Photo credit: Robert Anderson.
By Robert M. Anderson, Susan Charnley, Jeff Vance Martin, and Kathleen Epstein.
In response to the growth of wolf populations across the western United States, and their overlap with public lands that are often used for livestock grazing, many tools and techniques have been used to try to reduce wolf attacks on livestock. However, relatively little research has been done to study how these tools are used differently in different places or types of landscapes.
Our research focuses on national forest lands, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, which are large, rugged, and remote landscapes quite different from many other grazing lands. We interviewed forest managers, livestock owners, and others involved in dealing with wolves and livestock on six different national forests in the American West. We asked about the approaches they are using to respond to wolf presence, and their perceptions of what works. Drawing on these interviews, we describe three broad categories of tools and techniques for conflict reduction: changing livestock husbandry techniques to make them less vulnerable to wolves; using deterrents to scare wolves away from livestock; and killing wolves. Though all of these techniques can be used across a variety of landscapes, our interviewees noted that they are especially challenging on large, rugged, remote landscapes.
The techniques that our interviewees see as most useful include human presence with livestock, flexibility in how grazing is managed; changes to livestock husbandry, and targeted killing of wolves. However, the ability of livestock owners to use these tools is constrained by a range of social, economic, and political factors. Our research concludes that geography matters: efforts to address wolf-livestock conflict are more likely to be effective if they are designed to fit the local geography, and consider the social, economic, and institutional context of the place where conflict occurs.
Relational Thinking 