Large, rugged and remote: The challenge of wolf–livestock coexistence on federal lands in the American West

Abstract

AbstractThe expansion of grey wolves (Canis lupus) across the western United States, including on public lands used for extensive livestock grazing, requires tools and techniques for reducing wolf–livestock conflict and supporting coexistence. We examined approaches used on forested lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, which we characterize as large, rugged and remote (LRR) landscapes. Research on the spatial aspects of where tools and techniques are deployed and their effectiveness across geographic settings is scant.We selected six national forests located in six western states where managers seek to mitigate ongoing wolf–livestock conflict and conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with stakeholders (n = 69) to discuss approaches to conflict mitigation and perceptions of the effectiveness of different tools and techniques.We developed a three‐part typology categorizing tools and techniques for conflict reduction: livestock husbandry, non‐lethal deterrents and targeted lethal removal of wolves. Across these categories, interviewees noted that many approaches are challenging to scale up to the geographic context of Forest Service grazing allotments and LRR landscapes.The techniques perceived by our informants to be most effective for mitigating conflict in LRR landscapes include: human presence (mobile range riders); flexibility in grazing management; husbandry practices to minimize livestock vulnerability; and targeted lethal removal of wolves (used in combination with non‐lethal techniques).Social, economic and political factors also influence the ability of producers to implement desired conflict mitigation tools in the national forest context. For example, the economic costs of implementation in LRR landscapes, and policies associated with grazing on federal lands, can limit mitigation options.Policy implications. Geography matters! Efforts to address wolf–livestock conflict are more likely to be effective if they are designed to fit the local geographic context. Effectiveness may also increase if mitigation efforts go beyond technical approaches, considering the social, economic and institutional context in which conflict is embedded.Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.