We have seen much success with the current Oregon Wolf Plan, currently under its five-year review. We now have at least 110 wolves in the state, and likely more than that just in Wallowa County. What we are seeing now with the letters being submitted to the State Wolf Commission by those favoring the wolves is the same old rhetoric. The fact that they have the time to write letters based on emotion and submit thousands of them should have no bearing on the correct science that was heavily relied on to write the original wolf plan.

The fact that these wolf-protecting organizations have spread across the country and have encouraged emotional responses from citizens in states as far away as New Jersey, which have no skin in our game, and are basing their letters on irrelevant, quasi-religious attachments to cute baby wolves, and savagely injurious lies about ranchers, should have no bearing on how any decision is made on amending the wolf plan.

Regardless of how numbers of people “feel” about the situation of wolves being reintroduced in domesticated, human-populated areas, the fact remains that the commission is obligated under our state and federal constitutions to provide for the safety and welfare of its citizens, not its wolves. As wolf numbers increase, the incidences of wolf/human contact will increase, as will the likelihood of a loss of life — human, that is.

We already have lost a significant number of cattle, horses, mules, sheep and llamas due to wolf depredation in our county, in spite of the fact that we have a large and healthy population of elk and deer. These animals are private property that humans have the right and responsibility to protect, yet there have been no retaliatory killings of wolves in this county by ranchers who have stuck to the provisions of the wolf plan, expecting that the other side would do the same.

Unfortunately, we see the same pushback, the same whining, the same lies, the same attacks against landowners, as if we have never done anything right.

We personally lost three healthy calves to the wolves this year. That is a minimum loss of income of $5,000. It is illogical to say that there is a small percentage of livestock lost to wolves. The percentage will increase as wolf numbers increase. If a thief stole $5,000 in cash out of your house, you would not be saying that there is just a percentage of people who will be robbed so just buck up. You would be reporting the theft to the police and expecting that the perpetrator would be caught and your money returned. Private property where most of the kills have occurred in this county, is just that — private property. No different than any house and yard in town. I defy any town resident to stand back and say nothing if they walked into their yard and saw the grievous evidence that a wolf had just consumed their favorite pet.

There is a pattern among pro-wolf organizations of sending out plea letters, gathering money, paying large salaries to administrators, suing anyone who disagrees with their agenda and bashing those whose livelihoods are affected by wolves. What the naive public has missed is that the wolf would survive under the current management protections without these money-consuming groups even existing. Their agenda in stirring the pot seems to always be getting donations of money. The fight for the wolf is just an addendum (Is anyone aware that there are some 55,000 wolves in Canada alone?).

Our money comes from hard work raising cattle, not from bilking the public. I hope you will seriously consider the mission of these extremists who value money over human beings.

We would like the wolf plan to stay on track and to begin allowing hunting and removal of packs as we exceed the numbers that are already established as adequate for this area.

And we would like the commission to remove the power to decide depredation from ODFW and FWS and appoint or allow counties to appoint people of noteworthy experience, such as veterinarians, to determine whether livestock were killed by wolves. We have had way too many determinations that were prejudicial to say the least. Why have the fox in the hen house?

Yes, there are particular areas of the Oregon Wolf Plan that need amending, but let’s stick to logical changes that will protect life (human), liberty and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. private property rights), as guaranteed in our constitutions.

Jim and Connie Dunham reside in Enterprise.