Saturday, February 28, 2015

6 years of OR gray #wolf population growth, in one animated GIF






By Kelly House | The Oregonian/OregonLive

on February 28, 2015 










In nearly a decade since wolves first made their return to Oregon, their numbers have reached the critical mass necessary to open up debate over whether the state's population is still in danger of collapse.
The state department of Fish and Wildlife announced earlier this week that there are now 77 known wolves in Oregon, 13 more than at the end of 2013.

An animated .gif created by The Oregonian/OregonLive offers a visual depiction of Oregon's wolf recovery, from 2009 to today.

The vast majority of the state's wolves are clustered in an area bounded by the Snake River to the east, the Columbia River to the north, and Interstate 84 to the south and west. In the past year, OR-7 and his family, plus another lone wolf, have strayed further south and west.

The wolves' continued population growth in 2014 triggered a review of their endangered status.
The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, the governing body that will ultimately decide whether to remove protections, will begin the discussion Friday with a staff report on the annual wolf count. In the coming months, state officials will continue studying the state's wolves to determine whether the population is strong enough to stand on its own. They'll eventually issue their recommendations to the commission.

Throughout the process, the commission is likely to hear strong advocacy both for an against a delisting from environmentalists, outdoor interest groups and ranchers.

Conservationists argue 77 wolves statewide are not enough to constitute a strong, healthy population. Ranchers, on the other hand, note the bulk of the predators live in a small section of the state that also happens to be the heart of Oregon's ranchland. They argue existing protections for wolves prevent ranchers from defending their livestock.

As wolf numbers have grown, the frequency of their run-ins with livestock has generally increased, although last year the number of confirmed killings decreased despite the wolf population's growth.

The Oregonian will continue reporting on the status of Oregon's gray wolves as discussions continue. In the meantime, enjoy the map and post your questions about wolves in the comments.

--Kelly House
--Mark Graves










Indian Tribes, Others Stand Up for #Wolves

February 27, 2015
By Wayne Pacelle
The United Tribes of Michigan (comprising 12 recognized Indian tribes in the northern part of the state) recently adopted a resolution opposing removal of federal protections for wolves and calling on people to recognize the historical and ecological significance of wolves. It’s a message closely aligned with that of The HSUS, and we are glad to stand with these tribes and so many others who live with wolves and don’t want to see them slaughtered for no good reason. In November, Michigan voters trounced two wolf hunting and trapping ballot measures, and explicitly decided not to cede control of hunting and trapping decisions to the Michigan Natural Resources Commission.

Michigan and Wisconsin wildlife agencies have now officially appealed a December 2014 ruling by a U.S. District Court that restored federal protection for wolves. That’s no surprise, since these state agencies prematurely conducted wolf-killing programs and provided a primary impetus for the court’s action with their reckless actions. The killing programs in Minnesota and Wisconsin showed a special ruthlessness and cruelty. Among the hundreds of animals killed for sport this year alone, 60 percent of the animals were killed with the aid of steel-jawed leghold traps. Wisconsin earned the distinction of even allowing hound hunting of wolves – a circumstance that almost invariably led to an animal fighting situation between the wolves and the hunting dogs.

While we believe the American public is decidedly against the sport killing of the small populations of wolves in the Great Lakes and the Northern Rockies, we have tried to offer a constructive solution that bridges the political and cultural divide on the issue. To that end, we recently petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to downlist wolves from endangered to threatened everywhere in the lower 48 states except the Southwest. This will maintain important federal protections for wolves, but it will give the federal government, and therefore the states, more latitude in conducting control programs, including lethal ones, for wolves causing a problem for ranchers or other private property owners.

Unfortunately, several lawmakers, mainly from the wolf range states, want Congress to remove federal protections for wolves. They are seeking to nullify the judicial branch’s careful examination of the unwarranted delisting actions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In short, these lawmakers don’t like the court ruling, so they are trying to overturn it. That’s not the way our system should work, and it’s a threat to every endangered species when Congress, for purely political reasons, takes this sort of heavy-handed approach. The judicial branch is co-equal, not subservient.

We’ll work with the Indian tribes, environmentalists, business owners, scientists, and others in opposing this overreaching action. If the November votes in Michigan are a good indicator of where the public is – and I believe they are – the public is not with these lawmakers and they won’t want anything to do with their killing and cruelty.

The United Tribes of Michigan speaks for so many of us when it declares that “we recognize the wolf has a great significance to our community and has an important place in our culture.”

source

Indirect #wolf losses could fall between repayment cracks

Rocky Wilson
Wallowa County Chieftain
Rocky Wilson/Chieftain Wallowa County Commissioner Susan Roberts with two miles of turbo-fladry on rolls. At best, Roberts says, fladry can slow interaction between wolves and livestock.
 
Reimbursement dollars for wolf losses have been announced and Wallowa County Commissioner Susan Roberts is convinced that at least two local livestock producers will be "irate" by the numbers.

Wallowa County Commissioner Susan Roberts says she expects “two really irate (livestock) producers” will speak their minds when they find out how little federal and state money is being made available to reimburse cattle and sheep raisers in Wallowa, Baker, Union and Umatilla counties for losses attributed to wolves in the past year.

While a total of $3,920 is coming for four wolf depredations in Wallowa County that were confirmed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), payments for most indirect losses apparently won’t be made unless the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) intercedes. Since March 2014 in Wallowa County, indirect losses that should be reimbursable total $33,200, and the figure for Baker County is even higher.

Although much more federal and state money, a maximum of $106,000, is available for proactive investments in non-lethal deterrence measures, livestock producers who put their animals out to pasture and record significantly fewer returns at season’s end — a phenomenon associated with growing wolf numbers — aren’t guaranteed any reimbursement money.

Roberts sent her annual wolf depredation reports for Wallowa County to the ODA last week, and expects a final determination about how that agency will disperse funds in mid-April. Roberts, who declined to name the two producers she believes are being hit hardest by the lack of funding to reimburse indirect wolf kills, was nonetheless animated in describing the predicament they face.
She estimated that maybe nine or more livestock producers in the county have stock in wolf-patrolled territory and have maintained excellent livestock records over at least the past 10 years, qualifying them to seek indirect wolf loss reimbursements. Yet, she says, only three filed for such potential funding in Wallowa County within the last year.

Roberts suggested the other half dozen or so might not wish to share confidential information, especially since monetary reimbursements could be small or nonexistent.

Among the four direct-loss victims due to be reimbursed from the $3,920 total is the Went Operation on Crow Creek, which lost 23 sheep in one wolf attack May 30, two calves in separate incidents in the Chesnimnus area, and one calf near Imnaha.

The funding breakdown for non-lethal measures includes a maximum of $53,000 from the federal government, which will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the state (for each dollar spent), and $40,000 of that total already has been requested by the county to hire range riders during the next 12 months.
In years past, said Roberts, about $15,000 of non-lethal deterrence money went to purchase five miles of turbo-fladry — flapping red plastic flagging with electrical wiring. She said the fladry was only minimally effective in protecting livestock from wolves, however.

She indicates the only way any or all of the $33,200 of indirect wolf losses suffered here, and more elsewhere, could be refunded in 2015 is if the ODA redirects some of the state money it was going to use for the dollar-for-dollar match on the feds’ non-lethal spending.

According to Roberts, indirect livestock losses to wolves are calculated by using herd histories for the previous 10 years, establishing a base percentage of livestock that are brought back in after being turned out for grazing. Thereafter, if the percentage of returning cattle is lower than usual, the producer should be eligible for some reimbursement.

Roberts points out that indirect losses steadily have increased in tandem with the rise of the wolf population here. ODFW’s latest annual wolf population report for Oregon, released Feb. 24, reported a minimum total of 77 wolves in Oregon compared to a minimum total of 14 wolves at the conclusion of 2009.

Roberts says she has conferred with the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association on the issue of funding producers’ indirect losses. She has also spoken with two state legislators and has drafted proposed state legislation that would provide tax credits for the losses. Currently, producers approved for direct loss compensation have the option of receiving tax credits in lieu of cash reimbursements, but no such option is available for indirect losses, which often reflect depredations occurring in remote areas where ODFW confirmation isn’t feasible.

source

WA #wolf bill passes key committee

Don Jenkins
Capital Press
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service A key Washington legislative committee has approved a bill calling for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to rewrite its wolf recovery plan.
Legislation to reopen Washington's wolf recovery plan has won approval from House Appropriations Committee.

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Legislation calling on the Washington Department of Fish an Wildlife to reopen its wolf recovery plan won approval Friday from a key committee in the Democratic-controlled House.

House Bill 2107 received bipartisan support from the Appropriations Committee. Before passing, it was amended to add another layer of environmental review, which could increase the cost and delay when game managers will finish their review.

The bill must still win approval from the full House and survive final budget negotiations.

The vote was a milestone in an effort by northeast Washington representatives to gain acknowledgment in the House that the reintroduction of wolves has harmed their constituents.

The bill would require state game managers to reconsider the recovery plan in light of the fact wolves are concentrated in northeast Washington and attacking livestock. The current recovery plan calls for wolves to remain on the state’s endangered species list until they are more widely dispersed. WDFW estimates the recovery may occur by 2021.

HB 2107’s prime sponsor, Okanogan County Rep. Joel Kretz, proposed reopening the plan to study how to hasten recovery and to consider how conflicts between wolves and livestock can be reduced.

Before approving the bill, the House Appropriations Committee added a provision that would require WDFW to subject any proposed changes to a review under the State Environmental Policy Act.
Previously, the bill exempted wolf plan revisions from SEPA.

WDFW had estimated revising the plan would cost $420,000. Following SEPA may increase the cost, WDFW wolf policy lead Dave Ware said. “It may or may not add much money,” he said.

SEPA also could add time. The bill calls for changes to be made by June 30, 2017. Ware said if required to follow SEPA, the department would want until the end of 2017.

In lobbying for the bill, northeast Washington officials and ranchers told lawmakers it was important for the state to act soon.

source

#Wolf of the Day


Luna, Snowfall 
Luna, Snowfall by Bikeman476 
 

Friday, February 27, 2015

#Wolves of the Day


IMG_2980.jpg 
Two Wolves by Mark Dumont
 
 

#Wolf Weekly Wrap-Up by @Defenders of Wildlife


Wolves featured, © Montana FWP

Fish and Wildlife Service Reinstates Protections for Wolves in Wyoming and Great Lakes: While Congress pushes bills to delist gray wolves in both Wyoming and the Great Lakes, this week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it would comply with recent rulings from two federal court cases — which overturned delisting rules in both Wyoming and the Great Lakes states – and reinstate Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in both areas. Gray wolves are now officially relisted as endangered in Wisconsin, Michigan, parts of North and South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana. In Minnesota, wolves will be relisted as threated. And in Wyoming, wolves regain their nonessential experimental population status. While these wolves have protection today, all of this could be undermined if Congress succeeds in passing its proposed legislation that would, once again, take protections away from wolves in all these areas, a very likely possibility. As we’ve been saying all along, congressional delisting of wolves in Wyoming and the Great Lakes sets a terrible precedent for congressional meddling with the Endangered Species Act — letting politics trump science in the species listing process. You can help us continue to fight for wolves by sending your own message to Congress today asking them to let science, not politics, determine wolves’ future.

Mexican gray wolf, © ADFG

On The Air: Our Very Own Eva Sargent Airs on Colorado’s “Animal House” Show Tomorrow: If you are in Southern Colorado, tune in tomorrow, February 28, at 8:00 am to hear Defenders’ Eva Sargent featured on AM1300’s “Animal House.” Eva will talk about the state of Mexican gray wolf recovery – not only does Colorado need wolves, but lobos in particular need a home in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. Eva will also discuss how Defenders is engaging elsewhere in the Southwest and Southern Rockies to protect imperiled wildlife. If you are not local, you can listen to the interview later online.

Oregon’s Wolf Population Increases by Thirteen: Oregon’s gray wolf population shows strong signs of recovery according to Oregon’s official wolf population count for 2014 which was released this week. Oregon now has 77 wolves in the state, an increase of 13 animals from the 2013 year end count. The state has also documented nine wolf packs and at least eight breeding pairs. Oregon’s wolf population is determined annually based on verified sightings of wolves, so these numbers represent the minimum wolf population in Oregon. We’re thrilled to see this wolf population continue to grow and expand westward throughout the state. (Recall that Oregon is home to famous OR-7 and his new family “The Rogue Pack” who made headlines this year for moving farther west in the state than any others.) Oregon’s healthy wolf population is no doubt a result of the state’s continued commitment to implementing balanced management policies for the species — unlike state officials in adjacent Idaho who continue to wage a war on wolves.

But, while the population is increasing, this does not automatically mean that wolves in Oregon should be removed from the state Endangered Species Act — a topic currently under review by the state. Because Oregon has maintained at least four breeding pairs for three consecutive years, Oregon has initiated a status review to determine whether wolves should remain listed, and what level of protection they require. Defenders applauds Oregon’s approach to wolf management and we will continue to encourage Oregon’s state officials to conduct a neutral and unbiased status review to assess wolves’ overall population health.

Anti-Wolf Bills Advance in Washington’s Legislature: The Washington state legislature is moving several anti-wolf bills, which if passed will significantly impede recovery of wolves in the state. The first bill would modify the 2011 Washington Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, unnecessarily disrupting wolf restoration efforts. This bill ignores science: if passed, any future changes or amendments made to the state’s wolf management plan could be approved without first undergoing a peer review process or a standard environmental review.

Gray Wolf, © Gary Schultz

The Committee also passed a second bill which calls for regional delisting of wolves under the state Endangered Species Act. This bill enables local politics to have a greater influence on wolf management decisions in Washington than science. Wolves in Washington are just beginning to gain a foothold in the state, and by no means is the species “recovered” based on the best available science. We still have several opportunities to submit amendments or defeat these bills before they are enacted, and keep them from undermining wolf recovery in Washington. We’ll keep you updated on our progress.

Calling All Photographers! Do You Have Good Pics Of Wolves…Or Other Wildlife?! We’ve opened our sixth annual photo contest and are asking you to submit your wildlife photos to us before Monday, March 16, 2015. Submit your best photos of imperiled wildlife (images of captive animals are not eligible) and wild landscapes, and you could win a week-long guided nature photography trip with renowned nature photographer Jess Lee or other prizes. You will also have a chance to see your photos on Defenders web pages, in Defenders, our quarterly publication and in our calendar, annual report and other publications. Check out the rules, regs and FAQs online … and thank you in advance for your photo contribution!

Melanie Gade

, Communications Specialist

Melanie handles press coverage for wildlife in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains as well as Defenders' national work on the Endangered Species Act. 

#Wolf sighting may be a good thing for environment

Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015 
By STEVE ROGERS - Shaw Media Correspondent

By now I’m sure many of you have heard about the gray wolf incident west of town. I’m not going to rehash that particular story, but instead focus on the larger picture. Right away when I heard about that female wolf, I heard just as many rumors about controlling the deer population. Internet articles were ablaze with all sorts of government blasting rhetoric. I’m not going to speculate about any nefarious plans lurking beneath the public eye.

Instead, I prefer to take a look at how interference with natural environments always leads to some sort of cause-effect relationship. Humans have meddled with animal populations since the beginning of our existence on this planet. The wolf, along with numerous other species, has felt our impact at both ends of the spectrum.

Before Europeans colonizing North America, the wolf roamed freely and called pretty much all of this continent home. With colonization came agriculture. This included raising livestock.

Needless to say, wolves can do significant damage to domestic herds. This financial factor, along with the overall reputation as an undesirable predator, led to the almost complete extirpation from many localized areas. The wolf survived by maintaining viable populations throughout Canada and the very northern reaches of the United States. The gray wolf did receive endangered species protection in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan in 1974. In 2003, the wolf was reclassified to threatened in these same regions.

With the near eradication of the wolf, the entire cycle and balance of nature changed. Herds that were normally controlled by natural predation flourished. When these herds expanded, the natural flora in those areas were over utilized and in many cases, severely damaged.

Probably the most famous case of wolves and the idea of re-establishing a viable population occurred in Yellowstone National Park in 1995. The elk population within the park was causing serious issues, including those mentioned above. The idea was to bring in some natural predators to help control the balance.

Fourteen wolves were released in two separate groups in 1995. In 1996, another 17 were introduced to the park. In 2010, there were 10 areas in which wolf populations existed. If you Google the National Park Service and search for wolves in Yellowstone, you actually will find the distribution map along with the names of the packs and their territories. It is quite interesting to look at.

The reintroduction of the wolves have had a major effect on the elk population, which in turn trickles down to other animals and plant species. The natural flora started to return, including willows. Because of this, the population of beavers in the park started to rise.

Another animal that felt the effect was the coyote. Wolves are a natural enemy to coyotes. Before the wolf introduction, the coyote population in the park was massive. The introduction of the larger predator changed that rather quickly. Because of fewer coyotes, the red fox population proceeded to rise. Coyotes are natural enemies for foxes.

The list of effects goes on and on. We could write about it forever. The point is the repercussions of making a single change in an ecosystem can have effects that even the most educated biologists can’t predict. The wolf population in the areas surrounding the National Park have reached sustainable levels, to the point of allowing limited predator hunting of wolves to proceed. To be clear, the hunts cannot take place in the park, but on lands outside of it.

Of course, the reintroduction of the wolves to Yellowstone has plenty of critics. Many say the predators are taking more elk than originally predicted and causing other stresses on the herd as well.
Who knows what will happen? The only thing we do know is as policies change and peoples attitudes and opinions sway, we will continue to try to manipulate Mother Nature. Only time will tell if our tampering will be for the betterment of all living things.

source


Meet Oregon's #wolves: 77 animals, 9 packs, 26 new pups

Published: Feb 25, 2015
Meet Oregon's wolves: 77 animals, 9 packs, 26 new pups
Photo of a young wolf from the Walla Walla Pack taken on Feb 5, 2014. Photo courtesy of ODFW.
EUGENE, Ore. - Oregon's wolf population grew from 64 at the end of 2013 to 77 by the end of 2014, the Oregon Department of Wildlife reports.

The animals attacked more livestock than in 2013, with domestic sheep by far the prey of choice.
And the endangered species established its first pack in the Oregon Cascades since wolves first returned to the state by crossing the Snake River from Idaho.

The findings are part of the annual report on Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management.

The figures will factor in any decision on whether to remove wolves in eastern Oregon from the state's endangered species list.

Wolves west of Highway 395 remain protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The state dispersed more than $150,000 to livestock producers, primarily to support efforts to prevent predation by wolfs. Some of the money compensated producers for lost animals.

Overall, there were fewer incidents of wolf depredations in 2014 than 2013, according to the report. But more animals were lost, due to a high number of sheep killed or injured by wolves.



State biologists tracked 9 documented wolf packs, defined as 4 or more wolves travelilng together in winter. | Map of Known Areas of Wolf Activity



Eight breeding pairs produced 26 known pups. | Graph: Growth of Oregon wolf population


Biologists captured and put tracking collars on 6 wolves. Data was received from 18 wolves throughout the year, which showed 4 of the wolves dispersed elsewhere in Oregon - and 3 left the state.

Meet Oregon's wolves

Imnaha Pack: The Imnaha Pack was first documented in 2009. The packs’ long-time breeding female (OR2) was not with the pack in 2014. In her place a new breeding female produced only one known pup and by year’s end no surviving pups were observed despite multiple observations of the pack. Therefore the pack was not counted as a breeding pair. Two radio-collars (1 GPS, 1 VHF) remained in the pack – OR4 (breeding male) and OR25 (other male). The pack showed a use area of 958 mi2 in 2014 and 26% of the pack’s location data points occurred on private land, a decrease from 32% in 2013. Two depredation incidents were attributed to this pack in 2014.


OR25, a yearling male in the Imnaha Pack, after being radio-collared on May 20, 2014. Photo courtesy of ODFW.

Minam Pack: The Minam Pack was discovered within the Eagle Cap Wilderness in the Minam Unit in June 2012. The pack produced at least three pups that survived to the end of the year and was counted as a breeding pair in 2014. The breeding female (OR20) was GPS-collared in May of 2013 and her data shows the pack using a 352 mi2 area, primarily public lands (89%).


Minam Pack. A 72 pound female wolf of the Minam Pack, after being radio-collared on June 3, 2014.

Mt Emily Pack: This pack was first identified in 2013 in the central portion of the Mt Emily Unit. The breeding male is a radio-collared disperser from the Walla Walla Pack. A subadult female was collared (OR28) in 2014 and her data shows the pack using a 257mi2 area comprising 96% public lands. The pair produced at least four pups that survived to the end of the year and was counted as a breeding pair. Two depredation incidents were attributed to this pack in 2014.


Mt Emily Pack. A 100 lb adult male wolf was GPS radio-collared in the Mt Emily unit on 5/25/2014. Photo courtesy of ODFW.

 Snake River Pack: The Snake River Pack was first discovered in the fall of 2011. The pack was counted as a breeding pair in 2014 with four pups surviving to the end of the year. Two radio-collared subadult wolves were monitored during the year, both dispersing from the pack by spring. The location data showed a pack area of 397 mi2 and 96% use of public lands within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

Umatilla River Pack: First discovered in 2011 in the northern part of the Mt Emily Unit. The pair was counted as a breeding pair for the third year with at least two pups. This pack was responsible for three depredation incidents in 2014. The breeding male and another male are GPS radio-collared and collar data shows the pack using a 153 mi2 area with 87% of locations on private lands, 3% public land and 10% tribal land.

Wenaha Pack: This pack was first discovered in 2008. The pack produced four pups surviving to the end of the year in 2014, thus qualifying as a breeding pair. One female is GPS collared within this pack. In addition to the pack’s traditional area (Wenaha unit), 12% of its locations occurred within the Sled Springs Unit in 2014. The collar data shows the pack using an 870 mi2 area with 85% of location data on public land. Though monitoring data showed a small amount of time (9%) spent in Washington, most of the packs locations, and the den, were in Oregon therefore this pack is counted in Oregon’s wolf population.

Walla Walla Pack: This pack was first discovered in 2011. The pack produced at least four pups that survived to the end of the year and was counted as a breeding pair. Three collared wolves dispersed during the 2012/2013 winter, leaving no radio-collared wolves in the pack during 2014.

Meacham Pack: This newly formed pack was identified in 2014 in the southern portion of the Mt Emily Unit. One incident of depredation was attributed to the Meacham Pack in 2014. The pack produced two pups that survived to the end of the year and is counted as a breeding pair. The packs breeding male (OR26) was GPS-collared in May and his data shows the pack using a 95mi2 area which consists of 82% private land.

Rogue Pack: This new pack was first recognized in 2014 in the southern Cascade Mountains. The packs breeding male (OR7) is collared with a GPS-radio collar, and in 2014 he paired with a female, establishing a territory in the eastern Rogue and western Keno Units. The pair produced three pups that survived to the end of the year and was counted as a breeding pair in 2014. OR7’s location data in 2014 shows the pack area of use at 355mi2, with 82% on public lands.

Other wolves

Catherine Pair: Both wolves, OR24 and OR27, are two year-old GPS-collared wolves from the Snake River (OR24) and Minam (OR27) packs. These wolves dispersed from their natal packs and paired in July of this year. Since that time the pair has been located in the upper elevation forested portions of the Keating and Catherine Creek Units, with most locations occurring within the Eagle Cap Wilderness. The area of use for both wolves is 232mi2 comprising 97% public lands.

Desolation Wolves: In December of 2014 tracks of two wolves were documented in the Desolation Unit (Grant County) by department biologists. Irregular reports of wolf activity have been received over the past year in this general area of National Forest, and department biologists documented two instances of a single wolf in this same area earlier in the year.

Chesnimnus Pair: In November of 2014, OR23 (a female from the Umatilla River Pack) dispersed to the northern portion of the Chesnimnus Unit and later paired with a male wolf. Prior to OR23’s arrival in this area, at least four wolves had been documented in the same area during the summer, and three incidents of depredation were attributed to these wolves. All depredation incidents were prior to OR23 arriving. Collar data shows the new pair using a 380mi2 comprising 75% public lands.

Sled Springs Pair: In October of 2014, OR21 (a radio-collared female form the Wenaha Pack) dispersed to the central portion of the Sled Springs Unit and paired with a male wolf. Location data shows the pair use area at 287mi2, primarily on private lands (92%).

Keno Pair: In December 2014 and January 2015, evidence of a pair of wolves was documented in the western portion of the Keno Unit. It is an area where irregular reports of wolf activity were received over the past year.

South Snake Wolves: Evidence of wolf activity in the south Snake River Unit began as early as August 2014 and information of repeated use of this area (by wolves other than the Snake River Pack or the Imnaha Pack) was later documented in January 2015. Although evidence of at least two wolves was confirmed, little is known of these new wolves at the time of this report.
 

Thursday, February 26, 2015

77 known Oregon gray #wolves made it through 2014

This July 6, 2013 photo shows OR-17, a non-breeding female from the Imnaha pack on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. She is with a pup born in 2013. The 2-year-old female was shot legally March 2, 2014, by a hunter in Idaho about a week after the wolf left Oregon. Another GPS-collared wolf from the Imnaha pack was shot by a hunter in Idaho in 2012. (ODFW/The Associated Press)

By Kelly House
The Oregonian/OregonLive
on February 24, 2015