Collared: Politics and Personalities in Oregon's Wolf Country

4. Making the Plan

33 Making the Plan The La Grande meeting passed largely without incident. The WAC reviewed its operation guidelines and then received briefings on wolf biology and ecology, the temporary federal strategy for managing wolves in Oregon, and historical wolf issues in the state. Committee members adopted a goal statement and planned a meeting schedule for the coming months. It was decided the committee would meet at various locations around the state both to lessen the travel burden on any individual member and to provide a greater view of the landscape in which wolves would be managed. It wasn’t until the WAC’s February meeting that the novelty and shine of the process really began to show signs of wear. The meeting, held at the ODFW office in Salem, Oregon, focused on species conservation, budget implementation, and preparation for the next two meetings, which would concentrate on the interaction of wolves with other species. Once talks about conservation began, emotions started to get stirred up pretty quickly, said Craig Ely, who in his role as the northeast’s regional manager for the ODFW was required to attend all the meetings. “As we moved further into the process, the members became more and more strident in their stances. By the third meeting their politics were showing.” It became apparent that there had been a fair amount of lobbying and maneuvering behind the nomination process for the committee, said Ely. 34 Making the Plan There were several agendas at the table, and not many remained hidden once a few months had passed.1 It was clear that some of the nominations—the basis upon which committee members had been selected—had contained platitudes, and upon testing there were a fair number of statements and promises that proved disingenuous, said Ely. Despite the state commission’s guidelines that the WAC was not to debate whether wolves should be in the state, the issue kept coming up in conversation. Repeatedly the interests of eastern Oregon counties and cattle ranchers were said to be incompatible with wolves in areas where ranching occurred. The question of why wolves should be welcomed into the region now when the area had done fine without them for more than fifty years was repeatedly asked, and it was suggested that wolves would be the downfall of family ranchers in the state. At the close of the third meeting, Henjum, the ODFW employee who was responsible for actually “putting the pen to paper” and drafting the plan, alerted the group that the next section of the plan to be addressed would relate to wolf interactions with domestic animals and with humans. While all aspects of the plan were important, these were especially hot-button issues, said Henjum. Committee members agreed that prior to the next meeting, in March, they would submit written comments providing insight into their individual interests and potential issues of which other members may not have been aware. “There was substantial tension in the room,” said Henjum, who now works for the US Forest Service in Oregon’s Umatilla Ranger District. “It was clear that there was going to be some conflict, but we needed to be able to find a reasonable and credible middle ground that would meet the needs of stakeholders and the regulating laws.” Fear about what wolves eat and how they hunt was the primary reason behind the extirpation of wolves in the early 1900s. Interactions between wolves and other species, especially prey species, continued to be a primary source of concern voiced by the general public during the fourteen town hall meetings held by the ODFW prior to beginning the formal planning process. It would not be an overstatement to say the management of these Making the Plan 35 interactions would be the predominant factor in the overall success or failure of the conservation and management plan. Given that, it was surprising that only seven of the fourteen committee members submitted their thoughts on the topic prior to the March meeting. Notably absent were comments from representatives of cattle and ranching interests, the eastern Oregon counties, and the wildlife biologists. Comments were received from those representing conservation, education, hunters, the public, and the economy. These fell largely into requests for more information, especially regarding numbers of livestock lost to wolves in states with established populations; discussions related to the responsibility of livestock owners to protect their animals; conflict response should depredation...