Earth Island Institute logo, tap or click to visit the Institute home page

Go Back: Home > Earth Island Journal > Latest News > Post and Comments

Latest News

Will Oregon Be the State to Solve the “Wicked Wolf Problem?”

An open process among diverse stakeholders has reduced tensions surrounding the predator

In scientific circles, a “wicked problem” is one that has so much complexity and so many variables — often contradictory and changing over time — that it is considered essentially unsolvable. When gray wolves were reintroduced into the Northern Rockies by the federal government in 1995 and 1996, the social and political reaction, and overreaction, sparked fiery controversy and litigation that has yet to subside. Wolf recovery and management fits squarely into the “wicked problem” category, and prevents the animals from ever being treated as just another wildlife species on the landscape.

Grey wolf in profilePhoto by Aaron TubbsThat wolf recovery and management is driven primarily by regional politics was laid bare when the US Congress, in an unprecedented move, voted to remove wolves from the ESA in most of the northern Rockies.

The dysfunction became apparent in the wolf plans developed by the northern Rocky Mountain states, which were required by the US Fish and Wildlife Service before it would turn over wolf management to state wildlife agencies. Montana and Idaho immediately instituted highly divisive recreational wolf hunting seasons under pressure from the livestock industry, which has traditionally controlled wildlife management in the West. The resumption of hunting was intended to substantially reduce wolf populations. Meanwhile, Wyoming adopted a plan under an agreement with the USFWS that allowed wolves to be killed on sight in 84 percent of the state (although in September 2014 a federal judge ruled the Wyoming plan inadequate to protect wolves and re-listed them under the Endangered Species Act, a ruling which the state is now fighting). That wolf recovery and management is driven primarily by regional politics was laid bare when — after a string of court victories by conservation groups keeping the wolves from being prematurely removed from federal ESA protection — the US Congress, in an unprecedented move, voted to remove wolves from the ESA in most of the northern Rockies. The delisting came in the form of a rider to a defense budget bill, which President Obama signed in April 2011.

When wolves began to disperse from Idaho into the Pacific Northwest, they were entering, to some extent, friendlier territory. An April 1999 survey commissioned by several Oregon conservation groups showed that 70 percent of Oregonians favored the return of wolves. After dispersing Idaho wolf B45’s brief 1999 sojourn into Oregon (she was captured and returned to Idaho), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife began working on a wolf plan, completing it in 2005. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife completed its own in 2011, while California began working on a plan in 2011 after the famous wandering Oregon wolf OR7 took up temporary residence there.

For wolf advocates, the Oregon plan offers the most promise for giving wolves a fair shake. Much of that hope is based on how that plan was developed, compared to the other Western wolf states. From a conservationist perspective, the state wolf plans in the northern Rockies were disasters. While Montana made some effort at public outreach in developing its plan, the Idaho and Wyoming’s plans were written largely by fish and wildlife agency staff, with extreme prejudice toward wolves built into the documents. Washington and California brought in stakeholder representatives to help formulate their wolf plans, but the stakeholder meetings were limited to hunter, rancher, and conservation groups. Because these groups are often at odds when it comes to wildlife policy (especially wolves) this injected tension and polarization into the plan development process.

“Oregon did something very different,” says Amaroq Weiss, West Coast wolf organizer for the Center for Biological Diversity. “They had 14 stakeholders on the wolf plan stakeholder group that reflected different interests and perspectives.” That included, hunter, rancher and conservationist representatives, but also representatives of public lands, rural residents, educators, Native Americans, and others. That not only broadened the group’s perspective of wolves, but helped dilute the tensions that wolves can bring out in people. The Oregon wolf plan also did something important that the Washington plan didn’t: require that rules be made or laws passed specifying procedures that would be implemented when wolves were involved in livestock depredations, and how information about wolves would be made available to the public. “This,” says Weiss, who was a member of the Oregon stakeholder group, “created transparency, accountability, and predictability.”

Dealing with wolf predation on livestock is one area where the Oregon wolf plan proved to be a model, although it came out of a lawsuit brought against the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife by conservation groups. In 2011, after the agency killed two members of the Imnaha pack for chronic attacks on livestock in northeast Oregon, ODFW decided to break up the pack by killing two more of its four remaining members. Oregon’s wolf population at the time was 14 animals. A lawsuit brought against the agency by the Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Wild, and Cascadia Wildlands resulted in a settlement agreement that only allowed killing wolves to protect livestock if there were at least four attacks by the same pack during a six-month period. Also, only attacks occurring on private lands counted, and ranchers would first have to attempt non-lethal wolf deterrents.

Since those procedures were put in place, no Oregon wolves have been killed because of livestock depredations. Even though the state’s wolf population has tripled, attacks on livestock have not increased. The Oregon system is a big departure from Washington, where state wildlife officials don’t distinguish between depredations on public and private lands and where they have killed wolves in response to livestock attacks. The most notable example was the controversial shooting of the Wedge pack in 2012, during which state officials ignored more than 10,000 e-mails opposing the killing and the fact that the rancher whose livestock was being attacked resisted implementing non-lethal deterrent methods. The state spent more some $76,000 in public funds to kill Wedge pack members.

wolf pupPhoto courtesy of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. OR-11, a male pup (born spring 2011) from the Walla Walla pack, waking up from anesthesia after being radio-collared on Oct. 25, 2011. The current wolf population in Oregon is 77 animals.

Another notable difference between the Oregon wolf plan and those in the northern Rockies is there are no proposals currently to institute a general recreational wolf-hunting season. Oregon wolf managers, however, are leaving the option open to have limited hunting seasons in the future that might target specific wolves in specific areas if they are causing problems, a move that would surely bring close scrutiny by wolf advocates.

But wicked problems aren’t easily dispensed with. The rules for handling livestock depredations that were hailed as a model for how to protect both wolves and livestock have expired and no longer have to be followed. And the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, which signed onto the settlement agreement, has new leadership that is taking a harder line against wolves. Oregon hunting groups have also been advocating for fewer protections for wolves.

The Oregon plan is also facing a new test to see how well it will recover the state’s wolves. The Oregon wolf population has reached the threshold for removal from state endangered species protection: four breeding pairs that have had at least two pups surviving to the end of their birth year for three consecutive years in a row. The official wolf population is currently 77 animals, and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission is now considering whether to delist the species.  

That relatively modest delisting threshold has disappointed Oregon conservationists, who consider it far too low, especially compared to the Washington wolf plan that calls for 15 successful breeding pairs across three regions of the state before they can be completely delisted. “The structure of the Oregon wolf plan was a good one, but it was a political and social compromise, not a scientific wolf recovery plan,” says Rob Klavins, Northeast Oregon Field Coordinator for Oregon Wild. “I don’t know any scientists who would say 77 wolves is recovery.”

After a large turnout of people opposing wolf delisting at the April 2015 Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting, the commissioners agreed to consider just delisting the eastern Oregon wolf population, along with statewide delisting (wolves in western Oregon would remain listed under the federal ESA), or no delisting.  But even a partial delisting is problematic. Since most of Oregon’s wolves are in the northeastern part of the state, they serve as the source of dispersing wolves to the rest of the state, especially to the Cascade Mountains, where only one of Oregon’s nine known packs is established. Wolf advocates fear that loosened management protections for the source population could jeopardize statewide recovery.

ODFW is confident the wolves can prosper even after a statewide delisting. “When I talk with people who have concerns or are opposed to parts of the plan, we have to step back and look at where we stand with the wolf population,” says Russ Morgan, the agency’s wolf coordinator. “The wolves are doing well and that speaks well for the plan as a whole.” According to Morgan, wolf management won’t change much, even after a statewide delisting.

A decision on whether to go ahead with the delisting process is expected by November, which would then go through a public vetting process. Meanwhile, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife will release its draft wolf plan for public review later this summer or fall.

So far, Oregon’s wolf plan has been fairly friendly to wolves, measured by the simple metric that it has resulted in far fewer dead wolves than other states where wolves roam. This year the plan is due for its second five-year review, giving wolf advocates a chance to try and tweak it where they feel it is failing the wolves, although ranching and hunting groups will also be out in force with their ideas on how wolves should be managed. But in the Pacific Coast states, the advantage is probably with the wolves in the long run. Weiss says: “A majority of people in the West Coast states want wolves back and will fight like hell to see that happen.”


Jim Yuskavitch
Jim Yuskavitch is a conservation writer and photographer based in Sisters, Oregon. He is also editor of The Osprey, a journal published by the International Federation of Fly Fishers Steelhead Committee that advocates for wild Pacific salmon and steelhead conservation.

Email this post to a friend.

Write to the editor about this post.

Subscribe Today
cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJFour issues of the award-winning
Earth Island Journal for only $10



I live in a state with more ranches than any other state. Our ranchers are learning to live with predators, which takes some work and is not for lazy welfare ranchers, like “shooting of the Wedge pack in 2012, during which state officials ignored ...the fact that the rancher whose livestock was being attacked resisted implementing non-lethal deterrent methods. The state spent more some $76,000 in public funds to kill Wedge pack members.” To make one idiot happy; that is obscene from any viewpoint!

SO I have 3 points:
1. Wildlife belongs to ALL of us, not just the 6% or less who hunt. Fish and Game Commissions need to start managing for the majority of taxpayers, not their hunter buddies; because the 94%+ are getting royally sick of this, and are starting to talk about banning ALL hunting. We are sick of being unable to use OUR public lands during hunting season for fear of being shot.
2. Get all that damn livestock off OUR public lands! The ranchers can keep their animals safe by securely containing them on their own property. Why are WE paying for this?
3. In civilized societies, people who enjoy torturing and killing animals are put in jail (or an insane asylum). They are not put in charge of public policy!

By Jane Eagle on Mon, August 17, 2015 at 10:13 am

You are far more optimistic than I am about the future of Oregon’s wolves.

The current wolf management plans specifically states, on page iv, that “Under Phase 3 a limited controlled hunt could be allowed to
decrease chronic depredation or reduce pressure on wild ungulate populations. ” Keep in mind that Oregon considers all of its big game hunts to be limited and controlled, so that phrase is meaningless. And, if hunting is allowed because wolves eat deer and elk, then you can bet that many hunters will demand a wolf hunt. The state hunting organizations are already clamoring to be allowed to hunt wolves as soon as possible.

ODFW also suggests that hunting will be used at where it states that, once wolves are delisted, they will be “managed so they do not ... climb to unmanageable levels that cause conflicts with other land uses.” As we all know, wolf populations are self-regulating and do not need this “management.” Again, it’s code for “keep enough wolves around so they aren’t federally or state-listed again, but kill a bunch of them to keep hunters and ranchers happy.”

It also states, on page 16, that it will “Promote social tolerance for wolves by effectively and responsibly addressing conflict with
competing human values through the use of management measures consistent with longterm wolf conservation in all phases of wolf management status under this Plan.”  “Promoting solcial tolerance,” as anyone knows who has dealt with predator issues in the West, is codespeak for hunting wolves- the unproven idea that by allowing people who hate wolves to kill them, somehow they will hate wolves less.

By Cris Waller on Sun, August 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm

A quote from Doug Smith - in charge of wolf recovery in Yellowstone—

  “I’m in my 18th year here in Yellowtone right now. I felt that this stuff would have died down and mostly figured out by now. It ain’t. It’s getting worse”

By Bill Chamberlain on Wed, August 12, 2015 at 9:16 pm

Leave a comment

Comments Policy

Remember my personal information?

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

View Posts by Date View Posts by Author


Four issues for just
$15 a year.

cover thumbnail EIJ

Join Now!