Northeast Washington Wolf Viewpoints Shared By Ranchers, Hunters, Local Biz At Meeting

By Jillian Garrett

On November 20, a panel of six local residents gathered at the Agriculture and Trade Center in downtown Colville to talk about the realities of living with wolves. They were invited to speak as part of a presentation for Washington’s Wolf Advisory Group, a collection of stakeholders who help advise the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife – and by default the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission – on strategies for reducing wolf conflict within the state.

The group represents a broad spectrum of perspectives, and includes ranchers, hunters, environmentalists, and “at large.” Washington currently has one of the best wolf recovery programs in the country, while simultaneously boasting some of the lowest documented depredation numbers relative to wolf populations when compared with other states.

The motivator for this meeting had been one of WAG’s own members, a livestock producer in Stevens County, who had urged the group to come hear firsthand accounts of the impacts that wolves were having on this region. Wolves have always been a contentious topic, and the northeastern corner of Washington is no exception, especially because it happens to have some of the densest wolf concentrations. 

The six panelists were comprised of two ranchers, two hunters, a local business owner, and a representative from the Ferry County Conservation District. Each panelist was allotted 10 minutes to discuss their local perspective on wolves. Common themes amongst the panelists were a lack of trust with WDFW, the need for a better system to address depredations and lethal removals, and calls to manage wolf populations like other game species.

BILL McIRVIN A FOURTH-GENERATION RANCHER from the Diamond M Ranch, which has operations in Stevens and Ferry Counties, said that these meetings were a “waste of time,” and that “if the {Fish and Wildlife} Department wasn’t in the way … the problem would be taken care of.” Jeff Dawson, a rancher from Stevens County, expressed frustration that, despite all of the talking and meetings, “nothing’s changed.”

Both ranchers urged for a quicker, more streamlined response to authorizing lethal removals for livestock depredations, as well as better collaboration between WDFW and the local sheriff’s office. “The problem isn’t the wolves, it’s the Department,” continued McIrvin, expressing irritation at the slow timelines and ponderous bureaucratic procedures before depredations could be adequately addressed.

The Diamond M Ranch, one of the largest in the region, has historically been at the center of conflict – both for wolves and animal rights’ advocates – particularly with the 2019 removal of the Old Profanity Territory Pack in response to repeated depredations. McIrvin has steadfastly refused compensation for livestock killed by wolves, saying that it doesn’t address the root of the problem, further adding that delisting wolves would begin to help restore trust between the ranching community and the WDFW, especially because it would make the bureaucratic process of dealing with depredations easier.

(Author’s note: the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission recently voted against downlisting wolves, despite recommendations from WDFW staff advising otherwise.)

The next panelist was Dave Hedrick of the Ferry County Conservation District. In a slideshow presentation, he brought up WAG’s original goals, including the statement, “Washington is going to be different.” Hedrick then asked, “Is different needed to recover wolves?”

Stressing the importance of better wolf management, he pointed out that livestock is the only real commodity in Ferry County, which is already seeing a decrease in the number of younger members taking up ranching. “Many producers don’t want their kids growing up in this {cattle} business,” he said, implying that with wolves having such a negative impact on cattle industry, the future of ranching in Ferry County was cause for concern.

Hedrick also pointed out the high costs of nonlethal deterrents, such as range riding, and the expense to taxpayers of having to cover these methods. From a conservation standpoint, he mentioned that pressure from wolves forces cattle to congregate in certain areas for long periods of time, causing a higher level of landscape degradation than would normally be seen by free-ranging cows.

ANDY HYDORN, OWNER OF BENNY’S COLVILLE INN (full disclosure: a Northwest Sportsman advertiser), discussed the impacts that decreasing hunting opportunities had on the local economy, specifically on the declining number of out-of-area hunters coming to stay there. The implication was that a lack of deer and elk (potentially the result of increased predation by wolves) made the area less appealing as a hunting destination.

Hydorn stated that 2024 marked the lowest number of late-season room rentals in 36 years of business, and while he admitted this result could be caused by a multitude of factors, as both a local business owner and a hunter, urged that “our predators have to be managed.” In a speech that received a resounding applause, he elaborated that the current wolf regulations “limit us but don’t empower us,” further stating that, “it’s killing us economically” and “the numbers don’t lie.”

John Gianukakis, representing hunting interests, admitted that while there was no getting around the fact that local residents had to learn to live with wolves, wolves needed to be managed like all other predators. Gianukakis brought up numerous firsthand examples of locally decreasing populations of deer and elk, which were also resulting in fewer and fewer hunters in the woods. He also made the comment that the lack of trust with the WDFW was partly the result of its game wardens failing to take the time to socialize with hunters in the field, which helped to further alienate local residents.

The final panelist was Ryan Garrett, a self-proclaimed “predator hunter and predator eater” who is also, full disclosure, my husband and was there as a representative of the hunting community. Garrett had a slightly different perspective on wolves, taking the stance that he was “obviously pro-hunting,” but also “pro-predator, including wolves.” Instead of pointing the usual finger at WDFW, Garrett laid the blame for poor management at the feet of the Fish and Wildlife Commission, stating that their “predator protectionist approach … pandered to the symbol of the wolf while ignoring the effects to the animal.”

He also brought up scientific studies which demonstrated that more wolves on the landscape equaled fewer cougars, as wolves had been shown to pressure cats off of their kills, out of their territories, and even go so far as to kill the cougars themselves.

“By protecting the symbol of wolf and keeping them on the endangered list, we have tied our hands to mitigate the animal’s negative impacts to other species,” he said.

Further examples of unmanaged wolf populations included detrimental impacts to endangered lynx. Garrett ended his speech with a final poignant comment: “I’d love to sit on my porch one day and listen to the howls of wolves, and to think about the wolf itself – beautiful, brutal, dynamic and deadly – a mixed bag of good and bad that you really only appreciate if you love something not for what you want it to be, but for what it is.”

FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE PANELISTS, WAG members were invited to ask questions and/or give input based on what they had heard. One WAG member spoke up and suggested following Oregon’s example of “controlled take,” which offers the possibility of using local hunters to kill wolves that have met the criteria for lethal removal. Another WAG member, concerned that lethal removal in general still would not address increasing depredations and the need for better management policies, urged caution before resorting to that final step. 

These two comments reflected the continuing controversy over wolf management, and the chasm of viewpoints between rural realities and urban ideals. In many ways, rancher Jeff Dawson was right when he said that the only thing that’s changed in these meetings is his shirt. Whatever the opinions of Washington’s residents, wolves are here to stay. The question then becomes how people and wolves can learn to coexist in ways that lesson conflict as much as possible. 

For the ranchers, that equates to a faster process for reaching the option of lethal removal – not necessarily, they say, from a hatred of wolves, but from the standpoint that moving quickly means a higher likelihood of catching the “guilty” wolf that has learned to kill cattle, as opposed to needlessly killing other wolves in the area. In their mind, speed of action means fewer wolves killed – the line of thinking being that much like training a dog, a quick round of negative reinforcement removes the problem animal and instills a knowledge in the remainder that eating cows is bad for their health. 

The ranching community has frequently accused the WDFW of setting too high of a standard when it comes to determining what constitutes a livestock depredation by wolves. According to the ranchers, this is resulting in fewer wolf kills being reported, which is skewing the predation report to look lower than it actually is. Additionally, ranchers can be reluctant to officially report depredations due to being doxxed, a process by which their personal information becomes public and makes them an easy target for harassment by animal rights’ activists.

Adding to the overall problem is the frequent interference by the current state governor, who, amongst other things, has repeatedly pushed for stricter protocols and seemingly more red tape when it comes to dealing with conflicts and depredations. To ranchers and rural residents already frustrated by the impacts of management policy and government bureaucracy, it’s understandable to see why their hackles are up.

Toward the end of the meeting, Dawson issued an ultimatum to the WAG members, asking for a yes/no answer by April 1 on whether they could provide further assistance to the ranching community. The consequences of either answer remained unclear, especially as wolves and other wildlife are held in trust by the state, and any management of them – lethal removals included – must legally to go through the WDFW first. 

While both Dawson and McIrvin made repeated references to the fact that, despite numerous meetings over the years, “nothing has changed,” their mere presence at this meeting showed that, on some small level, they were still hoping to work out a solution. This is no small observation, as stakeholder collaboration is one of the many reasons Washington has had such a successful wolf recovery program. Without the cooperation of the ranching community, wolves would be far worse off. Even disregarding despicable shoot-shovel-and-shut-up actions that could potentially occur from rural communities at their wits’ end dealing with wolves, cooperative ranchers are an excellent resource for providing information that can help biologists establish trends, monitor wolf population growth, and gauge effectiveness of preventative measures. Thus, without stakeholder trust and collaboration, it isn’t just the scientific data that suffers, but the wolves themselves.

At the end of the day, the maelstrom of conflict surrounding wolves really comes down to perspectives and a question of social tolerance. As with everything, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, hidden in the fog of differing opinions. Without a clear view, it is far too easy to turn wolf, the animal, into Wolf, the politicized symbol, making it difficult – if not downright impossible – to implement vital management decisions. Only time will tell how the story ends for the Rancher and the Wolf.

Editor’s note: Author Jillian Garrett is a hunter, member of First Hunt Foundation, farmer and conservationist living in Northeast Washington. Along with previous articles on this blog (“Perception, Predator Hunting And Public Relations,” “Washington State Report Reflects Positive Trends In Hunting, Angling,” “The Power of Imagery: Projecting A Stronger, Fuller Picture Of Hunting,” among others, her writing and photography have also appeared in Sports Afield, Bear Hunting Magazine and Blue Ridge Farmer Magazine.