Wolf Nation

by Brenda Peterson

  Despite these requirements, many volunteers sign up. Some of them help with research, conducting howl surveys of wolf families or monitoring and sorting through the game camera photos. Field assistant Justin Stevenson notes that using telemetry to track signals from radio-collared wolves has been an efficient tool to ward off depredation—“If we can just keep ourselves between the sheep and the wolves.” In most instances it hasn’t taken much to keep wolves away: “Just human presence is enough.” One year Stone chased away wolves near the sheep’s bedground by just banging a metal pot with a wooden spoon.

  In 2008, the Wood River Wolf Project’s leadership role was undertaken by the Lava Lake Institute. Founded in 1999 by a San Francisco couple, Kathleen and Brian Bean, who have ties to the Nature Conservancy, Lava Lake describes itself as “a family of ranchers and environmentalists committed to sustainable ranching,” and to “restoring and preserving this land because of its history, its beauty and its biological diversity.” The Bean family notes that on its ranch over one hundred species of birds have been sighted “as well as many keystone species such as wolf, black bear, mountain lion, and elk.” Lava Lake is remarkable for its dual focus on sheep ranching and conservation.

  Their goals are long term for both sheep and wildlands. For two years Lava Lake avoided sheep-wolf conflicts by not grazing sheep on one of their allotments. But when they needed to use their land again so as not to overgraze another range, they were committed to “maintaining a wildlife-friendly reputation.”

  In the documentary film Return to the Wild: A Modern Tale of Wolf & Man, Lava Lake president Mike Stevens says, “We recognize that wolves are an important part of a fully functioning ecosystem.” He explained that “we’ve had zero depredations with the exception of 2005,” when they had yet to implement all of the Wood River Wolf Project’s recommended nonlethal deterrents. Their communication network in 2005 was also not as sophisticated, so they were not alerted to the presence of a wolf pack. They lost twenty-five sheep over two nights. But instead of instantly demanding that the wolf family be exterminated, Lava Lake bolstered its nonlethal strategies and since then has had no further wolf depredation.

  Stevens concluded, “The goal was not just to keep the sheep safe, but to keep the wolves safe too. If those wolves were dead, it would reflect poorly on all the sheep operators in this area.”

  If more ranchers adapted to the idea that the public support for wolf recovery on public lands is increasing and that wolf-livestock coexistence—not extermination—is the responsibility of both ranchers and wolf advocates, lethal removal might disappear. As Lava Lake’s Brian Bean suggested, “If lethal control was unsubsidized on public lands, meaning the rancher had to pay [for it], the phone would be ringing off the hook in terms of people wanting to understand nonlethal methods and how to reduce depredation.”

  THE WOOD RIVER WOLF PROJECT’S model of coexistence with wolves was put to the test in the summer of 2016. Once again helicopters right across the border in Washington were searching rugged terrain in the Colville National Forest grazing area—with orders to kill an entire wolf family, the Profanity Peak pack. As with the Wedge pack—some of whom were culled in 2012—and the Huckleberry pack—whose breeding female was shot after her family was suspected of preying upon sheep—there was huge public outcry against these new kill orders. People wondered what “sad lessons,” if any, had actually been learned—especially as gray wolves are still an endangered species in Western Washington, where there is profound public support for wolf recovery. Wolves had naturally reestablished themselves in Washington, mostly in the northeast counties of the state. In 2016 there were nineteen confirmed wolf packs (totaling ninety wolves) in Washington. Would killing eleven out of ninety wolves still leave a sustainable population?

  “By no stretch of the imagination can killing 12 percent of the state’s tiny population of ninety wolves be consistent with wolf recovery,” Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity maintained.

  Other conservation groups, including Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation Northwest, Wolf Haven International, and the US Humane Society, were caught in the crossfires of this highly controversial culling. These wolf conservation groups had all participated in the twenty-member Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) and had spent two years in difficult but productive dialogues with wildlife scientists, livestock producers, sportsmen, and state and federal wildlife agency reps to set up a protocol for lethal removal—if wolves preyed upon cattle or sheep. After confirmation that the Profanity Peak pack had killed six cattle and notice of three other probable depredations, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was asked, under this WAG agreement, to sanction lethal removal.

  “We didn’t get the protocol we wanted right off the bat,” Suzanne Stone told me about the WAG agreement on lethal removal. “There were compromises. With the Profanity Peak killing in this chronic conflict area, more changes must be made, more consideration for wolves in public lands.”

  The Diamond M rancher, Len McIrvin, whose livestock loss had also triggered the Wedge pack culling, had used nonlethal deterrents (range riders) and removed livestock carcasses, so the basic requirements for lethal removal seemed to be met. In early August state wildlife officials shot two Profanity Peak wolves from a helicopter. Because it’s almost impossible to identify wolves from the air, it was not clear whether they had once again killed the alpha, or breeding, female.

  After this was determined, wolf conservation advocates still hoped that the adults remaining in the family would provide food for the weaned pups. The pups had been born in the spring and were now about three to four months old. Many of them did not yet have radio collars. The older wolves, with their radio collars, were easier targets for aerial snipers and trappers. After losing their breeding female and another adult female, the Profanity Peak wolf family retreated to dense, often remote forests, and the lethal removal was halted. Wolf advocates watched anxiously in the hope that the wolf family’s remaining nine members would not again be found guilty of any more livestock predation.

  But soon more cows were killed or injured—six cattle and possibly five others. WDFW issued an order to exterminate the remaining wolf family. The Profanity Peak pack was originally believed to include six adults and five pups. Because the pups were young and have “greater nutritional needs… it’s believed that may be the cause for the latest, and fourth livestock attack from this pack during the year.” By late August six wolves in the Profanity Peak pack were dead. There were five surviving members, and the culling controversy was big news nationally and internationally.

  “Problem is, they first accidentally shot the breeding female,” Stone explained. “That will normally cause conflict to worsen rather than to get better.” Losing the alpha female often destabilizes the entire family and can actually lead to more depredation by younger, more immature wolves who are not yet trained to be wary of livestock and people.

  The highly unpopular kill orders for the entire Profanity Peak pack proved a very difficult situation for those wolf advocates, like Defenders of Wildlife, who had committed to the lethal protocol agreement forged by the Wolf Advisory Group. Jamie Rappaport Clark, the ex-director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and now president of Defenders, wrote, “This is a point we never wanted to come to. In our vision for wolves, lethal removal would never have to be used.… When we lose wolves, it is devastating for those who advocate for their recovery, as we have for decades.” Describing gray wolves as America’s true “comeback kid,” Rappaport noted that ranchers are realizing after twenty years of wolf recovery that “we have to learn to live with them.… This might be hard for some wolf advocates to digest, but the reality is that without the cooperation of ranchers, wolves don’t have a chance on the landscape.”

  Wolf advocacy groups who had signed on to the WAG protocol issued a joint statement: “We remain steadfast that our important goals remain the long-term recovery and public acceptance of wolves in our state alongside th
riving rural communities.… We ask our community and the citizens of Washington State and beyond to engage in respectful and civil dialogue as we work through these challenging events. We believe that ultimately we can create conditions where everyone’s values are respected and the needs of wildlife, wildlife advocates, and rural communities are met.”

  Yet, as so often happens with wolf politics, the conversation was not noted for its civility. Facebook pages for the wolf advocacy groups participating in WAG to work together were filled with outrage and threats to withdraw support. As the Seattle Times noted, Washington “faces backlash on all sides over wolf killings.”

  For these longtime wolf advocates—as well as the others on the Wolf Advisory Group now required to support wolf culling in hopes of long-term coexistence—losing the Profanity Peak pack was an excruciating but unavoidable step forward towards long-term coexistence with wolves.

  Watching this Profanity Peak pack killing play out so painfully for all involved reminds me of meeting young foresters whose idealism was sorely tested when they were asked to “get the cut out” on the forests they wanted to conserve. The official rationale was always short-term sacrifice for long-term gain—a complex and often personally grueling path with many compromises and moral dilemmas. It takes a toll on those who strive to save wolves only to see these wolf families killed for the “greater good.” For surely on the way to coexistence there are not just sacrificial lambs—there are also sacrificial wolves.

  THE BACKLASH AND public outrage over the ongoing plans to kill the remaining five members of the Profanity Peak pack were on full display at the September 2016 Wolf Advisory Group meeting in Western Washington. Perhaps it takes a repeated tragedy like targeting an entire wolf family for the third time to ignite public opinion and participation. The WAG meeting was standing room only, with an electric tension in the air. The mediator, Francine Madden, asked everyone to consider whether we would use “words of war or words of peace.” In her firm but inclusive mediation style—what she calls “conflict transformation”—she told the contentious crowd, “Peace building is hard to do.”

  Over a hundred of us witnessed the Wolf Advisory Group as they described their work together to build trust between traditional foes. The meeting began with a prayer by the Montana Blackfoot traditional medicine chief, Jimmy Stgoggard. In his prayer Stgoggard asked the Creator to “bless these farmers and ranchers to help them understand that the makoyi, the wolf, is holy to us.… We want to teach the children that we can all come together.” Then a Native woman moved around the circle of WAG members and sang, a soft rattle accompanying her strong voice. Several of the WAG members, including a few ranchers—one with a knife sheathed at his belt—bowed their heads as the crowd calmed down.

  The WAG members each took turns to speak about their two-year struggle to listen and learn from each other. Their stories revealed unexpected humor, courage, and vulnerability. Donny Mortarello of WDFW confessed to feeling unprepared for how troubling the Profanity Peak pack removal was, even for wildlife officials. “We were not expecting it to be so… so emotional,” he said, his head down and voice muted.

  “There was real grief,” a brawny wildlife biologist added in a husky voice.

  One of the cattlewomen choked on her words. “Cattle producers are not great at change,” she admitted. “We haven’t had wolves in ninety years, and now they’re here, and people are upset that we’re not changing fast enough!” She paused, her voice wavering. “But cattle producers using nonlethals is huge… and using them so quickly is huge. It’s hard for us,” she punctuated the air with her hand. “And we’re doing it! I want to make sure everybody acknowledges that.” She broke off, fighting back tears.

  In all the polarities of wildlife conflict we rarely see ranchers’ real pain at how swiftly the culture is moving them—either along or aside. The US Humane Society representative leaned over as if with the weight of his work, “There has been true compassion and outreach in this group like I’ve never seen before. This is tangible change.”

  A wildlife conflict supervisor in the WAG praised the range riders. “They put in a ton of time in the field.” In the audience he nodded toward two burly men in cowboy hats and battered boots. “Five generations of cattle producers are really stepping up.”

  One of the rugged range riders, hat in hand, suggested, “If the Forest Service and ranchers can talk right at the beginning of the grazing season, it could really prevent depredations. Let’s get this communication going between the Forest Service and USFW!”

  Listening to the WAG members, it struck me that most of us carefully curate our information, subscribing to media that reflect back only our own worldview; we rarely have to talk for long with those whose politics or lifestyles are diametrically opposed to ours. To converse respectfully with others who completely disagree with us requires new openness, an elasticity of mind and heart.

  Face-to-face, well-moderated discourse—even on an issue like wolves, known for its vitriol—can advance the conversation, and the possibilities, and often change policies. Since WAG began meeting in 2014, three times as many ranchers are adopting nonlethal deterrents in the state. By the time this WAG meeting was held in late fall of 2016, there had been not a single wolf poaching in Washington that year, as compared with hundreds of wolves illegally killed in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

  “We still have the best wolf-management policy of any state,” Diane Gallegos told me on a break from the intense discussion. “In our first WAG meeting there was so much friction that pro- or antiwolf WAG members didn’t even want to sit next to each other.” Now ranchers and conservationists socialize together. Gallegos concluded, “We’re listening to each other for a common goal. That’s a powerful thing when you have really tough work to do together.”

  What was so different about this working group of traditional adversaries, with so many deeply opposing opinions, was indeed their mutual goodwill. But more striking was their agreement that there was no going backward to an Old-West model. There was only the goal of finding a way forward into coexistence with wolves. This is impressive and unusual in state wolf politics. It’s also surprising to see a working group that can even tease each other without rancor. Wolf preservation has often been called “the abortion issue of wildlife.”

  A LARGER ISSUE at the WAG meeting was that the public has not yet played its full part in the wolf-management policy being hammered out—and that public was now demanding to have its say. The WAG got an earful from people who often feel they have too long been left out of the debate over public wildlife on public lands. Several Native people pointed out that there were no tribal reps on WAG. “Wolves and our people have been erased from public lands,” a Native woman said. “Wolves are our kin, our creators. My brother is from the Wolf Clan, and in our stories the wolf is part of our identity.”

  A Cowlitz tribal leader from Protect the Wolves noted that elder Roger Dobson had just sent a cease-and-desist letter to the state declaring that lethal removal of the Profanity Peak pack violated treaty and religious rights. “This particular rancher is a proven repeat offender of placing his livestock in harm’s way for the last three years,” Dobson wrote. “It is not the fault of our sacred animals. They did not ask to have their home range invaded by careless livestock owners.”

  A woman in the crowd, well versed in the history of lethal removal in Washington, read from her copious notes. “Wolf removal is not based on credible science.” She paused and looked around the room, which was loudly supporting her. “Coexistence may never be attained with certain ranchers.” Angry clapping from the crowd. The woman concluded that Diamond M rancher Len McIrvin was no poster child for any use of nonlethal deterrents.

  Because wolves had killed livestock on McIrvin’s allotment for the second time, many in the crowd were very skeptical of his commitment to coexistence with predators. The Seattle Times had just broken a front-page story citing Washington State University researcher Dr. Robert Wielgus, di
rector of the Large Carnivore Lab. The scientist noted that rancher McIrvin “had elected to put his livestock directly on top of their den site; we have pictures of cows swamping it.” Wielgus also explained that “the cattle pushed out the wolves’ native prey of deer, and with a den full of young to feed.”

  Using camera monitors and far-ranging telemetry, Wielgus is conducting an ongoing study of wolf-livestock conflicts in Washington. Wielgus questioned why “McIrvin has refused to radio-collar his cattle to help predict and avoid interactions with radio-collared wolves.” He concluded that the killing of cows by the Profanity Peak pack was “predictable and avoidable” and that “in Washington, more cattle are killed by logging trucks, fire, and lightning than wolves.”

  Washington State University then immediately issued an apology and disavowal, calling Wielgus’s statements “inaccurate and inappropriate.” WSU sided with rancher McIrvin, who had used a grazing permit from the US Forest Service for seventy-three years. Wielgus still maintained that the rancher had “refused to cooperate with us to reduce depredations and has had two wolf packs killed so far. He hates wolves… and welcomes conflict… because the wolves die in his allotments.” Wielgus concluded that where McIrvin grazes, “dead wolves follow. He will be proud of it.”

  Amidst death threats to both WDFW officials and ranchers—and claims that Wielgus’s academic freedom was also being violated—Dr. Wielgus withdrew from the debate, saying, “It’s gone too far.”