Man vs. Wild: The Many Issues of Manipulation in Idaho’s Wilderness

There is no mistaking or denying Idaho’s rugged beauty.  It is a place of vast and magnificent wilderness.  It would be a rare thing for someone not to feel the strong call of nature here.  However, Idaho’s wilderness has a history and on-going record of the call of man and his influence on nature’s order.  There are several examples of this issue we continue to follow as we travel down Idaho’s vast waterways, asking ourselves when is it beneficial for man to manipulate the natural world, and when would it be better to let Mother Earth tend to her own? I don’t propose to have the answers, or even venture forth my opinions, but suffice it to say there is no lack of strong, relevant material to motivate our campfire talks here on the rivers of Idaho.

Reintroduction of the Gray Wolf

Wolf reintroduction occurs by repopulating a previously extirpated area with a group of wolves, with the hope that they will reestablish themselves in the area and ecosystem.  Although wolves are the most environmentally adaptable mammals next to man, they had been hunted out of all of the lower 48 states, with the exception of a few small packs in remote northeastern Minnesota.  Wolves were highly prevalent in North America until westward expansion occurred in the 1800’s – settlers hunted the wild bison, deer, elk and moose, forcing the wolves to then hunt domestic livestock (sheep and cattle).  When this occurred, bounties were issued for wolf kills, and continued as late as the 1960’s. 

In 1995 and 1996, 35 wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, after being placed on the Endangered Species list in 1973.  In Idaho, wolves were released at three of our river trip put-in locations: Corn Creek on the Main Salmon River, Dagger Falls and Indian Creek on the Middle Fork Salmon River.  These wolf packs are reproducing and growing to sustainable levels. It is estimated that Yellowstone’s wolf population is well over 300, and central Idaho’s has grown to more than 700.

PROS:

• Restores the balance of our naturally intended food chain and ecosystems to the wilderness
• Promotes the expansion and growth of an endangered species
• Increases the wilderness experience for outdoor enthusiasts
• Forces grazing animals (i.e. elk and deer) to more protected cover – usually higher ground – so that over-grazed areas may recover, allocating a healthier habitat for species to flourish
• Remains of prey provide food for other animals such as ravens, vultures, eagles, fox and bear 

CONS:

• Livestock predation – although privately funded organizations (such as The Defenders of Wildlife) have been established to compensate ranchers for their losses due to the presence of wolves, ranchers are still very opposed to increasing this presence.  On average, a wolf kills 16 ‘ungulates’ (hooved animals) each year
• Although research shows very few unprovoked wolf-on-human attacks, there are no documented human deaths attributable to wolves, yet there is a strong fear among people in regards to wolf attacks
• Hunters believe that wolves reduce the game available for human consumption

Since the gray wolf was removed from the Endangered Species list in 2009, hunting wolves is now included in the controversy as larger wolf populations are a greater threat to domestic stock.  It is truly an awe-inspiring thrill to hear the howling of wolves as you drift off to sleep on your magical river journey, but stay tuned as this debate rages on.

The Fish, the Dams and the Damned

Back in the days before dams, well over 2-million salmon migrated each year up the Snake River basin to spawn in Idaho’s rivers and tributaries.  They were a major part of the economy, native cultures and nutrient balance of the river corridors.  Now Pacific salmon are extinct in 40% of their historic range, and threatened or endangered in another 27%.  Today all of Idaho’s salmon species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.  Why?  There are several factors (clear-cutting, invasive species, etc.), but there is one main culprit: dams cause up to 90% mortality rate in salmon.

The worst situation is when juvenile salmon (smolts) are traveling downstream to the ocean.  They need the current of the rivers’ spring runoff to push them downstream.  They also need cold water to live healthy.  Dams slow down the river current into lake-like reservoirs.  These reservoirs increase the water temperature, and their turbines can churn and kill the fragile smolts.  Smolts do not eat on their journey to the river, which used to take 10-20 days.  With the dams, it now takes months for the smolts to travel to the ocean, weakening them and making them more susceptible to predatory birds and other fish species. And finally, after years of living in the ocean, salmon migrate back upstream to their spawning beds and must climb fish ladders at 8+ dams (depending on how far upstream they are traveling), with an estimated 15-30% of which dying in the process.

The argument for the dams is rooted in hydroelectricity, industry and agricultural irrigation, as well as a stable waterway that establishes Lewiston as the farthest inland sea port, facilitating many goods to be imported and exported throughout the Pacific Northwest.

This topic is very passionately debated among Idaho residents, as the current struggle calls for the removal of the four Lower Snake River dams to greatly increase the odds of productive migration to and from the ocean for salmon.  Proponents argue that goods can be transported via truck, air and railroad, and that the impact to agriculture and industry would be minimal.  These dams are not significant providers of electricity in the greater northwest area.  As the argument continues, fishermen and environmentalists bemoan the tragic interruption of one of nature’s greatest stories.

Sheep vs Sheep:  On the Wildside, or Inside the Fence?

Big Horn Sheep are one of Idaho’s greatest four-legged representatives, and we have two different types here – Desert (seen on Owyhee trips) and Mountain (seen on Hell’s Canyon and Salmon River trips).   Long held as a food source staple for Native Americans, they are also a beautiful, thrilling site to spot as they scamper effortlessly up and across Idaho’s rugged terrain.  Most of our trips include some special time spent observing these wild animals, often in areas that have been set aside to protect them.  In addition to the native Big Horn, Idaho is also host to vast public lands which allow free-range grazing of livestock including domestic sheep.  As both sheep have intermingled, diseases like pneumonia (that the domestic stock is immune to) have spread to the non-immune and vulnerable wild sheep, which have resulted in massive casualties (in 1995 and 1996 alone, 300 Big Horns were found deceased – roughly 10% of their estimated population).  Additionally, with domestic sheep over-grazing and changing the make-up of the habitat, efforts to reintroduce or protect Big Horns are more difficult.  Idaho’s answer so far has been to create buffer zones between grazing land and protected areas for the Big Horn, but when the two overlap, the policy is to remove or kill the Big Horn.  This conflict represents several larger issues though – the use of federal/public land by private enterprises (ranchers), maintaining the natural order vs. commercial gain.  It all seems a little backwards to me, given the “public land” status.

To Burn or Not to Burn

Forest fires have occurred naturally on our planet since their beginning, long before the appearance of any evolution of man.  Throughout Native American history there is evidence that the Indians used prescribed fires to manipulate the forest floor and increase browsing brush for deer and elk, as well as to increase growth and prevalence of food plants such as camas, wild carrot, onion, kouse, bitterroot and a wide variety of berries and seeds.  As modern people debated through the years, a policy of ‘let it burn’ has been in affect, but under debate of course.  The issue is whether or not to let nature take its course. This can be done primarily through weather, in thinning out forest underbrush so mature species can thrive; otherwise, letting forests grow at their own will, manipulating the undergrowth by thinning it before too much fuel piles up and creates larger, more dangerous forest fires.  Even large wildfires have their advantages. Snags and dead trees provide habitat for wildlife.  Ash provides critical nutrients to soil and ecosystems.  Fires can kill pathogens in the soil, and are the only method by which some tree species release seeds for reproduction through its nutrients.

However, letting our forests get overgrown can also affect habitat and inhabitants negatively.  Overcrowded forests are more prone to the spread of disease, insect infestation and greater fires.  When ‘the big one’ hits, it is a great danger to life and property.  This issue is one that is grappled with every summer as forest floors dry and lightening storms roll in.  We have seen many fires on our river journeys, some from far away, and some a little closer up (but I will leave those stories to your river guides)!

Note: If you’re a deep ecologist, you may want to consider reading, "Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy," by George Wuerthner for a concise overview of fire landscapes and the past century of forest policy that has affected them.

Conclusion

So when is it right to step in, and when is it considered overstepping?  What is more important – leaving things the way nature and history intended, or shaping them to serve our increasing needs today in an ever-changing and challenged world? 

River trips are usually eye-opening, awe-inspiring, sometimes self-empowering and often humbling.  In the river environment, where thoughts and concerns of households, jobs and daily life are tempered with the beauty of nature and the thrill of adventure, these questions are amplified, minds are broadened, and most importantly, people are affected for the better.

Debbie Hausler

Tweet This Post

Written by Debbie Hausler