Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Ranchers, Wolves, and The Externalization of Costs

Ranchers, Wolves and the Externalization of Costs

George Wuerthner

We continuously hear the livestock industry talking about “problem” wolves—those animals that attack untended livestock. Yet the real issue is “problem ranchers” who externalize one of the costs of doing business—namely operating a livestock operation in a manner that reduces or eliminates predator opportunity.

To make an analogy think of how we used to let polluting industries use our rivers as open sewers, often resulting in fish kills and polluted waters that were unfit for swimming and domestic water use. Thankfully, we passed legislation that made many of these industries internalize the cost of production by making it illegal to dump pollutants in our waterways.

Thus far, however, we have not applied the same legal requirements upon ranchers who have successfully transferred one of the legitimate business costs of livestock production—namely animal husbandry practices that result in a reduction of predator opportunity—on to the public at large, and on to the backs of predators.

For several hundred years, livestock producers have enjoyed a largely predator-free landscape. Typically they had the public fund their war on predators. Starting with the Massachusetts Bay Colony that in 1630 put a bounty on wolves, livestock producers have succeeded in getting others to pay to exterminate predators. The eradication of wolves from the landscape continued with settlement of the West. In 1843 one of the very first political action by Oregon settlers was creation a tax on all citizens, not to pay for things like roads or schools, but rather a wolf bounty. Similarly, some 80,730 wolves were killed in Montana for taxpayer-funded bounty between 1883 and 1918.

The common assumption was that what was good for ranchers was good for society as a whole, much as the old saw suggested that what was good for General Motors was a benefit to the country as a whole. At least that is how the livestock industry has successfully sold the idea that taxpayers should subsidize their business operations.

When bounties did not completely eliminate predators like wolves, the livestock industry successfully lobbied to have the federal government (you know the hated feds) create the Biological Survey in 1914. At its height of predator control efforts, the Biological Survey had more than 200 agents hired whose chief duty was to track down and kill the last predators, including extirpation of wolves from national parks like Yellowstone.

Today ranchers continue to enjoy taxpayer funded federal predator control. This federal subsidy has allowed the West’s welfare ranchers to avoid one of the costs of production—namely practicing good animal husbandry practices that reduce predator opportunities and losses. Indeed, the livestock industry has externalized this cost on to the public at large and grown so used to federal predator control that they now consider a predator free environment a “right”.

Keeping in mind that most predators routinely avoid preying on livestock even when there are numerous opportunities to do so, it behooves ranchers to implement practices that can and do reduce livestock losses to predators. However nearly all these practices require some additional time and effort by livestock operators—thus translates into additional costs for ranchers. It is well established that predators like wolves often get their first taste of domestic livestock by feeding on a carcass. Thus rapid and proper deposal of dead animals greatly reduces the likelihood of future predation losses. A study in Europe found that failure to remove carcasses increased the chances for future depredation by 55 times.

Another study of wolf predation on domestic sheep in the French Alps found that confining and/or simply gathering sheep at night in the presence of 5 livestock-guarding dogs prevented most kills (94% and 79%, respectively) that would have occurred in similar conditions but with free-ranging sheep.

These are only a few of the practices that greatly reduce predator opportunity and thus the presumed “need” for predator control. It’s clear that it’s possible to run livestock with fewer predator losses if proper animal husbandry practices are implemented.

However, since ranchers have convinced the public, including far too many environmental organizations, that they have a “right” to a predator free existence, the livestock industry has no incentive to change its ways. Instead livestock are routinely placed out in distance pastures with little or no oversight and supervision for months at a time, providing predators an easy meal. When ranchers treat their animals with such a caviler attitude who can blame a predator for being tempted by a beef or lamb dinner?

Payment for livestock losses as was done until recently by Defenders of Wildlife while it may mollify some rancher opposition, only legitimizes the idea that ranchers have a right to be compensated for losses that result from their own poor animal husbandry practices. This is not much different than the government practice of providing “disaster relief” to people who unwisely build homes in a flood plain of a river, then demand the government assist them after a flood destroys their home. Such “disasters” are easily avoided, just as most predator losses are avoidable if ranchers were forced to utilize proper animal husbandry practices.

However, animal husbandry is not the only way that livestock producers are to blame for many of their own problems. Ironically, predator control, as well as sport hunting as advocated by state wildlife agencies, often leads to greater livestock losses by disrupting predator social ecology of predators.

A study by Hayes and Harestad found evidence that packs experiencing control and/or hunting had higher mortality rates as a direct consequence of reductions, thus pack sizes are smaller, home ranges were less stable and occupied at variable times, and more young are produced in the population. Wolf populations dominated by younger animals with less stable territories are far more likely to attack domestic livestock.

Younger animals may breed earlier, and in exploited populations produce more young. Young growing pups consume more biomass (meat) than adults, creating a greater need to obtain food. Typically in exploited populations, pack size is smaller, with only the breeding adults to raise pups, putting greater pressure on adults to obtain easily available meat. Plus young pups reduce the mobility of the pack, limiting the area where adults can seek prey. Thus predator control and indiscriminate hunting puts increased pressure on the few adults to obtain meat, often by attacking livestock.

The effects of lethal control and/or hunting on pack stability can lead to social disruptions and loss of territory. A study, which pooled data on 148 breeding wolf packs, showed that the loss of adult breeders (from any causes including natural mortality) often leads to the dissolution of the pack and loss of pack territory, and/or limited breeding in the following season. For instance, in 47 of 123 cases (38.2%), groups dissolved and abandoned their territories after breeder loss. Of dissolved groups, territorial wolves became reestablished in 25 cases (53.2%), and in an additional 10 cases (21.3%) neighboring wolves’ usurped vacant territories.

Thus any increases in mortality caused by human hunting and/or lethal control may disrupt social interactions between packs, and lead to the loss of social/cultural knowledge including knowledge of prey habitat use, migration routes, and so forth that long time residency by family lineages may provide. Again this increases the chances that wolves will turn to livestock as a food source.

While almost no one would begrudge the occasional and surgical elimination of a chronic livestock killer, the indiscriminate killing of predators as part of a systematic predator control program and/or as a consequence of sport hunting, only exacerbates conflicts between livestock producers and predators.

Finally, there are the indirect effects upon wolf prey created by the mere presence of domestic livestock. There is no free lunch. When the bulk of forage in any given area is allotted to domestic livestock, there is less plant production to support elk, deer, and other wolf prey. On many public lands, the vast majority of all forage is consumed by domestic livestock, leaving far less of the forage pie for wild herbivores like elk, deer, and pronghorn. Even in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which harbors the greatest concentration of wild ungulates (deer, elk, etc.) in the United States, the majority of all forage on public lands is allotted to domestic animals.

Many studies have demonstrated that wild animals tend to avoid domestic livestock. Thus when cattle and sheep are moved on to public rangelands, the wild ungulates move elsewhere. If, for instance, there were a wolf pack denned in that area, the wolves are left with little to eat in the immediate area of the den other than domestic livestock—again creating a conflict that would not occur in the absence of domestic livestock.

Ironically while hunters and state wildlife agencies lobby to kill more wolves, they totally ignore that fact that domestic livestock grazing in effect “gets” more elk and deer by displacing them from favorable terrain and/or eating forage that would otherwise support far larger ungulate populations than are ever killed by predators.

In the end, the best way to reduce human conflicts with predators as well as realize the ecological benefits associated with having top predators widely distributed across the landscape is to require better animal husbandry practices from livestock producers, and to eliminate the predator control and/or sport hunting that disrupts predator social ecology. It’s time that livestock producers are forced to internalize one of their real production costs which in turn would mean slightly higher costs for consumers who ultimately should bear any additional costs of producing livestock without placing the burden upon predators and/or a landscape denied the positive influences of large predators.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Tester Response Poor Strategy

Tester’s Response Poor Strategy

In my discussions with some environmental advocates relative to Senator Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation legislation (FJRA), I get the sense that many feel lucky to have any wilderness legislation before Congress. It is easy to understand how one could get such an outlook since there hasn’t been new wilderness legislation passed in Montana in decades. The main problem for Montana has been getting someone to sponsor wilderness legislation and in that regard Senator Tester is the first Montana politicians to do so in many years. But does that mean wilderness supporters must accept anything proposed that may have long term environmental harm and/or unintended political consequences as a “cost of doing business”?

Wilderness advocates often forget that Senator Tester and the timber industry need the wilderness advocates more than the wilderness advocates need either the timber industry or Senator Tester.

Passage of wilderness legislation is not unique. Year in and year out, whether Washington D.C. is dominated by Republicans or Democrats, wilderness legislation is passed. Even such Presidents who were largely hostile to environmental protection like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush signed wilderness legislation. It is really a mundane and routine process—so long as one does not deviate from the traditional rules and guidelines of the Wilderness Act. Thus passage of legislation for new wilderness areas in Montana is not really in doubt so long as the proponents do not try to modify the terms of wilderness designation. If Senator Tester wanted to pass wilderness legislation, there is no doubt he could.

On the other hand, changing the terms for logging on public lands is far more difficult to enact into law. The mandated logging quotas, changes in NEPA requirements, and other terms of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA) that would hasten destructive logging of our national forests is far more difficult to pass—because as much as Senator Tester and the timber proponents hate to admit it, these are national lands, and thus not totally subject to the whims of Montana politicians and industry. In fact, no logging quotas were ever passed through the normal legislative process. The only successful and temporary increases in logging were added on as sneaky last minute “riders” to other must pass legislation. They never had the political support to pass on their own merits.

If Senator Tester and the timber industry really want to enact legislation that will expedite logging of Montana’s national forests, they are the ones that have an uphill battle. In fact, they could not even have a chance of passing such legislation without at least the tacit support of Montana’s and Nation’s environmental community. It is the wilderness proponents who hold the cards for passage of any legislation that will change the laws and regulations regarding how logging occurs on national forest lands.

Additionally, the only reason the timber industry is anxious to deal at all is that groups like the Alliance for Wild Rockies, Wild West Institute and other organizations have successfully challenged illegal and irresponsible logging proposals by the Forest Service. Without such pressure, the timber industry would have no reason to support legislative relief at all. It is the big legal stick environmentalists carry that has gotten the attention of the timber industry. And the only way the timber industry can seek relief is by having Senator Tester bend or modify the laws that surround management on public lands.

Some political strategists believe that the only way that wilderness legislation will be enacted in Montana is on the back of industry subsidies. It is reasonable to come to this conclusion since when polled about whether Montanans favor environmental protection or jobs, their response is captured by the famous quip “it’s the economy stupid”.

A number of national, regional and state wide wilderness advocacy group professionals have told me they are worried that if Tester’s bill passes, it will become the new “norm” so that the only way a wilderness bill will be successful is if it is packaged as a resource giveaway to some industry.

They also fear some of the precedents in the Tester bill such as allowing ranchers to use ATVS in wilderness that might further erode the integrity of the Wilderness Act if widely adopted. Wilderness advocates in states with a lot of BLM lands grazed by livestock are particularly worried about such precedent setting aspects of FJRA. Many of these wilderness advocates see Tester’s legislation through the lens of a national constituency. They all support the changes to Tester’s bill advocated by the Senate Energy Committee draft released a few weeks ago.

Without the wilderness components of his bill, Tester’s proposed changes to public lands forestry practices would never even get a hearing; much less have chance for passage. Tester needs the political cover and “feel good” benefits provided by the support of the environmental community to pass his pro logging legislation.

An honest appraisal of the public lands affected by Tester’s bill would demonstrate that the public does not need to log these lands. They are biologically marginal lands that cannot be sustainably logged. Logging these lands is only feasible by externalizing the environmental harm and with the addition of government subsidies. Given its low productivity, it’s not coincidental that the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF) always loses taxpayer money on its timber sales. Even the relatively more productive Kootenai National Forest is a money loser since the best and most accessible timber was logged long ago.

At the same time, the highest and best use of these public lands isn’t timber production, but protection of watersheds, wildlife, scenery, and wildlands. Why should anyone rationally support degrading what are national treasures to get back something as mundane as a 2 x 4 that we either get elsewhere at less costs and/or better yet, learn to reduce our needs so that logging these nationally significant lands isn’t necessary at all.

Every benefit ascribed to logging can be achieved much more efficiently and at less cost by other means—if they are necessary at all. Far too often logging prescriptions are solutions to manufactured problems. For instance, if one truly wanted to reduce fire hazard to communities, one would demand that citizen’s fire proof their homes instead of trying to fireproof the forest. County commissioners must stop approving subdivisions in the fire plain self-creating the hazardous conditions they later whine to the federal government to relieve.

If watershed restoration is the goal, one can remove culverts and close roads without logging, especially since new logging will create additional harm to watersheds that in turn will have to be remediated. Even the creation of jobs could be accomplished without new logging as watershed restoration (road closures, etc.), prescribed burns, and other land management actions would create employment opportunities and likely at far lower cost than the proposed logging subsidies in Tester’s bill.

Senator Tester current strategy of dead on arrival is politically foolish. If instead of being obstinate, he could accept the Senate Energy Committee recommendations and still declare victory. If he needs to save face, he can resort to the tried and true Montana tradition of blaming eastern “elitists” for forcing him to accept some compromises on logging. After all eastern elitists have done this kind of chicanery many times before; shoving down the throats of Montanans such unpopular things as Yellowstone Park, Glacier Park, and even national forests.

The energy committee recommendations still permit logging, and have some other provisions favorable to the industry—though without a mandated quota and loss of regulatory environmental checks. Tester could take credit for creation of jobs in rural Montana while creating the first new wilderness in decades. That would still be a pretty good accomplishment for a first time Senator.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Rockies need more wolves

Despite the dire predictions from hunter advocacy groups that wolves are “destroying” elk herds, the real problem for Montana and other western states is not that wolves eat too many elk; rather the problem is that they do not eat enough.
Ecological role
Top predators like wolves, among other things, can reduce populations of elk, deer and moose. Rather than view this as a problem as state wildlife agencies are prone to do, a reduction in ungulates is a good thing for ecosystems. Fewer elk, for instance, can give favored food items like aspen and willows more time to grow beyond the browsing level of elk and deer.
More aspen and willows can mean more songbirds and more riparian vegetation, which in turn can reduce flooding and create more fish habitat. Top predators, by limiting other meso predators such as coyotes, can influence survival of other species — for instance pronghorn fawns appear to have higher survival where wolves have reduced coyote numbers.
Predators can also limit the spread of brucellosis, chronic wasting disease and other diseases, provide carrion for salvagers, and increase the “wildness” and alertness of prey species. Wolves perform and promote all these ecological services for free.
Social disruption
We hear all the time from hunters that “we need to manage predators like other wildlife.” But this ignores the fact that predators are not like other wildlife. Top predators are intricately linked by social behavior that is disrupted when hunters and/or ranchers indiscriminately kill significant numbers of them, increasing conflicts with humans.
Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that indiscriminate killing of wolves, cougars, and bears skews the age structure toward younger animals that are less skillful hunters and more likely to kill easy prey like livestock and/or display other bold behavior. Plus, a predator population dominated by young animals is more likely to produce a higher percentage of young that survive—which in turn have high demands for food—likely leading to high ungulate predation. In reality the best way to manage predators to reduce
conflicts is not to kill them at all.
Financial conflicts
Despite the growing evidence that hunting actually has the opposite effect of stated goals of reducing human/predator conflicts, state wildlife agencies are increasing, rather than limiting indiscriminate killing of predators. Why? It’s easy to explain if you understand how agencies are funded. State wildlife agencies depend on hunter license sales to fund their operations; they are not going to jeopardize their funding and growth by promoting predators.
Self-fulfilling management agenda
Agencies exploit the increase in conflicts (that is a direct consequence of their decision to hunt predators) to demonstrate a “need” for more predator control. So we get a self-fulfilling situation where agencies increase the killing of predators, which in turn beget more predators that are socially disrupted and more likely to be creating conflicts with humans, thus fueling more demands to kill predators.
Agencies do little to promote and/or require non-lethal measures that could reduce conflicts with livestock operations (for instance prompt removal of dead animals, requiring use of calving and lambing sheds, and guard animals, etc.) because in reality, they want an excuse to kill wolves and other predators to reduce predation pressures on ungulates as a way to appease hunters.
Stop the killing
The only solution that will ensure reasonable consideration of predator ecological role and the public’s right to see and experience predators is to take away the direct agency conflicts and ban the hunting of top predators. California did just this with cougars. Despite ominous warnings that unhunted cougars would devastate elk and deer, California continues to enjoy not only plenty of deer and elk, but also abundant cougar. Every year some cougars are killed by wildlife officials, but such killing is done surgically to remove individual animals that may have grown too bold, not to appease hunters.
Similarly, in Minnesota where hunting of wolves is still illegal, deer herds and deer hunting continue to thrive. Despite the presence of more than 3,500 wolves there are nearly a million deer in Minnesota. To put this into perspective, 3,500 is more twice the number of wolves that exists in all three Rocky Mountain states which collectively are four times as large as Minnesota. It is clear that wolves and other predators are not going to “destroy” hunting opportunity — though they may at times in some places significantly reduce ungulate numbers — which is exactly what they should be doing.

Collaboration in Testers bill has predictable outcome

Collaboration in Tester’s bill has predictable outcome

By George Wuerthner, 6-17-10

Senator Tester's legislation would mandate even more logging on the already heavily logged Kootenai National Forest.

Collaboration vs Negotiation 6-16-2010

Polite conservationists leave no mark upon the Earth except scars that could have been prevented had they stood their ground.

David Brower

There is a real difference between negotiation and collaboration. In negotication one tries to get the best deal for one’s position or goal. In collaboration, those participating generally adopt the least controversial and least disruptive policies. In collboration all points of views are considered to be equally valid. But that is not the case in conservation. The goal of the timber industry to expand profits is not necessarily in the public interest, and/or have the same value as fighting to prevent the extinction of a grizzly or loss of a wild roadless land to development. When dealing with public resources, collaboration almost always means private industry gets to keep or increase access to public resources. And that is exactly what we have seen as the outcome of the collaborative process that has led to Senator Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation bill.

Collaboration is not a level playing field. Membership in such cooperative committees always includes individuals with a direct financial conflict of interest and those who have already indicated that they are willing to compromise away public resources for a positive outcome. Such collaborative processes are corrupting, not only to those who have a direct financial stake in the outcome, but also any other members of the collaborative group. We can see this corruption in the “collaborative” process that created the legislation being promoted by Senator Tester. Well-meaning and dedicated environmental groups participated in this collaboration adopted a bill that has a direct financial benefit to private businesses interests, degrades public forests, and compromises/ and restricts public participation in the management of public forests.

I do not want to imply that those who supported this legislation are unethical or had malicious intent. Rather they are caught up in a process that had a predictable outcome.

The corrupting effect was even more apparent in the past few weeks when it was revealed that a discussion draft conference committee revision of Senator Jon Testers’ Forest Jobs and Recreation bill provided better protection for Montana’s forest lands.

The draft legislation eliminates many of the worse aspects of Senator Tester’s bill including a mandated logging of 10,000 acres a year. The draft proposal would provide greater protection to old growth and large trees, eliminated a shortened time frame for NEPA documentation, as well as things that are in direct conflict with the Wilderness Act like allowing ranchers to use motorized access in the proposed Snowcrest Wilderness and helicopter landings in the Highlands proposed wilderness. What pro- wilderness and public interest group would not support such changes?

Well, the answer is abundantly clear—not the MWA, TU or NWF. In newspaper articles across the state, these organizations said they wanted mandated logging of Montana’s forests, and they would not support a bill that did not include the timber giveaways and subsidies to the timber industry. Is this what one expects from organizations that profess to work in the public interest and for wildlands?

Hearing these organizations continued misguided support for logging and taxpayer subsidies for a few private corporations, I can’t help but think that they are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome. Like Patty Hearst, these environmental organizations have been captured by their former foes.

Such an outcome is not an uncommon result of “collaborative” efforts. A good example of this corruption of the public interest to benefit private industry is the Quincy Library Group in California. Here local environmental activists joined with timber industry to craft a plan that called for logging up to 60,000 acres of the Plumas National Forest annually in exchange for protection of some old growth trees and small roadless areas. Like the Tester legislation, the Quincy proposal was hailed as an example of how collaboration had achieved a resolution to a long-standing stalemate.

However, other environmentalists, including the Wilderness Society, Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, and Sierra Club among others did not support more logging on the Plumas NF and they railed against the Quincy Library Group proposal. Environmental members of the Quincy group soon joined the timber industry in denouncing the anti-corporate giveaway activists.

We don’t know whether Senator Tester’s bill will pass Congress, or whether the logging mandates will remain. One thing is certain, had the environmental organizations involved used negotiation rather than collaboration they might have received more support from many hard core wilderness supporters, and perhaps even some grudging respect from the timber industry as well without jeopardizing their ability to further wilderness protection in Montana. Because they have adopted the timber industry’s position and propaganda, these groups feel compelled to support Tester’s logging legislation or risk their credibility with the timber industry. I think, given the circumstances, these are legitimate concerns, however one of their own making.

What happens in collaborative efforts is that everyone has a stake in declaring victory—to make attending all those meetings worthwhile—so one is willing to accept the lowest common denominator. So they are reluctant to walk away from an agreement—and we see this with Tester’s legislation.

What these groups failed to understand is that one doesn’t have to give up one’s core values to negotiate with other interest groups. A good example of this is the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) who obtained protective legislation for Steens Mountain in eastern Oregon.

When the proposal to create a Steens Mountain National Monument in eastern Oregon was being negotiated by Oregon Natural Desert Association, there was a lot of discussion between ranchers, county commissioners, and ONDA. ONDA was working with Greg Walden, a conservative Republican Congressman who had no love for wilderness. How did they get wilderness with a Republican especially when ONDA has always opposed grazing on public lands?

First, ONDA remained very up front that their goal was to end grazing--and they were not afraid to tell the ranchers, the Congressman, or anyone else that if they had an opportunity to eliminate grazing, they would go for it. Indeed, one of the things they negotiated successfully in the Steen Mountain legislation was the first legislated cow-free wilderness. Since they were clear in expressing that their chief goal was to protect wilderness and eliminate grazing, no one, including the local ranchers had any misgivings about their motives.

The ranchers went into the negotiations with their eyes wide open. They knew where ONDA stood on matters. They did not think ONDA lied or deceived them when they continue to lobby to remove cows from public lands, not only on Steens, but also throughout Eastern Oregon.

However, ONDA’s goal of livestock removal didn’t keep them from working with the ranchers either. By negotiation ranchers got some things they wanted too. They were able to consolidate their private lands by land exchanges with the BLM. Some received permit buyouts, and left the business altogether, but with a golden parachute. With these negotiations, the ranchers had some control over where wilderness designations occurred.

ONDA never let the fact that they were negotiating with the ranchers keep them from continuing to file law suits to thwart grazing, While the ranchers involved understood this because ONDA was very clear from the beginning that they were always opposed to grazing on public lands.

Furthermore, by keeping pressure up on ranching interests through appeals, law suits and other measures, ONDA created an environment where ranchers felt it was in their best interests to negotiate. This is a lesson that MWA, TU, and NWF appear to misunderstand. Without the legal appeals and law suits from groups like the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Center for Biodiversity, and others, the timber industry would have no interest in collaborating at all.

So for the purposes of Steens Mountain legislation, both parties worked to get legislation that was mutually beneficial. However, negotiation did not mean ONDA had to become a ranching industry advocate.

ONDA never diluted their message. They continued to educate the public about the damage done by livestock grazing to the public lands and wildlife. They never compromised their message to appease the ranchers they were working with to garner legislation. You won’t hear ONDA suggesting that a economically marginal industry like ranching is critical to the economies of rural Oregon like MWA, TU, and NWF misinformed claims about the economic role of a dying timber industry in Montana. You won’t hear ONDA parroting the livestock industry propaganda that grazing will reduce fires or improve the health of rangelands like the MWA, TU and NWF have asserted that logging will do for forests in Montana.

In the case of the Steens Mountain legislation, ONDA and the ranchers were being practical. ONDA worked with the ranchers because it furthered their goal of getting a cow free wilderness as well as other things like wild and scenic river designation, a mineral withdrawal and other conservation benefits.

Since the Steens legislation, ONDA has negotiated with ranchers in the eastern Republican House District for two more cow-free BLM wilderness areas. In fact, they have yet another bill introduced into Congress this session that will establish two more new wildernesses. They have done this without compromising their position on livestock grazing on public lands.

Had the MWA, NWF, and TU clearly stated from the beginning that their goal was to garner the best outcome for Montana’s public forests (as opposed to the best outcome for private industry) they would not now have to feel like they were betraying their partners if they openly supported this draft bill and/or any other legislation that may come out of the legislative process that eliminated the mandated logging quota and other subsidies to the timber industry.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

We need wolves to be wolves

If the published comments and quotes of David Allen of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) are accurate reflections of his attitudes (and I don’t know that they are), one might get the impression that the only reason hunters and anglers helped to recover elk and deer populations was to enable them to claim all future elk and deer as their private property to shoot and consume. Allen even used a bit of hyperbole to declare the restoration of wolves to the Rockies as “one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th Century.”

RMEF and other prominent pro hunting organizations are demanding that wolves be “managed” so they will have little effect upon elk numbers which hunters’ desire. This is not to suggest that wolves cannot influence ungulate numbers. Thankfully they can. Nor am I worried that wolves will go extinct if managed. But I do worry that wolves may not be permitted to exert their top down ecological footprint upon the land if they are managed to minimize their influence upon ungulate populations.

Here’s the rub. If wolves are going to have an ecological influence upon prey species like elk, they will occasionally reduce elk and other prey numbers in some places at some time. Ungulate population will often stabilize at lower numbers. Other times they will--over time--rise again. But far too many hunters are impatient. They remember the “good old days” when they could blast elk without much effort.

RMEF President David Allen likes to make the point that since wolves were introduced into Yellowstone National Park in 1995, elk numbers have declined from the high point of 19,000 to 6,000-7000 animals. Yet he does not acknowledge readily that elk declined in Yellowstone for many reasons—and wolves are only one factor. Drought, other predators like bears, and even hunting outside the park have all contributed to this decline. Nor does he mention that many considered 19,000 elk to be far too many for the park ecosystems, and unsustainable at that level.

The fear among many hunters is that the few well documented declines in elk numbers reported here and there will become the norm everywhere unless wolves are actively controlled. There is good reason to believe this will not be the case. It’s important to point out that the vast majority of elk herds are holding their own in spite of the presence of wolves. Indeed, many elk hunting units in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have populations that are at and/or above agency objectives despite the presence of wolves and other predators. But there is no doubt that wolves can affect prey numbers and occasionally cause them to decline.

But that is a good thing. Among the changes in Yellowstone attributed to wolf predation that many feel are positive—riparian areas are sprouting new growth. Stems of aspen have seen a reduction in elk browsing and subsequent higher proportion of aspen surviving to become mature boles. Beaver have responded to the increase in willows and aspen and are recolonizing areas where they have not been seen in decades. So as to emphasize the last point, this February I watched a beaver gathering willow at the confluence of the Lamar River and Soda Butte Creek in the park—a place where no beaver has been seen for decades. The presence of wolves has led to a reduction in coyotes. Since coyotes are the main predator on pronghorn fawns, the reduction in coyotes has led to more pronghorn.Wolves also produce carrion throughout the year that supports many scavenger species. Some ecologists have even suggested that extra carrion may help counter somewhat the effects of warmer winters due to climate change (in the past harsh winters killed many more elk and created a lot of carrion). These positive changes and more could only occur if wolves are left to “manage” their own numbers.

Unfortunately, most hunters are single minded about what is important and ecological integrity takes a backseat to “getting their elk.” Not only are elk numbers lower in some areas, but research has shown that elk appear to be more alert and wary, and are moving around more than in the past. All of these changes mean it is more difficult to get “your” elk in some parts of the West these days.

I think some hunters resent wolves, bears, cougars and other predators because predators are competition and make them look incompetent. Far too many hunters are out of shape, and lack real hunting skills. They may know how to shoot a rifle, and can debate the merits of various rifle calibers, but that is different from knowing how to hunt. And when you have wolves and other predators on the land, you have to be a good hunter, in shape, and ever alert to be consistently successful.

Predators may challenge some hunter’s self image as “manly men.”

I certainly know exceptions to the above statement about hunters. They spend lots of time studying wildlife. They are willing and able to walk all day, day after day for an opportunity to engage with elk and other prey. These hunters are willing to share the land with wolves and other predators. If you asked them, they would say that the presence of wolves enhances their entire outdoor experience whether they actually kill an elk or not. For many it is more exciting to cross a wolf track than a track of an elk. They put ecosystem integrity and the integrity of the wildlife first and foremost. Unfortunately I fear they are in the minority of self identified hunter/conservationists.

I do not want to diminish the contribution that the RMEF and many other hunting and angling organizations have made to wildlife habitat acquisition that benefit all wildlife species. Over the years hunters have contributed many millions towards acquisition of wildlife habitat. Yet such contributions do not give anyone greater “rights” to public wildlife. And the majority of the public wants wolves back on the land, and they want wolves to be wolves, not some emasculated version of their former self. The main value of wolves is their ecological footprint—how they influence ungulate populations. A few token wolves here and there will not be enough to sustain this ecological influence.

If the restoration of wolves to the Rockies is really “one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th Century” as David Allen suggests, I believe we need a lot more of these disasters across the country.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Early Wildlife Observations in Oregon




One of the goals of biodiversity preservation is to maintain or restore native species in something approaching their natural distribution and numbers. Historical accounts can provide some insights into preexisting conditions. Using early journal entries from Oregon Territory it appears that a number of species once abundant have significantly declined in numbers or suffered local extirpation. The notion that wildlife was equally abundant and well distributed prior to Euro-American exploration may be also inaccurate. This review presents the major historical references to wildlife occurrence in the Pacific Northwest prior to extensive Euro-American settlement.

Key Words: Historic, wildlife, Oregon.

One of the goals of biodiversity preservation is to maintain native species in something approximating their natural distribution and numbers (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). The historic biogeography of a region can be an immense aid in restoration ecology efforts, or at least providing insights into how much or how little a region has been changed due to human manipulation or other factors (Cronon 1983, Kay 1990, Davis 1982, Schullery and Whitlesey 1992, Vale 1975). Such records are useful tools that can be employed as an environmental "barometer" to measure landscape and wildlife changes over time.

Many factors affect animal and plant distribution. Long term climatic change is a potent force in changing biogeographical distribution (Despain 1990, Romme and Turner 1991, Whitlock 1993). But in the western United States, perhaps the biggest single factor in changing species distribution today is human modification of the environment. It may be incorrect, however, to assume that indigenous people had no influence effect upon the natural landscape (Cronon 1983, Johannessen et al. 1971, Kay 1990, Ray 1975), thus represented some "pristine" steady-state situation.

To minimize the influence of Euro-American settlement and exploitation upon wildlife populations and distribution, I choose to review only first hand accounts recorded prior to 1843, the year of the first major mass immigration to Oregon by way of the Oregon Trail. Although there were as many as several hundred non-Indians, primarily retired traders and trappers of the Hudson's Bay Company may have already been living in the region by 1840, their direct influence upon wildlife was concentrated in a few locations such as the Fort Vancouver area in Washington and Oregon's Willamette Valley by present-day Oregon City.


There are several risks associated with use of historical records (Forman and Russell 1983). The first is to assume that early historical accounts represented a "pristine" environment. Even before the first Euro-American explorers set foot into Oregon, the influence of white contact was already in place. Indians of eastern Oregon, for example, had obtained the horse as early as the 1700's. This provided greater mobility and changes in trade patterns, and resource exploitation. There is evidence that suggests that bison were wiped out of southern Idaho largely due to Indian predation pressure by 1840 (Urness 1989) as a result of improved hunting efficiency after the acquisition of the horse and firearms. Even technologically primitive people had the capability to extirpate regional wildlife populations.

In addition, trade opportunities, in part provided by Euro-American markets may have also introduced European diseases to formerly isolated Indian groups. This may have countered, however, the effects of Indian predation, creating large regions where major game species were virtually unhunted.

Many Indian tribes contracted diseases from the first Euro-Americans to travel the coasts of the Pacific Northwest, and through trade networks and warfare, transmitted these diseases to other indigenous people throughout the region. In many instances, these diseases had a devastating effect upon Indian populations.

For example, Thomas Farnham (1843) who traveled to Oregon in 1839 noted how disease had wiped out thousands of people. In traveling down the Columbia River he noted numerous elevated burial platforms. "These mountains are used by the Chenooks as a burial places. During the epidemic fever of 1832, which almost swept this portion of the Columbia Valley of its inhabitants, vast numbers of the dead were place among them. ...Thousands of these were seen."

Similarly, John Kirk Townsend (1839) traveled down the Columbia River in 1834 and noted how disease had ravaged the native population. "A disease of a very fatal character is prevalent among these Indians; many of them have died of it, even some of those in the neighborhood of the fort, where medical assistance was always at hand."

Human influences work dynamically with climate, and other influences, so one can't freeze the situation, nor recreate past assemblages of plants and animals. Even the earliest recorded wildlife observations may have been points of transition.

The room for individual bias in reporting is obvious. The interests of each of these groups affected what they noted about wildlife. As might be expected, trappers were concerned about fur-bearing animals and food resources more than anything else. They might note if they saw elk and deer, but ignore non-food bird species. Early naturalists like Douglas and Townsend, on the other hand, might describe the common birds and small mammals observed.

Temporal and spatial scales are also important. The season of travel often influenced what would be recorded or seen. For example, Lewis and Clark failed to note grizzly bears in western Oregon, and even the number of black bears recorded as observed by them was small in number. However, the only observations they made in western Oregon was during the winter of 1805-1806, a time when bears would be in hibernation (Burroughs 1961, Coues 1893). Similarly, waterfowl were abundant in the Willamette Valley in winter, but nearly absence in the summer when they move further north to nest. Thus summertime travelers might fail to record the occurrence of waterfowl that a winter traveler would almost certainly note. And many big game animals like elk and deer made seasonal migrations from winter lowlands to subalpine feeding grounds and may have been absence or scarce during the summer in the lowlands where many expeditions traveled.

The route traveled may also influence wildlife observations. In the early days of exploration, the Columbia River, and its major tributary the Willamette, were both important travel corridors. These rivers are navigable by canoe with minor portages. These rivers were also important population centers for the region's native people, in part, due to the abundance of salmon and other fish that regularly ascended these streams. Since most of the early Euro-American travelers to the region were traders, trappers, missionaries or government expeditions, all gravitated towards the Indian settlements and primary travel routes. Thus, the preponderance of observations were made along these major travel corridors. This could introduce another bias into the accounts since heavy exploitation of wildlife along these routes by native people as well as travelers may significantly reduce wildlife numbers. For instance, members of the Lewis and Clark (Coues 1893) expedition during their return trek across Montana's Gallatin Valley in 1806 noted the absence of bison. Their guides suggested that recent hunting by Indians likely drove the animals from the region.

Finally, if animals are relatively common, people often don't bother to note them. Who today would bother to record that there were cars in a parking lot unless one expected the lot to be empty or full.

As Schullery and Whittlesey (1992) have stated, the absence of wildlife observations does not necessarily mean that it was not present or even abundant.


Most of the early historical accounts come from five different groups of Euro-Americans. There are exploratory military expeditions like the 1806 Lewis and Clark expedition and Lt. Charles Wilkes 1841 military reconnaissance.

Fur trappers and traders were another major source of early historical observations. Although a number of fur companies vied for domination of the lucrative Pacific Northwest trade, the Hudson Bay's Company eventually came to control the region. The company's major trading post, Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River, became a focal point for travelers and traders from throughout the Northwest, particularly from the 1820's through the 1850's. From bases on the Columbia River, traders and trappers including Peter Skene Ogden, John Work, Gabriel Franchere, and Alexander Ross provide journal entries spanning the years from 1811 to the 1830's. All of these observations were made prior to significant white settlement that began in the 1840's. Their journals provide detailed observations of early wildlife abundance and distribution.

At the same time that the fur traders were mapping out the Northwest, a few early naturalists also traveled through the region. These include botanist David Douglas who spent the years 1824-1827 collecting plants throughout the region, and John Kirk Townsend who journeyed overland from St. Louis, Missouri to the mouth of the Columbia in 1835-1836.

Beginning in the mid-1830's, a third group of observers entered the region. These were missionaries like Gustavus Hines and Samuel Parker. Their observations were made about 1835 and slightly later. Again this was prior to the mass migration of settlers on the Oregon Trail.

Finally, starting in 1839 and accelerating every year there after, homesteaders such as Thomas Farnham who arrived in Oregon in 1839, and Lansford Hastings who cross the country in 1842, were members of wagon trains that crossed the continent on the Oregon Trail. These settlers also recorded their impressions of wildlife occurrence and abundance.

One problem with such a review, of course, is that geographic place names are largely non-existent. Except for outstanding natural landmarks such as Willamette Falls on the Willamette River or Celilo Falls on the Columbia River, or estimates of distance traveled from reference points like Fort Vancouver, it was often difficult to determine the exact location for any journal entry.

Some generalizations are possible. Eastern Oregon and adjacent parts of Idaho seemed to have uneven wildlife distribution. Some parties almost starved while traveling through this region (Ogden 1909, Ross 1849) while others found game abundant, particularly in southern Idaho where bison were occasionally encountered.

The Columbia River was a major travel corridor. It also had a large native population that subsisted primarily on salmon. Most travelers did not find game particularly abundant along the river corridor. Whether this was due to a lack of game or because it was easier to procure fresh and dried salmon from the Indians, and therefore few whites pursued game, is difficult to determine.


Since vegetation and habitat determines to some extent what wildlife may be present, a quick review of early historical accounts of the landscape is useful.

Of all regions in the Pacific Northwest, the overwhelming majority of travelers thought Oregon's Willamette Valley was a rich and bountiful land. Over and over again, trappers, and settlers commented upon the beauty of the valley and the abundance of good soil, as well as wildlife.

For example, in February of 1814, Astorian Gabriel Franchere traveled up the Willamette Valley and was one of the first whites to leave a record. Franchere (1967) wrote: "I found it a superb river as I traveled up it. It is, in fact, one of the most beautiful of all the rivers that flow into the Columbia. From the confluence to a falls of considerable size, (present day Oregon City), the country is, in truth, low and marshy; but at the falls the banks begin to rise on either side, and above it they offer the happiest and most picturesque of views, laid bare of trees in several places and rising gradually in the form an amphitheater. Deer and elk are to be found there in great number."

Alexander Ross, a contemporary of Franchere, describes (Ross 1849) the Willemette which he calls the Wallamitte. "The Wallamitte quarter has always been considered by the whites as the garden of the Columbia, particularly in an agricultural point of view."

Lansford Hastings (1845) who traveled overland to Oregon in 1842 described the Willamette Valley favorably. "This river and its tributaries, water one of the most fertile and delightful regions in all Oregon. From its source to its mouth, a distance of about three hundred miles, it passes alternately through high mountains and hills, undulating, rich plains, and fertile and beautiful valleys."

In November of 1835 Samuel Parker, a missionary recently arrived in Oregon from the East, describes his first impressions of the Willamette Valley. "...the country around contains fine tracts of rich prairie, sufficiently interspersed with woods for all the purposes of fuel, fencing and lumber." Near McKays settlement, a hamlet located upstream of Willamette Falls (by present day Oregon City) consisting of twenty or so retired Hudson Bay Company families which has about twenty families, Parker described the Willamette Valley as "...well diversified with woods and prairies, the soil is rich and sufficiently dry for cultivation and at the same well watered with small streams and springs. " He comments upon the horses he saw "fattering upon the fresh luxuriant grass of the prairies."

In August of 1840, Gustavus Hines, along with Jason Lee, and several another missionary traveled up the Willamette Valley. Hines describes the Willamette Valley as "beautifully diversified with rising grounds, varying from the gentle undulation to the majestic hills, fertile valleys..."

Later Hines described the valley near a river they called the Santa Am's Fork (Santiam). Hines (1851) says his horses "cropped the wild grass of the prairie around us." On August 19, 1840, Hines says they camped "the centre of a large prairie." Later he comments that "The prairies had been all overrun with fire a short time previous, and it was with difficulty that we could find sufficient feed for our horses."

Comments such as Hines would seem to confirm what later researchers have prostrated: that much of the Willamette Valley was open prairie. A number of authors contend (Habeck 1962, Johannessen et al. 1971, Bowen 1974, Towle 1978) that Indian-ignited and natural fires helped to maintain the Willamette Valley and other major valleys like the Umpqua and Rogue as an open prairie with oak savannas.

These burned areas would green up and regrow with the rains that came each fall and winter. Hence, they provided a rich and nutritious food resource for grazing animals like geese, and elk. The fires also helped to maintain the dominance of oaks which are otherwise replaced by Douglas fir, bigleaf maple, and other species. Acorns from oaks, for example, were an important food resource for everything from bear to deer.

Eastern Oregon looked much as it does now with grasslands, sagebrush, and pines. Traveling in the Harney Lake Basin near present-day Burns, Peter Skene Ogden (1909) noted "All of the country is low and bare of wood except worm wood (sagebrush) and brush. We had trouble finding wood to cook supper."


Most wildlife observations were generalized summaries of the region's wildlife occurrence, rather than specific references to particular observations. Nevertheless, they do provide a view of early traveler's overall impressions of the wildlife abundance. The following are representative summaries.

Gabriel Franchere (1967) was a member of the 1811 Astorian party sent by sea to the Columbia River. Franchere's party set up a trading post called Fort Astoria. In his journal, Franchere notes "The principal quadrupeds are the elk, the black-tailed deer, the red deer (whitetail), and four species of bear, distinguished especially the color of their fur--to wit: black, brown, gray, and white. The gray bear is extremely ferocious and is flesh-eating; the white bear lives along the seashore to the north. The wolf, panther, lynx, a species of marmot, prairie dog (prairie dogs are not found in Oregon and this must be a reference to ground squirrels), wood rat, mink, beaver, otter and sea otter are also to be found.

In May of 1811, Franchere traveling with Indian guides and a few others from the ship proceeded upstream. Franchere commented (1967): "We then passed the Willamette River, above which the tide ceases to be felt. Our guide informed us that up this river about a day's journey there was a larger waterfall (by present day Oregon City) and beyond it the country abounded in beaver, otter, deer, and other wild animals."

On October 1, 1812 Franchere left Astoria on a food gathering expedition to procure supplies for the winter by trading with the natives and hunting. He says "We found game very abundant, killed a great quantity of swans, plovers, ducks, and so forth, and returned to Astoria on the 20th with a part of our venison, 750 smoked salmon, and 450 beaver skins" (Franchere 1967).

Thomas Farnham (1843), who traveled to Oregon by wagon train in 1839 says of animals observed that "Of wild animals , these are the white tailed, black tailed, jumping and moose deer; the elk; red and black and grey wolve; the black, brown, and grisley bear; the mountain sheep; black, white, red and mixed foxes; beaver, lynxes, martin, otters minks, muskrats, wolverine, marmot, ermines, woodrates, and the small curled-tailed short eared dog."

Lansford Hastings (1845) who traveled to Oregon with one of the first wagon trails on the Oregon Trail described general wildlife abundant in Oregon as follows: "The game of the western section is more abundant (than in the east and middle sections of Oregon Territory which at this time extended into present-day Idaho) yet it can not be said to be very plentiful, even in this section. It consists principally of elk, antelope, deer, wolves, bear, foxes, martens, muskrate, beavers, otters and seals."

Though wildlife may have been abundant in some areas, there were areas with few animals sighted. Many early travelers mentioned periods of hardship, even starvation. In 1811, Franchere states that his party had difficulty obtaining fresh meat from the Indians and said " they were obliged to trade with the Indians for dry venison. Salmon and elk were considered delicacies".

Lieutenant Wilkes traveled the length of the Willamette Valley in 1841. Excepts from the Report of Lieutenant Wilkes to the Secretary of the Navy, of the examination, by the Exploring Expedition, of the Oregon Territory in 1841 follow: " Abundance of game exists, such as elk, deer, antelope, bears, wolves, foxes, muskrats, martins, beavers, a few grizzly bears and siffleur, which are eaten by Canadians. In the middle section (between the Cascades and Blue Mts), or that designated as the rolling prairie, no game is found. In the eastern section (between the Blue Mts. and Rockies) the buffalo is met with."

Wildlife was even scarcer in parts of eastern Oregon and adjacent parts of Idaho which were then all part of Oregon Territory. For example, Franchere (1967) relates the experiences of the overland Astorians who had traveled with Wilson Price Hunt by canoe, horse and foot to the mouth of the Columbia from Montreal. On January 2nd, 1812 the travelers Donald McKenzie, Robert McCllellan, and Mr. Reed, arrived at Astoria and related a story of extreme hardship.

According to Franchere, for twenty days, McKenzie's party followed the Snake "finding nothing at all to eat and suffering horribly from thirst." Several times mounted Indians approached them, and each time, the Astorians would shoot a horse out from under one of the Indians, then devour it, saving themselves from starvation. They would leave some trinkets as payment.

Alexander Ross (1849), another Astorian based at Fort Astoria between 1811-1814 near the mouth of the Columbia relates the near starvation of the Wilson Price Hunt's party of overland Astorians encountered in southern Idaho and eastern Oregon. The Hunt party saw few Indians and the Indians encountered were "destitute"themselves. "At this time a starving dog that could hardly crawl along was a feast to our people, and even the putrid and rotten skins of animals were resorted to in order to sustain life."

Traveling along the Snake River in Idaho Ross comments that Hunt's party found: "That part of the country where they were was destitute of game, and the provisions of the whole party taken together were scarcely enough for two days journey. At that season of year the Indians retire to the distant mountains, and leave the river till the return of spring, which accounts for their absence at this time."

Hunt's party split into four different groups, figuring that it would be easier to find food to feed four smaller groups than one large group. Individually, each party made its way towards Fort Astoria with varying degrees of suffering.

Crooks and John Day, two hunters with the Hunt Party left behind with the Snake Indians to trade suffered terribly. The Indians eventually left them, having run out of food themselves, so Crooks and Day were left their own devices. Crook's story is related by Ross.

Ross (1849) says Crooks and Day gathered some roots, started a fire, and built a brush teepee or hut. But they were so weak, the fire went out and they did not have the energy to start another. Fortunately two Indians happened by who rekindled the fire and gave them venison. Shortly after, a wolf ventured by which John Day was able to shoot.

This food gave them enough strength to travel again and eventually Crooks and Day reached the Umatilla area where they were befriended by some Indians. Eventually they reached Fort Astoria.

Ross tells of another Hunt party group trials. Donald McKenzie's party traveling through the Blue Mountains in December of 1811 "suffered much and were at one time five days without a mouthful to eat, when, fortunately, they caught a beaver; and on this small animal and its skin, scarcely a mouthful to each, the whole party had to subsist for three days."

Ogden repeats this same scenario. Leading a trapping expedition through eastern Oregon in November of 1826, Ogden (1909) noted that "the country is destitute of animals and we may prepare to starve altho' wild fowl seem to abound." Later he writes "provisions scarce prospects gloomy... no game... The hunters are discouraged. Day after day from morning to night in quest of animals; but not one track do they see." Ogden plight is not due to an inability to secure food. He notes that Indians of the region were also starving and had resorted to cannibalism. "She herself had not killed any one, but had fed on two of her own children who died thro' weakness."

Samuel Parker (1844) who traveled to Oregon in 1835 well before the major migration of people to the state, nevertheless, already noted a decline in wildlife abundance--or at least fewer animals than he had been lead to believe existed in the West. In summarizing the wildlife he observed during his journey west to Oregon notes: "It is generally supposed that wild animals, in all Indian countries, and especially in the far regions beyond the mountains, are very numerous, but, on the whole game is scarce."

At least some of this decline Parker attributes to overharvest and greed. With regard to the bison Parker (1844) observed on the plains and in Wyoming, he seems almost prophetic when he perceives the bison's potential extinction. "...buffalo within their range, which is becoming more and more circumscribed. And if they should continue to diminish for twenty years to come, as they have during the last twenty , they will become almost extinct.... It is unpleasant to contemplate the period, when this noble animal will be seen no more, and will be known only in history and seen only upon canvass. Thousands and hundreds of thousands are slain yearly, not for food, but for robes, to gratify the luxury of civilized men, as is seen in almost every vehicle for business or pleasure."

From the above, it's clear that the idea that wildlife was everywhere abundant, and easily procured is not entirely accurate. Starvation and suffering was a common occurrence both for the Indians as well as the first explorers and travelers.



Lewis and Clark were the first to record bear. In Feb. 1806 while (Burroughs 1961) at Fort Clatsop near the mouth of the Columbia River, Lewis noted that Drewyer, one of the expedition's hunters, had seen a black bear, "which was the only one which had been seen in this neighborhood since our arrival; the Indians inform us that they are aboudant but now in their holes." This is a reference to the fact that most bears were in hibernation.

In April, expedition members killed three bear cubs near the mouth of the Sandy River. Two more bear were sighted on April 8th within the Columbia Gorge (Coues 1893).

Lewis and Clark noted grizzly bears on numerous occasions in Montana and elsewhere on their journey across the continent, however, they reported no grizzlies in western Oregon.

Botanist, David Douglas (1905) recorded seeing several grizzly bears in the Upper Willamette River valley. On October 1, 1825 he remarks upon seeing a "very large grizly bear." A few days later, while still in the Willamette Valley, he obtains a grizzly bear hide from another trapper who had recently killed it. The same day one of the hunters in Douglas's party was attacked by a grizzly.

Later in October, while on the Umpqua River, Douglas relates how his Indian guide was attacked by another grizzly (Douglas 1905). Later that same day, Douglas comes upon a sow and her two cubs "feeding on acorns under the shade of a large oak." He opened fire on the bears and wounded the mother which ran off, and managed to kill one of the cubs.

Ogden (1909) along the Klamath River near the Oregon-California border reports that on March 5th his men reported that bears were "numerous" after just coming out of hibernation. And on March 26, 1826 in the Rogue River Valley, Ogden notes that one of his Indian guides "saw a grizzly bear of large size." The bear was attacked by the Indian who was mauled severely.

Missionary Samuel Parker (1844) traveled west from St. Louis to Oregon's Willamette Valley in 1835 and reported on the bears he observed on this journey, which included considerable time in Oregon. Parker doesn't make a distinction as where exactly he observed a particular bear, however, he implies that he observed some in western Oregon.

Parker notes: "There are four varieties of bears, though it is supposed there are only two distinct species. These are the white, grizzly, brown and black. The white bear is ferocious and powerful, but their numbers are so small in the region of the Oregon Country, that they are not an object of dread.

"But the grizzly bear is far more numerous, more formidable, and larger, some of them weighing six or eight hundred pounds. Their teeth are formed for strength, and their claws are equally terrific, measuring four or five inches and their feet, which are astonishingly larger, exclusive of the claws, measuring not far from ten inches long and five inches wide. There are some even larger. The shades of their color vary from a very light gray to a dark brown, always retaining the grizzly characteristic."

Parker (1844) observes that the black bear has two color phases in the west by noting a "brown bear" and a black bear being nearly similar. He states: "The brown bear is less ferocious, more solitary, and not highly esteemed either for food or for its skin. The black bear is somewhat similar in its habits to the brown, but lives more upon vegetable food, and is more in estimation for its pure black, well-coated skin. "


John Kirk Townsend (1839), in December of 1835 noted that a trapper at Fort Vancouver caught an "enormous wolf."

Samuel Parker (1844) who traveled overland to Oregon in 1835 summarized his observations of the cat family observed in Oregon or on his journey west. "Of the feline, or cat kind, there are the panther, the long-tailed tiger cat, the common wild cat, and the lynx. The panther is rarely seen, and the differences of climate and country produce no change in its ferociousness and other habits from those found in other parts of America. The long-tailed tiger cat is more common, very large, and of a dull reddish color. Also the common wild cat is often seen. It is much smaller, its tail is short and its color is like the above named. I can only name the lynx, as they did not come under my observation. In the lower, wooded country they are found, and the Indians say they are numerous."

Parker (1844) made extensive comments on the canines. "There are different species of wolves; the common gray wolf, the black, blue, white and the small prairie wolf. The common gray wolf is the same as those found in the United States, and has all their common habits. The black wolf, I did not see, but as described by Mr. Ermitinger, a gentlemen belonging to the Hudson Bay Company, is larger than the gray and more noble in its appearance, and is the strongest of the wolf kind. Those which the same gentlemen called the blue wolf, are rarely seen, as also the white and so far as their habits are known, they do not materially differ from others."

Parker (1844) comments upon wolf numbers: "Much has been said about the immense numbers of wolves beyond the Rocky Mountains, but I did not find them so numerous as I expected. I do not make this assertion solely from the fact that I saw or heard only a few, but from the testimony of those whose long residence in this country entitles them to credit. It is the traveler who never saw the country he describes, or the lover of the marvelous, or he who does not expect soon to be followed in his route through dreary and uninhabited wilds, who sees, and minutely relates adventures with the reptiles and monsters of the desert."

Parker, like other travelers, often referred to the coyote as a prairie wolf. He notes (Parker 1844), "The small prairie wolf is the most common, and bears the greatest resemblance to the dog, and has been called the wild dog. It differs from the dog in all the peculiarities of the wolf kind as much as the others do. It is as uniform in its color, size, and habits. They are of a dull reddish gray, never parti-colored; the hair is always long, blended with brown fur at its roots, and like other wolves they are always prowling and cowardly. They are more numerous than the other kinds, and in considerable numbers follow the caravans to feed upon the offal. Although we frequently heard them howl and bark around our encampments, yet they never disturbed our rest."

"The fox, which is generally dispersed through the world, is found here in three different kinds; the red, gray, and silver. They do not differ from those found east of the mountains. The silver gray fox is scarce, and highly esteemed, and takes the highest rank among the furs of commerce. Its color is dark, sometimes nearly black, the ends of hairs tipped with white..." (Parker 1844).

On June 14, 1840 Gustavus Hines left Ft. Vancouver for the Willamette. Near the confluence of Columbia and Willamette he reported hearing the howl of a wolf (Hines 1851).

Traveling down the Willamette Valley in June of 1840, Hines reports that "occasionally could be seen the fallow deer and prairie wolves..."(Hines 1851).

In 1840 while camped on the Umpqua River, Hines (1851) notes:" The party camped in dense forest along the upper Umpqua and reported hearing the howl of a wolf.

Lansford Hastings (1845) gave his impression of predator and prey in the Willamette Valley in 1842. He wrote ".... In that part of this section, where the settlements are now being made, by our citizens, deer and wolves are the most numerous game, of the quadruped kind. The latter of these animals are very numerous, and troublesome to the surrounding settlers, among whom they make frequent incursions, destroying their sheep, hogs, and even young calves in great numbers."

And Bailey (1936) reviewing wolf distribution concludes that the animals were common in the Willamette Valley and west to the coast. From 1913 to 1914, bounties were paid 6 in Clackamas Co. , 6 Linn Co. , 1 Lane County. A wolf was killed in Lane County in 1930, and another killed near McKenzie Bridge in Lane County in Jan. 1931 (Bailey).

Bounties were paid on 269 mountain lion between 1913-14. Highest number from Douglas County. Twenty four in lane county,
10 in Linn co. 18 in Coos County. 60 in Curry (Bailey 1936).


Parker (1844) notes: "Martins (Marten) are not abundant; some are found about the headwaters of the Columbia in woody mountains, but they are more numerous and of superior quality farther north."

Parker (1844) says of other furbearers that: "The weasel, the polecat (skunk), the marmot, the mink, and muskrat are common, though not numerous in this country..." He finds "The wolverine is said to inhabit these western regions, and I saw one in the Salmon River Mountains, which my Indians killed."


Beaver--In 1805 Lewis and Clark reported beavers along the lower Columbia. In 1811, Franchere (1967) states: "The natives informed us that the beaver was very abundant in the country where the Willamette flowed." And in 1812, Franchere, on a 20 day trapping and trading trip from Astoria, brought back 450 skins of beaver and other animals of the furry tribe" (Franchere 1967).

Gabriel Franchere (1967) reported that in 1813 several Astorians had been sent to the Willamette to trap. They returned to Astoria on March 20th and reported " the country of the Willamette as charming and abounding in beaver and deer..."

And Franchere (1967) reported that another trapping party of Astorians returned from the Willamette on May 25, 1813 "...with 17 packets of skins and 32 bales of dried meat."

Douglas (1905) reports that beaver were apparently abundant in the Willamette Valley. "This place was at one time considered to be the finest hunting ground for beaver west of the Rocky Mountains, and much have I been gratified in viewing the lodges and dams constructed by that wise and industrious little animal."
The beaver no doubt declined due to trapping pressure. West of the Cascades Douglas (1905) reported the beaver as "now scarce".

Ogden (1909) who traveled extensively throughout eastern Oregon in search of beaver, did not find them particularly abundant, a fact he attributes to past trapping efforts by both whites and Indian. For example, in his journal for 1826 he notes that "It was now 2 mos. since we set out, and we have only 500 beaver." Later again in the Harney Lake Basin Ogden (1909) mentions that the "natives have destroyed in this region upwards of 60,000 beaver, not one of which reached our forts." This probably means that the Indians took their furs to American traders.

Among the major game species sought by many traveler as a food source. Lewis and Clark recorded no elk between Lolo Pass and the mouth of the Columbia (Burroughs 1961). Originally the expedition was planning to winter on the Washington side of the Columbia River, however they moved their camp to the south side of the Columbia, in part because the Indians reported that elk were more abundant there. While at Fort Clatsop between December 1, 1805 and March 23, 1806, they killed 129 elk. They killed fifteen more before they reached Celilo Falls on the Columbia, but none thereafter until they again reached the Bitterroot Valley in Montana.

On the Willamette Valley in Feb. of 1814 Gabriel Franchere (1967) stated that elk were abundant commenting that "deer and elk are to be found there in great number."

Alexander Ross was a contemporary of Franchere who also was one of the Astorians. Leaving Fort Astoria, Ross heads up river and just beyond Cascade Locks, he (Ross 1849) notes that "this range (Cascades) abounds in beaver and elk, and is often frequented by the industrious hunter."

Ross (1849) also ascended the Willamette River in 1812 and notes "Between these high lands lie what is called the Valley of the Wallamitte, the frequented haunts of innumerable herds of elk and deer. "

Douglas (1904) says that elk are "found in all the woody country, and particularly abundant near the coast."

David Douglas (1905) traveling in the Willamette Valley in October of 1825 notes that his party killed a "small elk" that weighed about "500 pounds". Nevertheless, the elk had "five prongs" on each side.

Samuel Parker traveled across the west to Oregon in 1835 and commented on the elk abundance he found. "Among the animals of the genus cercus, the elk is the largest and most majestic. It exists in considerable number east of the Rocky Mountains, but is less numerous on the west side."

In August of 1840, while traveling on the Umpqua River Hines (1851) commented: The elk abound in this country, and afford a fruitful source when the Indians derive a subsistence."

And in 1841 Wilkes reported them as abundant near Willamette Falls.

Bailey (1936) reports that as country was settled, elk were reported from almost every valley and mountain range of western Oregon, including the west slope of the Cascade Mountains.

However by the turn of the century elk numbers were dramatically reduced. Bailey (1936) states that in 1914, the Oregon Sportsmen reported 48 elk in Lane County, 25 elk on the head of Drift Creek in Lincoln County. In 1915, two or three small bands were reported for Clackamas County. And in 1916, animals were said to be increasing in Lane, Lincoln, and Doulgas counties. Eight were counted in Coos County, and a small band of 30-40 in Curry County.

The Forest Service reported 1924, 1925, 1926, elk numbers decreasing on the Cascade and Siskiyou Forests, and increasing on the Crater, Hood, Santium and Umpqua forests. The Cascade Forest reported 225 elk. A total of 436 elk were reported for the entire western slope forests in Oregon in these years (Bailey 1936).

Today, there are an estimated 50,000 elk in Oregon (Oregon Fish and Game 1994). Thus despite a growing human population coupled with an eroding habitat base, restriction on the harvest of elk has resulted in an increase in elk numbers somewhat approximating the abundant observed during early years of Euro-American occupation.


The Lewis and Clark expedition give the impression that deer were less abundant than elk. However, it is also possible that hunters preferred to kill elk rather than deer. Whatever the reasons, the party only killed 17 deer during the three months they spent at Fort Clatsop. Nevertheless, on their return trip, they reported seeing on Deer Island below the mouth of the Willamette more than a 100 Columbia whitetail deer and killing 10 of them in one day (Bailey 1936, Coues 1893). Another 12 were taken near the Sandy River (Burroughs 1961, Coues 1893).

In September of 1825, Douglas traveled the Willamette Valley and found deer scarce. "Nine deer seen in one group, the animals were so shy... that no meat was procured." The next day, his party kills just one deer. In general he suggests that "deer were scarce...(Douglas 1905)"

In October of 1825 Douglas (1905) reported seeing deer fairly frequently on the Umpqua River. On the 18th of that month, he scared up a "a herd of small deer." The next day, he wounded "a very large buck" and he notes that other hunters in the party had killed several deer. He specifically mentions that a "black-tailed deer" was killed on the 22nd of October by Mr. McLeod.

In ascending the Willamette in August of 1824, Douglas mentions killing "several" "long white-tailed deer, as well as some of the black-tailed kind" just upstream from Willamette Falls.

Yet, in 1826, David Douglas reported them as "remarkably abundant", "more especially in the fertile prairies of the Multnomah (Willamette) River (Douglas 1904)."

Bailey (1936) suggests that early explorers did not find the blacktail deer excessively abundant, although words like considerable deer found here, deer abound and other adjectives indicate that deer were not scarce.

D.D.Hikcelmen of Albany is quoted in Bailey saying the last whitetail was killed in the valley about 1898 near Sweet Home.

T.C. Baker said that "flagtails" were naturally deer of the river bottoms, islands, and willow thickets and open prairies, sometimes going into the foothills, but never high in the mountains (Bailey).


In 1826 David Douglas is quoted by Bailey (1936) of procuring a bighorn sheep skin at the Dalles. And of the trappers with Peter Skene Ogden's recorded killing a bighorn sheep in the Mutton Mountains south of the Dalles.

Regarding bighorn sheep, Samuel Parker (1844) never saw any. "...which probably I should have done, if they were as numerous as travelers have said they are." However, it should be noted that except in crossing the mountains in Wyoming and Idaho, Parker's route did not cross any sheep habitat.



Samuel Parker (1844) summarized some of the smaller mammals found in Oregon noting that "The raccoon is somewhat numerous in parts of this country, more especially towards the ocean." And Parker states badger " inhabit this country and is found on the plains west of the great chain of mountains." And Parker notes: The hedgehog is common in all parts of Oregon Territory, does not differ from those found in other parts of America, and for its quills, is held in high estimation by the Indians."


John Kirk Townsend (1839) commented about seals he encountered on the Columbia River below Cascade Rapid. "We see great numbers of seals as we pass along. Immediately below the Dalles they are particularly abundant, being attracted thither by the vast shoals of salmon which seek the turbulent water of the river."

On the Columbia River near Lewis and Clark's Strawberry Island, Franchere (1967) describes shooting seals at the foot of a falls. "...we came to the foot of a falls, where we amused ourselves for some time shooting seals that were here in abundance. The Indians were catching salmon below the narrows."

Apparently shooting seals was a common recreational past time for many of these early travelers. On the Columbia near Fort Vancouver, David Douglas (1904) mentions "amusing" himself "shooting seals, which were sporting in vast numbers in the rapids where the salmon are particularly abundant."

Samuel Parker (1844) also noted the occurrence of harbor seals in the Columbia River. "The common seal are numerous in this river. It is very difficult to shoot them, even with the best rifles, on account of their diving with extreme suddenness at the flash. I had a fair opportunity to shoot one today, but with one splash he was out of sight and did not again appear. "


David Douglas (1904) says that the common Canadian good and small white goose are "abundant" on all lakes, marshes, and along the Columbia. He also notes three species of swan. The "common swan" (trumpeter), a smaller swan (tundra), and a third that is "blusih grey on the back neck and head, and white on its belly."
The latter is probably the greater white-fronted goose.

John Kirk Townsend (1839) notes that in 1834-35 "that the ducks and geese, which have swarmed throughout the country during the latter part of the autumn , are leaving us, and the swans are arriving in great numbers."

Later Townsend (1839) remarks on the abundance of pintails along the lower Columbia. "The common pintail duck is found here in vast flocks. The chief and myself killed twenty-six today, by a simultaneous discharge of our guns."

Lt. Charles Wilkes on a military expedition in western Oregon noted that waterfowl were abundant in the Willamette Valley. "In the spring and fall, the rivers are literally covered with geese, ducks, and other waterfowl."

Samuel Parker (1844), traveling down the Willamette Valley on December 1, 1835 commented upon the waterfowl. " Since going up this river, the number of swans and geese had greatly multiplied upon the waters and along the shores. Their noise, and especially that of the swans, echoed through the woods and prairies. The swan is a beautiful and majestic bird; its large body, long neck and clear white color, and graceful movements place it among the very first of the winged tribe."

In the same volume, Parker (1844) comments upon other waterfowl. "As autumn advances, the number of swans, geese, and ducks multiply. And in particular Parker notes the "loon, or great northern diver, is very plentiful in this river."

Hastings (1845) comments on waterfowl observed in Oregon. "In addition to the game before referred to, all the various rivers of this section abound with innumerable flocks of geese, ducks, brants, cranes, pelicans, swans, gulls, and a great variety of other waterfowl."

Indeed, Hastings suggests that they were so numerous as to be a nuisance. "The waterfowl enumerated, are very numerous, in the spring and autumn, when they appear to have congregated, from all the surrounding country, an from their incessant croaking , squeaking, and flapping of wings, you would be inclined to think, that they were convened, in sporting convention, from all parts of the world. so numerous are they, in fact, that their tumultuous croaking and plunging and dashing in the water is, in many places, noisome in the extreme. It is scarcely necessary here to remark, that it is entirely unnecessary , for emigrants to take either beds or feathers, from the states to that country. Feathers of the best quality, can be obtained from the Indians, in any desired quantities, for any trivial compensation."


David Douglas (1904) commented upon the birds he found while traveling in the Pacific Northwest in 1824 and 1825. "The silver-headed eagle (bald eagle), a grand creature , abundant wherever there are rivers containing fish." Douglas frequently shot eagles to demonstrate his prowess with a gun to the local natives.

Douglas (1904) also noted seeing a "species of buzzard or vulture" which he said was the "largest bird seen here, except the wild swan." "Seldom more than one or two of these buzzards are seen together; but when they can find the carcass of any dead, they gorge so gluttonously that it is easy to know them down with a stick....The color of this species is similar to the Canadian buzzard which I sent home, the beak and legs bright yellow." It seems that he is describing the now nearly extinct California Condor.

Douglas (1904) also specifically mentions magpie, four species of hawks, grouse, stellers jay, great horned owl, two species of crow (probably one being a raven).

John Kirk Townsend (1839) noted that band-tail pigeon was "very abundant" and found in flocks of "fifty to sixty".
In terms of birds Samuel Parker (1844) mentions the white-headed eagle, golden eagle, 3-4 species of hawks, two species of jay, the magpie, and "thousands of ravens and crows." several species of small sparrows, two or three species of grouse, dipper red-winged blackbird, and robin. Of warblers "there are eleven species, six of which are new; the other five are common in the United States." He also mentions six species of wren, three of titmice, two of nuthatches. Seven species of thrushes, fly catchers--eight species, 13 species of finches, eight species of woodpeckers.

Hastings (1845) who visited the Willamette Valley notes that "...there are numerous other feathered animals, such as hawks, eagles, ravens, thrushes, pheasants, woodpeckers, partridges, grouses, snowbirds and robins."


In the summer of 1840 while traveling in the Willamette Valley, Hines (1851) noted: "There was something very peculiar about this pool. It embraced a superficial area of some ten rods round, with no visible inlet or outlet, and it was several miles from any other water, though the water in the pool was nearly upon a level with the surrounding land. It was also literally filled with frogs, there being at least five to every square foot."


Astorian Gabriel Franchere (1967) while at Tongue Point on the lower Columbia notes that in August, the Indians from Gray's Harbor and Strait of Juan de Fuca arrived to fish for sturgeon, indicating that the Columbia must have had significant sturgeon runs to draw Indians south from Puget Sound.

Later on Feb. 13, 1813 Franchere (1967) again noted: "The sturgeon began to enter the river, and on February 13 I left to fish for them. On the fifteenth, I sent the first boat-load to the establishment." This suggests that sturgeon were easily caught and abundant.

Franchere notes: "The months of August and September bring excellent sturgeon, a fish that varies greatly in size. There are some almost 11 feet long, and we caught one that weighed 390 pounds, even after the eggs and intestines had been drawn. The sturgeon does not come into the river in as great numbers as the salmon.

Alexander Ross described Willamette Falls on the Willamette River near present day Oregon City. Ross (1849) noted the abundance of salmon that congregated at the base of the falls attracted great numbers of Indians who spent months capturing fish and socializing. "To this pace, and no farther, the salmon ascend , and during the summer months they are caught in great quantities. At this place, therefore, all the Indians throughout the surrounding country assemble, gamble, and gormandize for months together."

David Douglas (1904) notes that in the spring of 1824 while at Fort Vancouver, they had an "abundance of excellent salmon." In June of the same year, he traveled up the Columbia and commended upon eating "roasted sturgeon". He (Douglas 1904) notes that a sturgeon caught in the Columbia by one of his companions "measured twelve feet nine inches from snout to the tip of the tail, and seven feet round the thickest part, and its weight exceeded 500 pounds."

Douglas later comments (1905) that the "quantity of salmon taken in the Columbia is almost incredible. The Indians resort in great numbers to the best fishing spots, often traveling several hundred miles for this purpose."

Douglas (1905) also mentions that a small trout is found abundantly in the creeks of the Columbia. He gives no description, but it is likely to be cutthroat trout, which was native to the area.
John Kirk Townsend (1839) observed the abundance of salmon on the Columbia River in 1835. "In our passage through some of the narrow channels today, we saw vast shoals of salmon, which were leaping and curvettig about in every direction, and not infrequently dashing their noses against our canoe, in their headlong course."
Thomas Farnham (1843), an early traveler on the Oregon Trail recorded an abundance of salmon at Willamette Falls on the Willamette River. "Countless numbers of salmon were leaping and falling upon the fretted waters;"

Missionary Samuel Parker (1844) describes the abundance of fish that once filled the rivers of the region. "The salmon is far the most numerous and valuable fish found in these waters, and is of excellent flavor. It is well ascertained that there are not less than six different species or varieties of the true salmon that ascend these waters commencing about the twentieth of April. Their muscular power is exceedingly great, which is manifested in passing the falls and rapids which would seem insuperable. They are never known to return, but are constantly pressing their way upwards, so that it is not uncommon to find them in the small branches of the rivers near the very sources. We found them in September near the Rocky Mountains, where they are said to be as late as November and December.

...It is worthy of notice, that the salmon has its preferences of water, selecting some branches of the Columbia River and passing by others; and those taken in some of the tributary streams are far better than those taken in others. While those which ascend the rivers never return, the young are seen in September descending on their way to the ocean, in immense numbers. It is believed these return the fourth year after their descent; but this may be only conjecture.

Parker (1844) also notes that "The sturgeon of good quality and in large numbers, commerce ascending the rivers in the fore part of April, and furnish food to the suffering Indians. I say suffering , for before the opening of the spring, their stock of provisions is consumed, and they are seen searching for roots and any thing which will sustain life; and though I do not feel authorized to say what others have said, that in the latter part of the winter and beginning of spring, they die with starvation in great numbers, yet they are brought to extreme want, and look forward , with great solicitude, to the time when the sturgeon shall come into the rivers."

In the rivers and lakes are a very superior quality of salmon, brook and salmon trout, sardines, sturgeon, rock cod, the hair seal, etc.


Most of the Willamette Valley has been transformed by agriculture and urbanization from its original natural condition. More than 69% of Oregon's population resides in the valley (U.S. Census, 1990) with Portland home to nearly half of the state's population. Important agricultural products include fruits, nuts, berries, grass seed, corn, ornamental shrub and tree production.

Historically, the valley was quite open with numerous grasslands as evidenced by the place names such as Tualatin Plains, North Plains, French Prairie and others.
Douglas fir dominates forested areas, along with bigleaf maple, and Oregon white oak. The loss of burning by Indians as well as early settlers, has changed the appearance of the valley, leading to a loss in the oak savanna habitat, an important wildlife food.

In addition, channelization and dams for flood control have significantly changed river flood patterns. Prior to the advent of dams and channelization, much of the Willamette Valley was seasonally flooded each winter. Numerous tributary channels provided habitat for waterfowl.

Wapato or arrowhead, an aquatic was once common, but due to drainage, and agricultural use of the land, this plant is no longer common.

Other changes include the change from a more diverse farm to larger fields of mono-crops. For example the widespread planting of commercial Christmas tree farms has low wildlife value (Oregon Fish and Game 1994).

The Willamette Valley is also the most densely settled part of Oregon with the state's four largest cities--Portland, Eugene, Salem and Corvallis. Over two million people reside in the Willamette Valley (U.S.Census 1990). Land ownership in primarily in private hands. According to the Oregon Fish and Game 96 percent of the land in the three interior western Oregon valleys (Willamette, Umpqua and Rogue) is privately owned. 33,000 acres are set aside specifically for wildlife and natural values. Among the public holdings are Sauvie Island Wildlife Area, William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge, Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge, and Fern Ridge Reservoir Wildlife Area.

Most of these refuges were established to benefit waterfowl, in particular two rare subspecies of Canada geese (Brana canadensis occidentalis and B.c. taverneri). Both subspecies nest in Alaska and winter in the Willamette Valley.

Other species that have declined include the Columbian white-tailed deer, canvasback, yellow-billed cuckoo, Lewis woodpecker, varius amphibians and reptiles.

Fish: Several species have suffered due to habitat changes. They include the Oregon chub, now a federally listed species under the ESA. It was once widespread in the Willamette drainage from Oregon City upstream. It is now isolated and restricted in numbers to Lookout Point and Dexter reservoirs on the upper Middle fork of the Willamette River, and in Gray Creek in the William Finley National Wildlife Refuge.

Reptiles: The western rattlesnake was once fairly common on rocky buttes in the Willamette Valley, now remains as a relict species only in the southern Willamette Valley. The western pond turtle has declined to the point where it may soon be listed as endangered as well. It's decline is blamed on wetland loss as well as the introduction of the exotic bullfrog which preys upon young turtles.

Mammals: The Pacific or "camas" gopher is a Willamette Valley endemic. Its numbers have declined presumably as farming replaced much of their habitat with fields. The gray-tailed vole, thought to be a Willamette Valley endemic, recently was found in Clark County Washington (Oregon Fish and Game 1994). The Columbian white-tail deer has also suffered a significant decline. The black-tailed jackrabbit was once more widespread in the Willamette Valley. Bailey (1936) reported seeing nine dead jackrabbits on the road between Eugene and Salmon in a single day in 1936. Today they are seldom seen. Large predators like the wolf and grizzly are now gone. However, elk and black-tailed deer are relatively common on the valley fringe--up from turn of the century lows.

The urbanization, and habitat fragmentation accompanying the spread of subdivisions, farm fragmentation, and other land use changes has resulted in the increase of several species formerly not found or rare in the region. This includes the starling, scrub jay, house finch, brown-headed cowbird and opossum (Oregon Fish and Game 1994).

In general, wildlife that benefit from human habitat manipulation have increased, while those relying upon undisturbed habitat have declined. This is similar to the situation that has occurred throughout the United States and presents the greatest challenge to those concerned about the long term preservation of biodiversity.


Bailey, V. 1936. The Mammals and Life Zones of Oregon. USDA, Bureau of Biological Survey. North American Fauna #55. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Bowen, William A. 1974. Migration and Settlement of the Willamette Valley.

Burroughs, R.M. 1961. The Natural History of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Michigan State University Press.

Coues, E. 1893. The History of the Lewis and Clark Expedition by Meriweather Lewis and William Clark. Dover Publications, New York.
Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang.

Davis, G.P. 1982. Man and Wildlife in Arizona: The American Exploration Period 1824-1865. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Despain, D.G. 1990. Yellowstone Vegetation; Consequences of Environment and History in a Natural Setting, Robert Rinehart Publishers: Boulder.

Douglas, D. 1904. Journals and Letters of David Douglas. The Quarterly Journal of the Oregon Historical Society. Vol.5

Douglas, D. 1905. Sketch of a Journey to the Northwestern Parts of the Continent of North America during the years 1824, 1825, 1826,1827. The Oregon Historical Society. Vol.6

Farnham, T.J. 1843. An 1839 Wagon Trail Journal Travels in the Great Western Prairies—The Anahuac and Rocky Mountains and in the Oregon Territory. Reprinted by Pacific Northwest National Parks and Forest Association.

Forman, R.T. and E.W. Russell. 1983. Evaluation of Historical Data in Ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 64:5-7.

Franchere, Gabriel. 1967. Adventure at Astoria, 1810-1814. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman.

Gabrielson, Ira N. and S.G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York.

Haback, J.R. 1962. The Original Vegetation of the Mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon . Northwest Science, Vol. 35, pp. 65-77.

Hastings, L.W. 1845. The Emigrant's Guide to Oregon and Washington. Applewood Books, Bedford, Massachusetts.

Hines, G. 1851. Life on the Plains of the Pacific: Oregon, Its History, Condition and Prospects. Derby and Co. Buffalo, New York.

Johannessen, C.L., W.A. Davenport, A.Millet, and S. McWilliams. 1971. The vegetation of the Willamette Valley. Annals of American Geographers. Vol. 61.

Kay, C.E. 1990. Yellowstone's northern elk herd: A critical evaluation of the "natural regulation" paradigm. Ph.D. dis., Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 490pp.

Noss, R. and Cooperrider. A. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Ogden, P.S. 1909. The Peter Skene Ogden Journals. The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society. Vol.10 No.4.

Oregon Fish and Game. 1994. Oregon's Biodiversity. Salem, Oregon. The Western Interior Valley Provinces.

Parker, Samuel A. 1844. Journal of an Exploring Tour Beyond the Rocky Mountains. Andrus, Woodruff and Gauntlett, Boston.

Ray, A.J. 1975. Some conservation schemes of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1821-50: An examination of the problems of resource management in the fur trade. Journal of Historical Geography Vol. 1(1)

Ross, Alexander. 1849. Adventures of the First Settlers on the Oregon or Columbia River.

Romme, W.H. and Turner, M.G. 1991. Implications of global climate change for biogeographic patterns in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 5, 373-386.

Schullery, P. and Lee Whittlesey. 1992. The documentary record of wolves and related wildlife species in the Yellowstone National Park area prior to 1882. In J.D. Varley and W.G. Brewsters, eds. Wolves in Yellowstone? A Report to the United States Congress. Vol. 4. Research and Analysis, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.

Towle, Jerry Charles. 1974. Woodland in the Willamette Valley: An Historical Geography. Ph.D. dissertation, U of Oregon.

Townsend, J.K. 1939. Narrative of a Journey Across the Rocky Mountains to the Columbia River. Reprinted by University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Urness, P. 1989. Why did bison fail west of the Rockies? Utah sci. 50:175-79.

Vale, T.R. 1975. Presettlement vegetation in the sagebrush-grass area of the Intermountain West. J. Range Mgmt. 28:32-36.

Whitlock, C. 1993. Postglacial vegetation and climate of Grand Teton and southern Yellowstone National Parks. Ecological Monographs 63, 173-198.