civilization"-where wolves and ranches meet.
As wolves breed, this will become more of an issue. We don't need to slaughter wolves until they are endangered agin, but we will need to manage the population...just as we need to manage the deer population (which I understand are more plentiful than in pioneer days). Overpopulation by either will lead to disease within both population. In fact...with the right managment, maybe the populations will manage each other.
It seems to me that there should be a reasonable way to solve issues from both extremes and bring this more to middle ground.
By the way, loose domestic dogs are worse o nlivestock than wolves...it doesn't mean that we should let either run out of control.
Jacintha
-
This is another example of urban arrogance and ignorance. Those who give to DOW want to have their untouched “wilderness” and know that wolves are there, yet they like to go out for a big juicy burger or steak– and they want it cheap. Since most people in Portland have no idea of the tough life of a small rancher or farmer in our high desert areas, they see it as just an emotional issue. While not an easy issue, these people who produce REAL wealth to the economy (even while using Public Lands) have so many other impacts and must be compensated fully for any losses.
-
Hello,
The use of a Guard Llama was not really discussed. Iowa State University did a major study on gaurd dogs versus guard llamas and a llama was superior in every way.
With sheep they are the perfect match. They wear the same clothes, eat the same food, and quickly develop a protective bond. They have a wicked kick, and will lower thier neck and plow towards the prey.
Only one is necessary, in fact, if you have two, they don't bond with the sheep. One wether.
Google: guard llamas.
We had one protect our goats in a cayote prone area. They are perfect for the task.
Kathryn Owen
-
This is just one example of an opportunity for urban communities to put their money where their values are, and re-establish the urban rural social contract. Ecosystem service markets could be one tool that would enable folks to contribute to the values that private rural land managers provide: wildlife habitat, water quality, green space, etc....
-
On the "East vs West" divide. I come from family who ranched in Central Oregon, - Ashwood. My grandfather whose father homesteaded the land in the 1800's made a point of NOT killing animals he wasn't hunting for food (well, other than rattle snakes I guess) because he understood that nature kept it's own balance. He knew that "private property" is an invented notion that has meaning only for the people that live there but plants and native animals species don't give a hoot about divisions of private property, they live their lives as they best live there lives and to quote a friend it's best to "give it a good leave it alone".
There are many from the east who are interested in a compassionate and informed way of living in support of healthy eco-systems.
-
One issue that is rarely considered in this debate is the questionalble need for "ranches." I know that people in this profession or business will not like to hear this, but the regular eating of meat as the basis of a human diet will need to be re-evaluated, and our meat-eating habits changed. Over the decades, many studies have been done, and indisputable facts (that have resulted from those studies) have been published in books, journals, and newspaper. These facts reveal two big negatives concerning meat-eating (and raising). Eating less meat or even becoming a vegetarian will have an enormous impact on (1)the health of the individual and (2)of the planet. You do the research, as I don't have the time or space to reiterate these facts. But it is true that human health and the health of the environment will increase greatly if we could but diminish or relinquish the habit of eating cattle. At that point the wolf issue will no longer be an issue. I think that cattle ranchers need to figure out a different profession, just as through history certain jobs have become obsolete as needs dictated.
-
I appreciate your comment, and certainly I agree with the need for respectful management of the planet. However, there are those of us who cannot become vegetarian. Both I and my brother tried, and we did so correctly. My brother was successful for 5 years, and his diet led to health problems that necessitated his adding flesh back to his diet. There are plenty of studies that show that flesh (to distinguish from meat-beef) can be a healthful part of the diet. Just as genetics influence many other characteristics in life, they probably also influence diet.
Cattle are only part of the issue, and I don't think they are as much an issue with predation. Sheep are a much easier catch. Sheep are raised as much, or more so, for their fleece. It is a renewable resource, and they are much gentler on the environment than cattle. Most alternatives to wool have as much, or more, impact on the environment (i.e. cotton, man-made fibers from waste-they generate waste themselves). Wool (and other animal fibers such as alpaca) have some unique properties (warmth and duability) that other fibers just don't (cotton, hemp and flax). Some of these animals are also raised for companionship.
Ranching is not obsolete, but the focus on particular animals may change. Even if we could get rid of ranching, there will always be issues with wildlife by the very ways we live our lives. We have many vulnerable populations that can be food to predators in the wrong place at the wrong time (including our children, dogs, cats). There will always be "renegade" wildlife that have learned that "civilized" food is "easy" food. This happens not only with wolves, but also coyotes, pumas, bears and alligators. It is a casualty of our modern lifestyle. If we go to raising more plants, we will be struggling with herbivores. We need to coexist with wildlife, and that includes responsible stewardship...on both sides of the issue.
-
Distinguishing between urban dweller and rural rancher is name calling and not related to solving the problem with fair compromise. The point is this: wolves used to be here and are we going to allow them to be here again? If we are, how are we going to change our habits and desires to accomodate them? Who will pay for the changes? How can we work this deal out so it benefits ranchers, wild animals and the ecosystem in general? Name calling is divisive and won't help us solve problems.
-
Hi Kathryn,
One addition to your comment about guard llamas. You have to be careful about using a gelding. They need to be gelded young (~18 mos., younger is harmful to growth), so that they haven't developed any "breeding" behaviors. Geldings shouldn't have any residual "stud" behavior. There are geldings that remember "what girls are for", and they are capable of completing the act (unlike neutered males of other species). They can smother and kill livestock. We've had a few cases of this here in WA, although there are many more geldings that do just fine with livestock. The "breeding behavior" is more true of males gelded late (I've seen this...I have a 15 yo who regularly "shows" off for my females-needless to say, I house my geldings separate from my females). Get a gelding that is tested or proven with livestock. Believe it or not, there are many proven guardian geldings who are looking for good homes. As more people are breeding llamas, females have become more available to guard. There are many that should not be bred that are excellent guardians, too...and are also looking for good homes. There are many active llama rescue programs throughout WA and OR who have experience placing guardian llamas with wonderful results. I bet there are in ID, too. You can get a good one for not much money. It is a good synergistic solution.
FYI... I don't breed or sell llamas, but am networked enough into the llama community to be aware of this. I don't regularly rescue and adopt out llamas, but I have personally placed two females with livestock with success. In fact, some llamas are happier with livestock than with other llamas. Both of the girls I placed didn't get along with my herd, and are blissfully happy with their charges.
-
"But now the Oregon Cattlemen's Association (OCA) is pushing the Oregon Legislature to change the Wolf Plan. They want it to say that a person may "take" a wolf seen "attacking, biting, molesting, chasing, or harassing livestock, herding and guarding animals, working and sporting dogs and family pets." Bill Moore, the president of the OCA says:
Imagine a marauder came onto your property to maim, kill and steal from you; and you couldn't do anything but yell and wave your arms. Our animals are our livelihood, our income. And we need to be able to protect them."
This would be a good idea to apply to outdoor domestic cats caught hunting songbirds and small wildlife. Cats are devastating them.
-
Comments are now closed.
I write to offer a voice in support of protection. Predatory species are vital to the health of native ecosystems. I hear the frustration of the rancher whose income is based on producing an artificial, non-native and honogenious population of animals whose young are possilly ideal targets for local predators.
My question would be did you not understand the risks of ranching on land where predators are common? Consider the original populations of the area, it was much more likely the predators than it was the homesteaders, farmers, and ranchers. (I come from a Central Oregon ranching family so I can say this) It makes me think of the logic of sending a child into a candy store to study and somehow expecting the child to concentrate on history and not on the chocolate on the shelves around her.
To expect predators in their native habitat to not act as predators is problematic logic. Their predation helps moderate an important balance of wild animal populations, yet if given a simple and easy non wild or native target, why should they distinquish?
It's often the case in Oregon that predators are killed simply because there is a false or overly dramatized fear that they pose a danger to animals or people (consider most cases of wildcat observations and the associated unwarrented hysteria). In most cases, the fear is not valid yet it provides permission for individuals to kill an animal for sport derriving an aggressive sense of power over his environment.
May we please evolve beyond the need to kill animals (which we do not use for nurishment or products) to establish a sense of power and control in the world. Let's call it what it is, barbaric, and just say no more.
A vote for moving beyond barbarism,
Shannon