February 9, 2018
CapitalPress.com
7
Wolves kill llama, but which pack remains uncertain
ODFW working to
catch culprits after
three llamas die
in separate attacks
By GEORGE PLAVEN
Capital Press
Wolves did indeed kill an-
other llama Jan. 30 on private
land in rural Union County,
Ore. That much is certain.
But wildlife officials are
still trying to figure out which
pack is responsible for the
death, in an area where the
population and distribution of
wolves is ever changing.
According to the investiga-
tion report, wolves chased and
killed the 300-pound adult
llama, owned by retired
rancher Howard Cantrell, on
his property west of La
Grande.
Two more of Cantrell’s
llamas were found dead last
November. One of those in-
cidents was initially ruled a
“probable” depredation, but
was retroactively changed to
“confirmed” on Tuesday by
the Oregon Department of
Fish & Wildlife.
The other incident was
ruled a “possible or unknown”
attack.
The challenge now is fig-
uring out which wolves may
be causing the problem.
Between the Mount Em-
ily and Meacham wildlife
units in the northern Blue
Mountains, there are at least
four known packs, includ-
ing the Walla Walla, Mount
Emily, Meacham and newly
named Ruckel Ridge packs,
along with more unnamed
groups and pairs roaming the
woods.
Hans Hayden, assistant
district wildlife biologist for
George Plaven/Capital Press File
Howard Cantrell, who owns property near Five Points Creek west
of La Grande, Ore., plans to move his llamas after a third was
killed by wolves.
the Oregon Department of
Fish & Wildlife in La Grande,
said investigators believe the
most recent llama death may
have been caused by a group
of three wolves led by the fe-
male OR-52.
That is just a hunch,
though, and there is still un-
certainty especially given the
lack of GPS collars on any
wolves from the nearby Mea-
cham pack, which preyed on
cattle four times in eight days
last August on a private pas-
ture in neighboring Umatilla
County.
Historically, the Meacham
pack would come into the ter-
ritory where Cantrell’s prop-
erty lies at the bottom of a
steep canyon near Five Points
Creek, Hayden said. As more
packs become established,
that can also rearrange anoth-
er pack’s territory, he added.
“It’s tough to keep tabs on
them,” Hayden said. “We’re
still learning how they use
these landscapes. It’s all pret-
ty new.”
In the meantime, Cantrell
is looking to adopt out his re-
maining 12 llamas, fearing for
their safety.
“They don’t even know
which wolves it is. They’ve
got no collars on these wolves.
They’re coming in from dif-
ferent directions every night,”
Cantrell said. “This is ridicu-
lous. The only solution I have
is to take the llamas off my
property.”
OR-52 does have a collar,
Hayden said, though it is not
a GPS collar. It is a VHF, or
“very high frequency” radio
collar, which he said does not
provide as much information
as a GPS collar but lasts lon-
ger and is more reliable.
Hayden said he has made
numerous trips to Cantrell’s
property to check on the loca-
tion of OR-52.
ODFW has also put up ad-
ditional trail cameras around
the area to catch a glimpse
of which wolves are passing
through.
Over the last few weeks,
Hayden said the department
has also installed flashing
Foxlights and radio-activated
alarm boxes to scare wolves
from the property.
“We’re trying to do every-
thing we can to help (Cantrell)
avoid another depredation,”
Hayden said.
ODFW is in the process
of preparing its end-of-year
2017 wolf report, which will
include the latest statewide
pack and population figures.
The report will be released in
March.
Error reignites Oregon
rural dwelling debate
Lawmakers urged
to correct error
from previous year
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
John and Karen Hollingsworth/USFWS
An Elgin, Ore., trapper is accused of killing a wolf that had been caught in one of his traps. He will
enter a plea March 27.
Trapper cited in wolf poaching incident
Juvenile wolf
believed to be
offspring of new
breeding pair
By GEORGE PLAVEN
Capital Press
Authorities in Oregon say
a 58-year-old wildlife trap-
per caught a juvenile female
wolf late last year in rural
Union County, then illegally
shot and killed the animal.
David Sanders Jr., of
Elgin, Ore., was arraigned
Jan. 23 in Union County
Circuit Court on charges
of unlawfully taking wild-
life — a “special status
game animal” — and using
unbranded traps, both mis-
demeanor offenses. A plea
hearing is scheduled for
March 27.
Sanders did not return a
call from the Capital Press
seeking comment.
According to information
released Wednesday, the case
dates back to Dec. 18, 2017,
when an Oregon State Police
Fish and Wildlife trooper was
inspecting a trap line near El-
gin and spotted a dead wolf
next to one of the foothold
traps.
Upon further investiga-
tion, the trooper determined
the 63-pound wolf had “more
than likely” been shot after
being caught. X-rays and a
necropsy revealed a small-cal-
iber bullet in the wolf’s spinal
column.
Sanders was interviewed
by state police, and admitted
to killing the wolf after find-
ing it in one of his traps, ac-
cording to the investigators.
The trap was also not marked
or branded with his informa-
tion, as required by law.
Based on its location, the
Oregon Department of Fish
& Wildlife believes the wolf
was the offspring of a new
breeding pair in the Mt. Emily
Wildlife Management Unit,
born in April. The department
is awaiting DNA results to
confirm the wolf’s identity.
Four wolves are known
to have been inadvertently
caught by licensed trappers
since the species began return-
ing to Oregon. In all previous
cases, the trappers contacted
ODFW and wildlife biologists
were able to respond, collar
and safely release the animal.
Wolves were removed
from the state endangered
species list in Eastern Oregon,
though it remains illegal to
shoot them except in specif-
ic cases, such as if a rancher
finds a wolf attacking live-
stock or in defense of human
life.
Another gray wolf was
poached in November 2017 in
Wallowa County, in addition
to several reported incidents
in southwest Oregon, where
the species remains federally
protected.
6-3/102
SALEM — An uninten-
tional omission from an Ore-
gon land use bill in 2017 has
re-opened the debate over
“accessory dwelling units”
in rural areas this year.
Legislation aimed at
easing Oregon’s affordable
housing crisis, Senate Bill
1051, was approved by law-
makers during the tail end of
the previous legislative ses-
sion.
Under one provision of
that bill, ADUs — some-
times called “granny flats” —
can be built in areas zoned for
detached single-family dwell-
ings in cities with more than
2,500 residents and counties
with more than 15,000 resi-
dents.
That provision was only
intended to apply within “ur-
ban growth boundaries,” but
that language was inadver-
tently dropped from the bill’s
text.
Unless the mistake is cor-
rected, the bill would allow
such dwellings in rural areas
outside cities.
Critics of ADUs in rural
areas argue that increasing
such housing would strain ex-
isting groundwater sources,
septic tanks and rural roads.
Lawmakers are now be-
ing urged to pass House Bill
4034, which would correct
File photo
An error in a 2017 land use bill would allow more “accessory
dwelling units” on Oregon farmland, but lawmakers are being
urged to correct the mistake this year.
the earlier “scrivener’s error,”
by lobbyists from organiza-
tions that don’t often agree on
development issues: 1,000
Friends of Oregon, a conser-
vation group, and the Oregon
Home Builders Association.
The possibility of legis-
lation aimed specifically at
ADUs in rural areas is be-
ing discussed as part of a
separate work group, said
Jon Chandler, CEO of the
OHBA, which usually ad-
vocates relaxing land use re-
strictions.
While the problem would
seem easily fixed, the situ-
ation is awkward because
two lawmakers on the House
Agriculture Committee —
Brad Witt, D-Clatskanie, and
David Brock Smith, R-Port
Orford — said they weren’t
aware the “urban growth
boundary” provision was
omitted accidentally.
During a Feb. 6 hearing
before the committee, Witt
said he supported the earlier
legislation because he want-
ed to allow more accessory
dwellings in rural areas and
would be disappointed to see
the provision changed.
“If you strike a deal, you
ought to let us all know a deal
has been struck,” Witt said,
referring to the urban growth
boundary limitation.
Representatives of the As-
sociation of Oregon Counties
and the Oregon Association
of Realtors urged lawmakers
not to restrict ADUs to cities.
Oregon is facing a housing
crisis, so additional ADUs in
rural areas would increase
the housing supply without
spending public money, said
Mike Eliason, legislative di-
rector of AOR.
The law could be changed
to allow counties to choose
whether to allow ADUs in
rural areas or to establish
standards for their develop-
ment, he said.
6-1/106