The Balancing Act of Wildlife Management and Livestock Protection

For most Alaskans, seeing a wolf is a wildlife encounter. For a farmer or rancher who finds one near a livestock pen, pasture or calving area, the situation can look very different.

Wolves have been part of the state's landscape for thousands of years, and today an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 wolves range across nearly all of their historic range.

But what happens when a wolf stops being simply part of the landscape and becomes a threat to livestock?

A recent federal executive order directed the U.S. Department of the Interior to evaluate whether gray and Mexican wolves meet the criteria for changes to their Endangered Species Act status and called for greater flexibility in responding to threats involving livestock and human safety.

Protecting a producer's livelihood is necessary, but so is responsible wildlife management.

Alaska's wolves are predators. Their natural prey includes animals such as moose, caribou and deer, and predator-prey relationships are a normal part of Alaska's ecosystems. ADF&G describes wolves as an integral part of Alaska's wildlife systems and notes that their abundance is influenced by factors including prey availability, disease and harvest. That is different from a wolf repeatedly approaching a livestock area or killing domestic animals.

A wolf passing through a pasture doesn't necessarily require intervention. A wolf repeatedly testing fences, lingering around livestock or being confirmed in multiple depredation incidents presents a very different management question. The response should be based on what is actually happening, not simply on the presence of a wolf.

When livestock and predators occupy the same landscape, prevention is worth pursuing whenever it is practical. That can include electric fencing, secure nighttime enclosures, improved fencing, lighting, additional monitoring, carcass management, range riding and livestock guardian dogs.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game specifically recommends measures such as indoor shelter, chain-link fencing and electric fencing to help protect livestock and domestic animals from wolves. USDA Wildlife Services has also invested in evaluating nonlethal approaches to predator-livestock conflicts, including range riding, fladry, guard dogs and electric fencing.But prevention comes with a practical reality that should not be overlooked: Not every tool works on every operation.

A small livestock operation may be able to secure animals at night. A producer managing animals across a large, remote landscape may have very different options. An electric fence has to be installed and maintained. A livestock guardian dog requires training, feed and veterinary care. Range riding requires people, time and money. For some producers, those tools can make a significant difference. For others, they may reduce risk without eliminating it. The realities of farming and ranching in Alaska has to be acknowledged.

When a livestock loss occurs, one of the most important questions is simple: What actually happened? A wolf being present in an area doesn't automatically mean it caused a particular livestock death.

ADF&G has spent years researching wolf movements, prey selection and predation patterns. In Southeast Alaska, researchers used GPS collars to investigate locations where wolves spent extended periods. Over 12 month-long field seasons, researchers investigated 1,248 GPS clusters and collected information about prey at 368 sites.

Those clusters were not 1,248 confirmed kills. Researchers investigated them because the amount of time a wolf spent in a particular location could indicate something worth examining. Some turned out to be kills, while others were resting or rendezvous sites or scavenging locations.

Before deciding how to respond, wildlife managers need to understand whether a predator simply passed through an area or whether there is a pattern of predation that requires intervention.

There are also situations where prevention may not be enough. A producer can maintain fences, bring vulnerable animals into secure areas, use deterrents and take reasonable precautions and still experience losses. When that happens, producers need access to a wildlife management system that can respond. That means timely investigation of suspected depredation, clear standards for determining what happened, and management options that reflect the severity and persistence of the problem.

The recent federal executive order specifically calls for federal agencies to consider how depredation claims are investigated and how lethal removal may be authorized in situations involving threats to domestic livestock or human safety.

Livestock are not simply animals. They represent an investment of money, time, breeding decisions and years of work. A loss can affect an operation far beyond the value of a single animal. Protecting that investment is a legitimate responsibility, but so is recognizing that managing a predator does not always mean removing it.

There is a tendency in predator debates to turn the issue into a choice between protecting livestock and protecting wildlife. Perhaps the question we could ask is, what tool is appropriate for this particular conflict?

If a conflict can reasonably be prevented with fencing, livestock guardian dogs, changes in husbandry or other deterrents, those should be the first preventative measures pursued.

If a predator continues to pose a serious and documented threat despite reasonable preventive measures, producers should have access to appropriate wildlife management tools. And when there is an immediate threat to human safety, the circumstances may require an even faster response.

Alaska already has experience managing wolves as both a wildlife resource and a predator that can, under certain circumstances, affect human interests. Wolves are managed as both big game and furbearers, with roughly 1,300 harvested annually by hunters and trappers and additional animals taken through intensive management programs. That management exists alongside the recognition that wolves are an important part of Alaska's ecosystems.

Wildlife management works best when decisions are based on what is actually happening on the ground, not assumptions about what should happen in theory.

Learning how to coexist with wildlife is part of operating in Alaska, but coexistence cannot mean asking producers to simply absorb whatever losses come their way. There should be room for prevention. There should be room for responsible wildlife management. And there should be room for producers to protect their livelihoods when other measures aren't enough.

None of these methods is a silver bullet. For producers experiencing repeated depredation, having the ability to respond when livestock are genuinely at-risk matters. But there is an opportunity for a more productive conversation that recognizes the legitimate need for producers to protect their livestock without treating lethal action as the automatic answer.