Kill Them or Move Them? Wolf Control Options Weigh on Wildlife Panel
Legislature: Wildlife Experts, Members of the Public Say They Prefer Relocation

OLYMPIA — In a surprising turn, a state panel discussing studies of lethal means to control wolves preying on farm animals and invading humans’ territory found that non-lethal control is a more effective option.

Wildlife experts and members of the public came together at a Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting Friday to discuss wolf removal.

According to the panel, most of the state’s wolf packs are in northeastern Washington, with some in the North Cascades region. The panel was made up of Department of Wildlife experts specializing in wolves, wildlife conflict and carnivores.

Wolves present a challenge for livestock owners. Wolves are reestablishing themselves after being nearly eradicated in the early 1900s, but ranchers and others face the problem of protecting their livestock from wolf predation.

“We need to hone in on our objective. Is it tolerance? Is it to stop depredations forever?” said Donny Martorello, wolf policy lead for the state agency.

The panel went over studies about the culling of wolf populations. The studies were all peer-reviewed, but taken together were not conclusive. The primary focus of Friday’s meeting was on using lethal methods to cull wolf populations, although non-lethal means also were discussed and debated.

Most of the studies examined Friday found non-lethal methods to be more effective than lethal methods at preventing livestock death. Four of the five non-lethal tests had preventive effects, while only two of the seven lethal tests had preventive effects. Two of the lethal tests increased predation.

Non-lethal methods include fladry, which involves hanging flags that flap in the breeze and scare wolves, as well as using guard dogs for livestock.

In some areas the desired effect of culling wolf populations occurred. “Less livestock were killed. In some areas it did not work,” Martorello said. “It drives home the message that there is no perfect solution.”

The department suspended the controversial killing of Profanity Peak wolves in October. That program, aimed at killing a pack of 11 wolves, resulted in the deaths of seven and cost $135,000 before being suspended. The wolves had attacked or killed about 15 cattle.

“Wolves are one of the most studied animals on the planet,” said Scott Becker, state wolf specialist. The large number of recent studies used by the panel supported that statement.

Panel members said their own anecdotal evidence and personal experience also provide important information about wolf populations and control.

The panelists also examined public opinion of wolves and what studies say about perception.

“If one has a positive valuation of wolves, they generally like to focus on the benefits,” Becker said. “If one has a negative value of wolves, they generally focus on those costs.”

Only 61 of 358 Northern Rocky Mountain region wolf packs in the United States — or about 17 percent — were involved in at least one confirmed livestock killing, according to Becker. People are willing to accept some level of conflict with wolves, but 50 to 70 percent of that conflict occurs on private property, which could affect public perceptions.

At the meeting, public comments centered on opposition to lethal methods of wolf removal.

“We spend too much time talking about lethal removal. Could we have a panel on non-lethal control?” asked Melinda Hirsch of Conservation Northwest. “The studies are showing that those are the ones that are effective.”

The meeting will be used by the department’s Wolf Advisory Group to inform future recommendations. The group of landowners, conservationists, hunters and other interests work together to recommend strategies for reducing conflict with wolves.

•••

This story is part of a series of news reports from the Washington State Legislature provided through a reporting internship sponsored by the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association Foundation.

The movie "White fang" sucked in all the greenies and a lot of the general population in thinking Wolves are cute little adorable little creatures/Pets. They have decimated the Elk in Jelly stone.

4 1/2 minutes worth watching about wolves:

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/how-wolves-change-rivers/

I couldn't get any sound?

Sol Duc, You're starting to sound like Rich G. It's quite the contrary. The wolves have had a positive affect on Yellowstone. Including the elk. I think you should do your homework and stay away from Rich G's alternative (possibly Russian) news sites. Do the fvckin home work dude!

I was letting my flag fly one night down in Olympia and a cop told me to zip it up otherwise he'd arrest me for indecent exposure.

Over the next week or so there are meetings to give info on reintroducing Brown Bears to the north cascades, maybe they'll hand out little flags.

If you can read,you might want to read this dumb fck.The heard dropped from 17k to 3900....just a coincidence from the infusion of the Wolf in 1995. The Cougars and Bears have always been there, so don't use that straw man argument.

After decades of debate over whether this range was overgrazed by too many elk, public concern has shifted to the herd’s small size. The winter count, which was approximately 17,000 when wolf reintroduction began in 1995, fell below 10,000 in 2003. It fluctuated between 6,000 and 7,000 as the wolf population on the park’s northern range declined from 94 in 2007 to 79 by the end of 2012. The elk count dropped to 3,915 in early 2013, the lowest since culling ended in the park in the 1960s. However, 4,844 elk were counted in winter 2015 suggesting the decline has stabilized. Decreased numbers have been attributed to large carnivore recovery (wolves, cougars, bears), hunter harvest, and drought-related effects on pregnancy and survival. The State of Montana has reduced the permits issued for this herd so that hunting of females now has little impact on population size.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/elkinfo.htm

I have never understood why this issue is so complicated. As usual both sides of the argument seem over the top. If a rancher has a wolf eating his animals on his land he should be able to shoot it. End of story. The wolves will figure out where they are welcome and where they aren't welcome. Handling predators is part of ranching and they should be allowed to unload on a nuisance animal/pack but only on their land.

One of the reasons for the elk decline was that some geniuses put Lake Trout into Yellowstone Lake. They ate the cutthroat. Like almost all of the them. Escapements (they actually count and trap) went from 50-100K to 50-100. The Laker eradication seems to be working and successful cutthroat recovery is occurring.

But, the lack of trout in the streams forced the bears to find another protein source. Elk calves. They were very good at finding them and eating them.

An aspect the wolves brought in was fear for the elk. Instead of large herds out in the open you had small herds in the trees. This made, among other things, hunting harder. Had to hunt more, rather than scan the plains.

It is a very complex issue, made more so by politics. Most here are probably familiar with the bison/brucellosis issue amongst ranchers. Not a peep from anybody about the reservoir of brucellosis in elk, who leave the park every winter and are much more welcome (perhaps because we sell licenses and get trespass fees for hunting them?)

Read this: YS Lakers

+1. I have probably 50+ trips to YS under my belt. When I was a kid, I used to stand on Fishing Bridge and stare down at the MONSTER Cutties for hours and hours. Just watching and learning their behavior. When I was a teen, I did the same thing - but there were less fish to watch. The last time I was in the park, I went to watch empty water flow under the bridge. The Lakers have decimated the Cutties. There is a zipper lip back-country trail and stream within the park that used to be stupid good for cutties up to 8 - 10 pounds. It was always closed in the spring because Mama Bear and her cubs where busy fishing. Now the Bears have moved on and the trail is open all the time. Remember, Lakers spawn in the fall and Cutties spawn in the spring. So Lakers aren't in the streams when mama bear and her cubs come out of hibernation. They no longer have the incentive to wander small streams eating grass and catching spawning fish.

Because Bears learn by doing, I'm worried that even if all of the Lakers are removed, the Bears may not remember how to fish. They've moved onto spring time Elk and Bison calves. Add in the Wolves and in 15 years, there will be few animals left in the Park (predator prey cycle). It all starts at the bottom of the food chain.

BTW - if anyone is down for killing lots of dandy YS Lakers, let me know. I know some back bays next to deep water drop offs that are INSANE for big Lakers from the float tube. Int. sinking tip, big 5 - 6" black flies and a steady kicking troll is all you need to fill the cooler. And I mean FILL the cooler. Its one of the last great 'no-limit' fish killing spots that I know of. No limit - kill em' all. The Park Rangers will literally cheer you on. I've passed out fish left and right to Rangers and fellow campers. It was the fastest way to some free beers or whiskey. Millions of vistors and NOBODY fishes the lake.

Lakers spawn in the lake. They are never available to bears. As deepwater fish they are also not available to Osprey and White Pelican that nest (or used to) in droves around the lake.

The system also got hit with whirling disease, but the cutties seem to recovering. With the slow growth of those cutts, it will take a while to see the increase in spawners but the Park is working hard to control those Lakers. probably can't eliminate, which means annual netting just to keep treading water.

'Stone in the last 20-30 years has been a marvelous laboratory on ecological connections. Each of the times we have gone we have seen significant changes in vegetation and animal populations.

Plus, the park wolves have crashed at least once. The system is not constant but is very dynamic,

They estimate that for every dead Laker, it saves 41 cutties. Toss in Whirling disease like you mention and the poor Cutties have a steep and long uphill battle.

Being a trout guy, Lakers and Pike are the two fish that I loath more than any other. Colorado's Spinney and 11 Mile used to be Blue Medal / world-class until the Pike moved in. Kill. Em'. All.

Slough Creek.

I hadn't heard about this, I hunt these areas semi-frequently and would like to keep them open, anyway you could fill me in on a way to help.

I had my sound muted the first try..lol........ nice video, it's crazy how wildlife and Earths surface are so intertwined.

Maybe.

I miss the late 80's and early 90's in the Park before the Lakers took over. Red eye outta Colorado. Lob a Golden Stone, Little Black Caddis or Salmonfly (if your timing was right). Lots of 5+ pounders. Drive over to the lake with the float tube and fill the cooler with Lakers in the evening. Perfect.

Spent the summer of 83 flyfishing and hiking yellowstone and the wind rivers. Unreal days on Slough Creek fishing in sight of bears and catching unlimited numbers of 17 - 23' cutts. Even bigger cutts in the lake and river. Was a fun summer!

True dat.

The herd was overpopulated and having an adverse impact on many other animals in the park.

I know that isn't part of your narrative, but declining herd numbers has actually helped many other species that live there.

The cutties really love the willows along the streams now. Getting a bit more difficult to fish as the trees grow but I find that to be a good trade.

It is amazing how quickly the aspen has responded.

As a philosophical question, shouldn't we be removing the surplus from an ecosystem rather than managing the ecosystem to produce a surplus for us alone? I guess I see myself as part of the ecosystem, not the god overseeing it.

I have noticed that a lot of hunters and fishers tend to view the "health" of the natural world in terms of making it easier for them to catch or kill things, rather than in terms of what an actual healthy environment is.

Sometimes I can sense the amazement in wildlife managers that the entire world didn't go extinct in the last 200k years because they weren't here to manage it.

Looks like they arrived just in time...whew.

Fish on...

Todd