By Kate Prengaman of the Yakima Herald-Reupblic
YAKIMA — Unlike the wolves of northeastern Washington whose livestock kills have prompted a public outcry, the small pack in Kittitas County has lived quietly for several years without generating any complaints.
So it shocked many wildlife advocates when one of the Teanaway Pack’s females was found dead of a gunshot wound to the hindquarters in October just north of Lake Cle Elum.
The crime — shooting an endangered species is a federal criminal act — might have gone undiscovered had the wolf not been wearing a GPS collar.
While details are few, authorities assume the wolf was likely shot by someone unhappy with the predators’ return. That’s been the case with three wolves illegally killed in Stevens, Ferry and Whitman counties in the last year.
The dead wolf from the Teanaway Pack was the only documented breeding female in Central Washington, so her death likely represents a step back for recovery of the species, which remains on the state’s endangered list, said Jay Kahne, who works for Conservation Northwest helping ranchers adapt to living with wolves.
Decades after being nearly wiped out in Washington, the wolf population — documented in the 50s and counting — lives primarily in the sparsely populated parts of the state’s northeast region. There, they have created both conflicts with ranchers and prompted calls for additional protections from wildlife advocates.
Observers say that some of the controversy is simply the growing pains of adapting to the wolves’ return. But if more of the population expands west and south as expected, it remains to be seen whether conflicts with livestock will follow or if the successful coexistence seen in the Teanaway can be a model for elsewhere.
In the summer, Sam Kayser runs several hundred cow-calf pairs on public land pastures in the Teanaway area, and although there have been signs and sightings of wolves in the area over the past four years, he said he hasn’t had any kills. For that, he credits both smart management and lucky circumstances.
“My opinion is that I want to coexist with the wolves, I want to believe there is room for all of us out there,” Kayser said.
With financial help from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and Conservation Northwest, he’s hired extra riders to spend more time with the cows grazing in the areas the wolves frequent.
“Their presence just being out there helps the wolves to realize that they don’t like hamburger,” Kayser said. “There’s a large elk herd up there, so they have their natural prey base. I’m fortunate that way.”
Kayser also said he feels badly for ranchers in the northeastern part of the state, where the vast majority of the state’s wolves live. Too many for the area, he believes, which is why some wolves are hunting livestock instead of deer and elk. As of 2013, there were six wolves in the Teanaway Pack, and nearly 40 in 10 packs in the northeast corner of the state.
In August, the state killed the breeding female of the Huckleberry pack northwest of Spokane, after the pack had killed more than 20 sheep in multiple incidents. Previous measures, including human surveillance, guard dogs and nonlethal “hazing” actions such as high powered lights and paint balls, had been ineffective, according to the Fish and Wildlife Department, which said the predation stopped after the wolf was shot.
Jack Field, executive director of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, agrees that wolf density is key to the problems some ranchers are experiencing.
“In Kittitas County, you’ve got a relatively small wolf pack with an overabundance of prey,” Field said. “Up north, you’ve got nine or 10 packs practically on top of each other, and it’s a simple function of population and area.”
In December, the Spokane-based Washington Residents Against Wolves called on the state to release data about wolves’ impact on prey populations and to research the possibility of relocating wolves from their area to other parts of the state.
But Scott Becker, a wolf specialist with the state wildlife department, said the current plan is to let wolves disperse themselves, in part because they won’t necessarily stay where you put them.
“Typically, young wolves in a pack will strike out and disperse and set up a territory and hope to find a mate,” Becker said. “They have an incredible ability to cover a lot of country in a short period of time.”
Moreover, the population is larger in northeastern Washington because wolves are coming into the state from larger populations in the Northern Rockies and Canada, he said. Wolves were not reintroduced to the state by people; they came themselves.
The problem is the Washington that wolves are returning to has changed — there’s more developed areas and more people, which make it harder for wolves to disperse and find suitable new territory across the state.
“We don’t have large blocks of habitat like you might see in Idaho,” Field said. “The point is that we’ll see wolves in Washington, but the likelihood of them persisting without some impact isn’t high. We’re going to have issues and challenges as recolonization occurs.”
Under the state’s recovery plan, developed in 2011, taking the wolf off the state’s endangered species list requires 15 breeding pairs: four in each of three regions — East, North Cascades and South Cascades/Northwest Coast — and three additional pairs anywhere. As of 2013, the Eastern region had three breeding pairs out of 10 packs and the North Cascades region, including Teanaway, had two. The southern Cascades, which includes Yakima County, had none.
Field, who was part of the management planning effort, said the numbers are intended to ensure genetic diversity, but the result was “arbitrary” units that didn’t consider how much habitat and wild prey is available to support wolves. He worries that in the southern region, there aren’t enough deer and elk.
“When we look at sustainability and carrying capacity, we need to remember an important stakeholder: the sportsmen,” Field said. “We have to find a balance that continues to allow hunters to go out and enjoy deer, elk and moose harvest and still have enough for wildlife to be sustained.”
He thinks the 15 pair requirement is too high, but since that’s the goal, he’s hoping the state can get there as soon as possible.
That lack of wolves across the state limits certain management tools, such as a wolf hunting season or allowing ranchers to shoot problematic wolves. It’s counter-intuitive, but having more wolves will actually make it easier for the state to deal with those wolves that cause problems.
Becker, the wildlife biologist, said studies around the West show only about 20 percent of wolf packs try to prey on livestock. It’s difficult to know why, but proximity to livestock is a likely cause, he said.
“The closer they are, the more they see them, the more likely they are to try them out,” Becker said. “But, it also may have to do with the availability of natural prey on the landscape; then wolves may be less likely to test out livestock that may be around.”
The controversy in Washington is similar to other parts of the West, just newer, Becker said.
Field said the key to living with wolves is actually social tolerance.
He said he believes as long as ranchers and hunters feel like the state is listening to their concerns as it moves forward managing wolves, there will be fewer frustrations and fewer wolves illegally shot.
“It’s easier for me to say that than for us to do it, but that’s the challenge ahead of us,” Field said. “The department is reaching out to stakeholders and trying to get the right tools out there.”
The tool that’s worked for Kayser in the Teanaway and other ranchers in Eastern Washington is using range riders to keep an eye on grazing livestock and to deter wolves.
“It’s an age-old practice in Western civilization,” Kahne said. “When predators are back on the scene and you have livestock in rough country, a human presence is very important.”
The range riders, on horseback or off-road vehicle, work cattle the old-fashioned way with the help of modern tools like the GPS data transmitted by collared wolves in the area, to help plan movements to minimize conflict, Kahne said. If wolves approach, nonlethal measures, such as loud noises, are used to scare them off.
Extra supervision seems to be working, since none of the six ranchers he worked with this year had animals killed by wolves. But it doesn’t come cheap — Kahne estimated about $20,000 for the summer grazing season. Despite the financial assistance available from state programs and the conservation group, some are still reluctant to change their practices, Kahne said.
Field said it’s important to allow ranchers to choose the solutions that work best for their operations, but he’s glad to see the success Kayser has had with the range riding.
“The biggest challenge ahead of the department is the ability to get more wolves collared,” Field said. “The more collars we get on wolves, the better it is for everyone.”
Although he hasn’t lost any animals, the wolves have definitely had an impact, Kayser said. He thinks wolves have chased his cows a few times when people weren’t around. A few times, he’s found the animals 10 or 15 miles from their pastures and thinks they were stalked.
“That’s a long way for big fat lazy cows,” Kayser said. “Now, the cows are afraid of the dogs too, they didn’t used to be. That’s makes it more difficult for us, because the dogs save time and money versus having to pay somebody.”
He said he’s willing to adapt to the wolves, but he doesn’t think it’s reasonable for the state to expect the wolf population to be as large as it was 100 years ago, either.
He’s looking to compromise and hopes that’s where the reintroduction ends up, once people get past the growing pains part. Kahne agreed.
“The world has changed and there are wolves here now,” Kahne said. “It’s really about people coming together to solve this. The biggest negative is that it takes people time to get used to it, but farm families and ranch families deserve a chance to figure it out.”