Sawtooth Valley's Whitehawk Pack has pups and trouble.

Sawtooth Valley's Whitehawk Pack has pups and trouble.
Is progress happening?

Most of pack slated to be killed for killing a cow calf.

June 14, 2001, update June 14, another June 15, evening June 15, afternoon June 16

After the Stanley Pack dispersed last year, it appeared the Sawtooth Valley might have no wolves, but the Whitehawk Pack of 5 soon moved in. One was shot this late winter on the Baker Ranch in the East Fork of the Salmon River, but the remaining 4 stayed out trouble and denned surprising late in the scenic Sawtooth Valley. I understand they have 9 pups, a litter that would quickly restore wolves to the stunning Sawtooth Valley/Sawtooth Range, White Cloud Mountains area.

Unfortunately, thousands of cattle and sheep have now pouring into the valley, which is part of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, an federal reserve created in 1972. Of course, this has been true every year, and each year a handful of sheep and an occasional cow calf has been lost.

Not surprisingly, the Whitehawk recently killed 8 of Bill Brailsford's sheep and a sheep dog. Brailsford was in the news last year as was sheepman Dennis Lehmann who lost more sheep than Brailsford. Lehmann was very cooperative and quickly asked for permission to remove his sheep from the Stanley Pack's range and take them elsewhere. Local wolf supporters helped keep his sheep and the wolves apart until they could be moved. I understand this year Lehmann has been very cooperative and it going to move his sheep straight to their summer area and avoid the Sawtooth Valley.

Some, such as the Boulder/White Clouds Council, have complained that Brailsford was not cooperative. At any rate, Brailsford has asked for lethal control of the wolves.

Last year wildlife supports were very critical of the response of the Sawtooth National Forest and the Sawtooth National Recreation area because the SNARL was created to be different than regular national forest land and wildlife was to have a priority along with scenery and recreation. Livestock were allowed and to be worked in where they didn't not conflict with other values. I know that the Sawtooth national forest received hundreds of emails and the Forest Service has responded. They are also being threatened with a lawsuit by the Western Watersheds Project which might serve to solidify the property emphasis on wildlife.

At any rate, Forest Supervisor Bill LeVere has sent a letter to Brailsford. It follows:

Flying Triangle, Inc.
c/o Bill Brailsford
P. O. Box 180
Hagerman, ID 83332
Dear Mr. Brailsford:
It has been brought to my attention that recent confirmed wolf depredations of eight sheep and one guard dog on the Salmon-Pole-Champion #470 allotment have the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Wildlife Services (WS), and the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) considering control options. Regulations (50 CFR 17.84 (i)) provide for relocation or lethal control, but only after other methods to resolve livestock depredations have been attempted. I have asked those agencies to hold off on relocation or lethal control until I am convinced that all reasonable alternatives have been attempted.
I have made this request for the following reasons. The decision to reintroduce wolves into central Idaho has clearly changed the way we all must do business on our public lands - this includes the FWS, WS, the NPT, and the Forest Service, as well as those who are permitted to graze on these lands. The plan that was put in place for the reintroduction effort was done with full public involvement, and for the most part (in my opinion) was pretty well thought out as to the ramifications of such a program, and in particular its impact on domestic livestock grazing on public lands. Regulations for the establishment and management of the experimental wolf population and management of conflicts with other uses such as livestock grazing have been formally established. I am required to comply with these regulations (50 CFR 17.84).
The regulations cited above provide landowners and livestock producers with several options to prevent or reduce depredation events. When domestic livestock depredations occur, the regulations lay out several options: aversive conditioning (wolf harassment); live trapping of wolves and relocation; and the most extreme - lethal control of problem wolves (50 CFR 17.84(i)3(vii)). It is clear to me that these various options are to be pursued and implemented in an incremental fashion on National Forest System lands. I also believe that where it is possible to move domestic livestock to alternative locations to avoid depredation it is appropriate to do so before relocation or lethal control of wolves is considered. The option of lethal control should be pursued when other options have been attempted, have failed, or are determined to be infeasible.
I do not feel that the opportunities for wolf harassment or moving sheep have been adequately attempted and exhausted in this particular situation, and therefore conclude that trapping and relocation is premature at this point in time. In talking with FWS, WS, NPT, and Forest Service personnel, it is clear to me that aggressive harassment efforts have not yet been fully pursued to deter wolves from depredating your sheep. Please note that the Environmental Impact Statement and decision related to the reintroduction of wolves to central Idaho states: “The ability of individuals holding grazing permits on public land to harass adult wolves in an opportunistic, noninjurious manner will become part of their permit conditions so it is clearly understood exactly what can occur.” (The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves To Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho, FEIS. USDI, FWS. 1994. page xiv.) Livestock producers using public lands in accordance with their grazing permits, may harass wolves in a non-lethal manner. This could include firing guns at or in the vicinity of wolves, increased patrol of perimeters by herders and guard dogs, physically chasing wolves that approach the sheep, etc.
It also is my understanding that the Defenders of Wildlife have offered to provide volunteers to work with you to harrass or haze the wolves away from your sheep. This technique was shown to be somewhat successful last year. I consider it to be the permittee’s responsibility to ensure that aggressive harassment tactics are used before relocation or lethal control options are implemented. In this context I am requiring that you work with the Defenders of Wildlife or others as appropriate to implement these harassment techniques. The FWS, WS, and NPT have also agreed to work with all of us to explore options other than relocation and lethal control of wolves. The Forest Service would be more than willing to facilitate a meeting with all interested parties to explore other options. I realize and appreciate that you and others may not totally agree with the opinions of these outside interests. However, I believe everyone can temporarily set aside their differences in order to do what is best for the wolf reintroduction program as well as continued grazing on public lands.
Your annual operating instructions also identified the possibility that grazing routes could be altered to avoid conflicts with wolves. I feel that immediately moving your sheep away from the wolf rendezvous site is an appropriate and reasonable measure to be taken at this time. Please work with the Area Ranger (or her designee) to determine if this is feasible and if so, you will be required to move your sheep to a different part of your allotment. It is my expectation that you will aggressively pursue these options in order to see if they are an effective control on domestic livestock depredation in your particular situation.
The implementing regulations for the experimental wolf population also identify requirements for disposal of livestock carcasses (50 CFR 17.84(i)3(vii)(B)) and your annual operating instructions provided specific direction requiring burial or removal of carcasses. Camp meat, dog meat, etc. will also be managed as described in your annual operating instructions.
Therefore, I expect that you will immediately initiate more aggressive wolf harassment methods and/or cooperate with other agencies or groups willing to provide this assistance. I am assigning the Area Ranger for the SNRA (or her designee) the responsibility of coordinating and monitoring harassment and other activities in fulfillment of your responsibility. Until I am convinced that you have fully pursued and tested all reasonable wolf harassment and sheep movement options, and they have failed, I will ask the FWS, WS, and the NPT not to implement wolf relocation or lethal control.
I am aware of the impacts this direction places on your grazing operation. I believe that they are essential at this time and this letter provides formal direction requiring your cooperation and compliance. Failure to do so will be considered a violation of part 3 of your term grazing permit. If you do not want to participate in, and aggressively pursue this direction, I will instruct the Area Ranger to suspend your grazing permit in whole for the remainder of the grazing season and require immediate removal of your sheep from National Forest System lands. I believe that following this direction complies fully with the regulations which govern both livestock grazing and management of the experimental wolf population. I also believe that following this direction is in the best interest of the livestock industry and will sustain your opportunities to graze National Forest System lands within the experimental wolf recovery area. If we work together, we can be successful in these efforts.
Sincerely,
/s/ Bill LeVere

It appears progress is probably being made in the SNRA just as it is in the Greater Yellowstone area where livestock predations by wolves has actually declined in recent years despite the growth in wolf population, and is far below the level predicted in the Gray Wolf environmental impact statement issued in 1994 just before the reintroduction.
Update later on June 14: Sometimes a story prompts more information, and I have learned that in the last 24 hours Brailsford has had a complete change of heart. Well that is certainly good news.
I understand the 9 pups weight about 15 pounds and are traveling with the pack.
Update June 15. Bad news. An order is out to kill two of the pack. The Forest Service is improving, but what about the US Fish and Wildlife Service?
The wolves killed a cow calf on private land. If the government kills 2 adults, that will leave just 2 adults to watch the pups and hunt, almost guaranteeing they will hunt small livestock, and not big animals like elk.
This is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service action, NOT a Forest Service decision.
Update June 15 evening: The wolves will be killed tomorrow if possible. Although the government never releases the names of the ranchers, I have learned the name of the rancher, but I am withholding it for the time being, trying to get a comment. It was on this ranch that B69 of the Stanley Pack was control killed on last year, and also where the big silver alpha male of the Stanley Pack was trapped and removed to northern Idaho.
Although I never did a story on it, the alpha male was found dead several months ago of unknown causes.
Update June 16 afternoon: I have been unable to contact the owner of the ranch, Michael Humphreys of Boston, MA. Jim Humphreys, Idaho brother, is the actual manager of the ranch. Don't know if the Boston brother is aware of the situation.
I understand the wolves will be killed Monday after the weekend tourists leave. It is expected the Valley Road (which is a gravel road leaving Idaho 75 about 4 miles south of Obsidian) will be closed so that the killing can't be observed. The wolves are radio-collared and so should be easy to find and gun down.

Email addresses for members of Congress, the media, and other officials.

Return To Maughan Wolf Report Page

Ralph Maughan PO Box 8264, Pocatello, ID 83209