SHOULD WOLVES BE DELISTED?

Most people at a recent USFWS public hearing in Pendleton, Oregon spoke out against a proposal to remove gray wolves from the endangered species list.

PENDLETON — For an animal that's been so thoroughly feared, hated and vilified down through the ages, the wolf never seems to run out of friends.

Plenty of those friends showed up at the Red Lion Hotel in Pendleton Wednesday for a hearing on the proposed removal of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf from the federal endangered species list.

"I visited Yellowstone with my girlfriend not long ago," said a man named Daniel Kruse. "We had the chance to see wolves and listen to them howl for more than four hours. It was beautiful, something I'll never forget. I still have dreams about it."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed delisting wolves in an area that includes all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon and a small part of south-central Utah. The delisting would give states the freedom to implement their own wolf control plans.

The federal agency says that the minimum goal for Northern Rocky Mountain wolves is 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves for three years.

According to the agency, this goal was attained in 2002 and has been exceeded every year since. Officials estimate the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf population to be 1,200.

The wolf population in Eastern Oregon is small and is likely to remain so, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The animals have not been re-introduced in Oregon as they have in central Idaho and northwest Wyoming, and will not be.

Thursday's hearing on the Northern Rocky Mountain delisting proposal was the second this week. Tuesday, testimony was taken in Boise, Idaho.

Though many at the Pendleton meeting spoke against the delisting proposal, people who support it made themselves heard as well.

One of those was Jean Mallory of the Wallowa County Stockgrowers, who said growing numbers of wolves on the Oregon side of the Snake River bode ill for ranchers.

"We're some of the most vulnerable people, and we're concerned about the impact wolves will have on our livelihood," Mallory said. "We're concerned about losses we're seeing in neighboring states."

Still another speaking in favor of the delisting was Herb Brusman, a retired wildlife biologist and packer and guide who said he has written numerous articles about wolves.

"People I've talked to in the Salmon River drainage say they're afraid to let their kids go out and play. Wolves have been killing livestock within sight of the house," he said.

Proving that not every rancher in the West hates wolves, Mark Tipperman, a La Grande attorney who owns a 2,500-acre spread in the Blue Mountains, said he opposes delisting.

"A hundred and sixty years ago, nature was in balance. Then the white man came and disrupted the environment," Tipperman said. "Wolves are essential predators. They keep the elk moving. As for the boogeyman approach — wolves will eat the cows and sheep — that's phooey."

Some people giving testimony said they hope a strong wolf population grows up in Oregon but worry that a strong anti-wolf sentiment in neighboring Idaho will keep that from happening.

"Wolf recovery in Oregon depends on having a strong population in Idaho," said Matthew Fisher of the conservation group Oregon Wild.

Wallowa County resident Wally Sykes expressed the same feeling during a question and answer session preceding the public hearing.

"The Fish and Wildlife Service plans to turn over the main source to a state government that is hostile to wolves. That's against maintaining a strong population," he said.

Officials at the meeting said the Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to gather comments on the delisting proposal until May 9.