Wrong Way for Wolves

The wolf population is headed in the wrong direction in Washington state.

According to a recently released report from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), in 2024, Washington's wolf population dropped by 9.5 percent. The 2023 report counted 254 wolves, but the total fell to 230 in 2024. This dramatic decline sends the state's wolf recovery in the wrong direction and is very disconcerting.

To make matters worse, the number of breeding pairs in the state plummeted by 25 percent from 24 in 2023 to just 18 last year. In other words, the current population is already faltering with ominous questions arising about its ability to regenerate itself in the face of high mortality rates.

WDFW has a lot of work to do to ensure the health of the state's wolf population. The 2024 trends cannot continue.

We are clearly a long way from wolf recovery in Washington.

Steady Recovery

The wolf population in Washington state increased by 20 percent in 2023, continuing a string of increases that have helped wolves make a steady comeback in the state.

A recent report from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife put the state's wolf population at 260 individuals in 2023. That's an increase of 44 wolves from 2022.

With the 20 percent increase, 2023 represents the 15th year in a row that the state's wolf population has increased. During that time, the average yearly increase has been 23 percent, so last year's results are right in line with the overall trend.

After being eliminated from the state in the 1930s, wolves did not return until 2008. Since then, they've made steady progress in reestablishing themselves as a key part of Washington's ecosystem, particularly in the eastern part of the state. If this pattern continues, they will hopefully begin to once again take hold in western Washington as well.

The growth of Washington's wolf population is an encouraging reminder that environmental-recovery efforts can pay long-term dividends.

Howling Successes

The Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2022 Annual Report revealed some howling successes when it was released earlier this month by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

First, the report showed continued growth in Washington state's wolf population. The state population grew to 216 individuals, an increase of five percent from its 2021 levels. This marks the 14th straight year of growth.

Significantly, despite the increasing wolf population, the number of livestock-depredation incidents was very small. Just seven packs (19 percent of the state's 37 packs) engaged in livestock depredation, and only three of those seven were involved in more than one incident. A total of 15 cattle and two sheep were confirmed to be killed by wolves. WDFW cites the "implementation of proactive, nonlethal deterrence efforts," including range riders, as a key to limiting depredation.

The formation of a pack in the southern Cascade Mountains represents another cause for celebration. It's the first pack in that region since wolves were driven to extinction in the state during the 20th century. Hopefully, it is an important step in the return of wolves to western Washington.

It's music to my ears to hear news like this report.

A Radical Book

For those interested in communication about the environment, Radical Wordsworth: The Poet Who Changed the World by Jonathan Bate is pure poetry.

When I first read William Wordsworth's poetry as an English major in college, it clicked with me. I understood what he was saying, and beyond that, I recognized a perspective on the world that meshed with mine. My mind couldn't help but attach green colors to his words and images. As a result, when I found out about Bate's biography of the poet, I bought it instantly.

Along with focusing on Wordsworth's most revolutionary work, the book revisits earlier definitions of the word radical to expand our sense of the poet's impact. In particular, the definition of "implanted by nature" contains great importance for students of environmental communication. The biography certainly gives a sense that much of Wordsworth's power as a poet sprang from his feelings of connection with the environment.

Bate makes clear that among the other radical tendencies and sentiments exhibited and expressed by Wordsworth in his early poems, the way in which the poet depicted the environment became his most revolutionary and lasting effect on the world. Wordsworth didn't just challenge dominant understandings of our relationship with the environment, questioning portrayals that granted people power over nature or separated them from it entirely; he prompted us to see connections to all aspects of the environment, no matter how small or obscure. In Bate's estimation, the poetry set the groundwork for movements that promote animal rights and conservation, including the creation of national parks.

By tracing today's language about the environment back to Wordsworth and through the people he influenced such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and John Muir, Bate lends great support to his contentions about Wordsworth's importance to the modern environmental movement. He goes so far as to argue that national parks, which have long been called "America's best idea," were actually Wordsworth's idea, and the case Bate builds for this claim is compelling.

I would argue that Bate could have gone even further in establishing Wordsworth's impact on environmental communication. More than simply generating the language to advocate for national parks as basic conservation, Wordsworth preceded the later discussion of national parks as places of ecological importance, which has only gained momentum in recent decades. In addressing the role of every single part of the environment, including the elements we don't typically think of as grand, charismatic, or influential, Wordsworth pushed us to think on a larger scale, and his pen strokes can probably be seen in things like the studies showing wolves' impacts on stream bank erosion in Yellowstone National Park.

Bate might also have extended the discussion of Wordsworth's radical repercussions by examining the poet's influence on Emily Brontë. Scholars such as Stevie Davies and particularly Edward Chitham have shown how Brontë read heavily from Wordsworth's works and often took up his themes. In analyzing the epitaph Wordsworth wrote for Samuel Taylor Coleridge's son Berkeley, Bate looks at language that echoes in Brontë's Wuthering Heights. Describing someone in a grave, Wordsworth writes, "No motion has she now, no force / She neither hears nor sees / Roll'd round in Earth's diurnal course / With rocks, & stones, and trees!" The imagery brings to mind Brontë's depiction of Catherine Earnshaw in her grave, and the words are strikingly similar to those used by Catherine when she compares her love for Heathcliff to "the eternal rocks beneath." Given the argument I made last year about Brontë using imagination to turn the grave imagery into a transformative experience of the connection between people and their environment, I have to conclude that Wordsworth's poetry planted some seeds for such ideas from a woman who arguably surpassed him in radicalness.

Even though I wish Bate would have taken up the points about Brontë and the ecological aspects of the national parks, his biography of Wordsworth is very good, and anyone interested in the environment should check it out. To borrow some popular 1980s language, it's radical!

Watch for Wolves

As an acclaimed documentary about wolves nears release on iTunes, we have the opportunity to support Wolf Haven International, an organization that advocates and cares for wolves.

Produced in 2018, The Trouble With Wolves won awards from numerous film festivals and earned praise as "one of the rare documentaries that transcends its own subject" by Visit Seattle. The film investigates the history of wolves in the United States, focusing on the political conflicts that have occurred since their reintroduction to the lower 48.

At its heart, the documentary serves as an exploration of coexistence. Wolves give us the chance to question and improve our relationship with the rest of the planet, so it's really about what our future will look like. For more information, visit the film's Web site. You can also check out the trailer below:



The Trouble With Wolves hits iTunes on May 12, 2020, and pre-orders are open now. It costs $6.99. If it has at least 250 pre-orders by May 11, Wolf Haven receives half of the proceeds, so we can both reserve an important documentary and support one of the organizations working to make our relationship with wolves better.

This documentary is definitely worth a look.

The Shredding of Our Moral Core

According to Immanuel Kant, "We can judge the heart of a (person) by his(/her) treatment of animals." In a more general sense, that behavior, along with how people treat the environment, probably also says something about the heart of a society.

It is with a heavy heart then that I have watched recent environmental policy coups play out around the United States. For example, as this article from BuzzFeed describes, the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives recently passed legislation to reinstitute the barbaric killing of wolves and bears on wildlife refuges in Alaska. The approved tactics include aerial shooting and killing pups and cubs in their dens. To say nothing of the fact that these activities would take place on wildlife refuges, the inhumane legislation reveals those supporting it as sadistic, sociopathic, and bereft of conscience.

Morally corrupt as it is, the wolf-bear policy displays a cunning level of strategy. Targeting wolves and bears proves a clever tactic for unraveling the threads of human concern and environmental policy. As apex predators, those species indicate the health of the ecosystems in which they live. When they're wiped out, proponents of environmental exploitation can more easily make the case that extracting resources will not damage an ecosystem anymore than it already is. Additionally, as charismatic megafauna, wolves and bears generate public concern, and people rally to save them. In short, these species are critical to environmental preservation, and it is no accident legislators are targeting them.

We see the reasons for using bears and wolves as strategic targets in environmental policy proposals and decisions across the country. Stripping the species of their federal protections takes the first step in breaking down the systemic mechanisms that foster, institute, and enact our environmental ethics. Eliminating key reasons to protect the land opens the door to proposals that allow for expanded environmental exploitation. For example, we've already seen a proposal to permit oil and gas drilling in national parks and renewed efforts by Democrats and Republicans in the state of Alaska to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Ultimately, taking federal government out of the picture puts our environment in the hands of private interests, which is exactly the point of these policies. One of the best (though most egregious) examples of this process comes from Oregon, where a state board led by Democratic State Treasurer Tobias Read voted to sell off the Elliott State Forest to private interests. Covering the story, Men's Journal calls the sale "the natural conclusion of a land losing federal protection" and "a bad sign for America's public lands." Throwing away our heritage of conservation and our responsibility to future generations, the board sold the forest for short-term profits.

In the place where our moral and environmental ethics once found their footing, a corporate callus now resides, an indifference to anything other than consuming resources and making money. That's how, according to Greenpeace, the public relations firm for Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline, ended up writing the letter in which the Republican governors of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa asked the Army Corps of Engineers to approve the pipeline.

At their heart, these actions by our elected officials represent a bipartisan, corporate attack on the core of our society and the shredding of our moral and environmental fabric.

Going Wild

When things get out of control, sometimes, the best response is to go a little wild.

For years, the United States Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services agency has operated without oversight, killing thousands of wild animals, especially predators, in the process. Predator Defense, an environmental group based in Oregon, helped bring Wildlife Services' operations to light with last year's documentary, Exposed. Watch it below:



By revealing the negative impacts of Wild Services' illegal techniques, Predator Defense provided both a need and an opportunity to address the issue of how we interact with wildlife. The Natural Resources Defense Council took that opportunity to introduce alternatives that foster coexistence. Picking up where Predator Defense left off with Exposed, the NRDC recently released a documentary called Wild Things. The film looks at the problems with Wild Services' handing of wildlife and shows how ranchers and other landowners have successfully turned to nonlethal means of responding to the presence of predators. Check out the trailer below:



With its emphasis on people adapting to wildlife, a concern for the larger ecosystem, and the questioning of humans' domination of nature, Wild Things calls on us to rethink the blind eradication of animals. Just as importantly, it gives us a new vision and provides examples of how to achieve that ideal.

In the case of Wildlife Services, it makes sense that we turn to the wild to restore order.

Following in Your Paw Prints

That's one small step for wolf, one giant trek for humankind.

Western culture has an odd relationship with the wolf. Often, the closer the two are in proximity, the further apart they seem in understanding. However, a wolf from Oregon has started an adventure that may put wolves and Americans on the same path.

In late 2011, wolf OR-7 left Oregon and became the first of his species to stand within the California border since 1924. The event represented a potential first step toward the permanent return of wolves to the state. Now, a group of people plans to retrace OR-7's trail with the hope of drawing attention to wolf issues and bridging the divide between humans and wolves.

The Wolf OR-7 Expedition, a five-member team of individuals with backgrounds ranging from science to media production, plans to document the territory the wolf passed through on its way to California. In addition, the project seeks to raise awareness of ways humans and wolves can coexist. For more information about the project, click here.

We've got a long way to go before the myths and misgivings we have about wolves disappear, but one wolf in Oregon and the Wolf OR-7 Expedition are showing us the way.

Wild Inspiration

We need reminders that it's okay not to have everything under control.

In our relationship with nature, we tend to like it only up to the point where our assumed power over it starts to weaken. For example, we kill off wolves in the wild but attempt to keep them as pets, and when we lose control over them as pets, we get rid of them.

A new film, which just won National Geographic's first-annual Wild to Inspire award at the Sun Valley Film Festival, shows some of the impacts our desire for control has. Wolf Mountain tells the story of a woman who cares for wolves that have been raised as pets and turned over by their owners. Because of human efforts to domesticate them, these wolves can never be released into the wild. Check out the film's trailer below:

Wolf Mountain from Dan Duran on Vimeo.

Films sometimes represent our illusions. Wolf Mountain questions our illusion of control over nature. By showing the effects of humans trying to tame wolves, the film suggests just how little control we have. When we attempt to assert power over the wild, the problems we create quickly become too much to handle.

We need inspiration to let the wild be, and it's good to see the Wild to Inspire award recognizing films that provide such a push. The Sun Valley Film Festival already has plans to bring back the award next year, so it will be interesting to see what new visions for our relationship with the environment filmmakers present.

When it comes to control, you can't lose what you never had, so go wild.

A Wolf Runs Through It

Do you see the paw prints of wolves when you look at a river?

Given that wolves occupy only 15 percent of their historical range, you probably don't see many actual wolf tracks. However, even if you are lucky enough to glimpse some, I'm talking about something a little different: the influence wolves have on river systems.

Research on wolves in Yellowstone National Park shows just how big of an impact they have on ecosystems, and the following video makes the connection between these animals and the rivers in their range. Check it out:

One part of the video that stands out for me comes when the narrator talks about wolves giving life. It challenges our traditional understanding of predators, and we see that predation involves more than killing. The video also provides a great description of the links between all members of an ecosystem and challenges us to consider this broader picture.

To paraphrase writer Norman Maclean, eventually, all things merge into one, and it's a wolf.

Opening New Doors

We consider necessity the mother of invention, but inspiration shares some of the parenting.

Few species inspire us more than wolves. Their size, intelligence, formidable appearance, and family structure all touch us deeply. They've also inspired fear and hatred, two reactions that have created some seemingly intractable public debates.

Despite the attention disagreements about wolves receive, recent trends suggest that our deep fascination with wolves may move us toward new solutions that foster coexistence. Last September, I blogged about Conservation Northwest's range rider program. That exciting approach to living with wolves has shown great promise in Washington state. Now, NPR reports on other options for coexisting, and the writer uses some innovative ways of telling the story.

The NPR article addresses conflicts over wolves, but it emerges from them with some great ideas. In addition, the report's incorporation of sound, graphics, and interaction with the reader shows the potential of innovations in journalism. The extra features provide a deeper connection with wolves, the world they inhabit, and the debate around them.

I can't think of anything more inspiring than a strong relationship with the environment.

Teach to the Wolf

Bringing wolves into the classroom just got easier.

One of the difficulties we have in improving our relationship with animals like wolves is that many people don't know much about them. In addition, a lot of the information people do have is inaccurate. As a result, long-held prejudices about wolves endure and heavily influence how we react to these animals.

Fortunately, technology gives us opportunities to bring wolves closer and learn about them. Wolf Haven International has begun offering lessons about wolves though Skype's In the Classroom program. This gives teachers a resource to connect their students with wolves. For more information, click here.

We're already being tested on our ability to live with wolves, so it's time to start preparing for that test by getting the information we need.

License Not to Kill

Wolves: You can live with them if you really want to.

Opponents of wolves typically say that living with wolves is not possible, but that seems to be more of a perspective choice than an absolute reality. Washington state is demonstrating that people make the difference in determining the outcome of human-wolf interactions.

As this polling shows, residents of Washington, Oregon, and California are supportive of having wolves around. Therefore, it's no surprise that Washington is finding ways to support wolf populations. The latest piece of the strategy moves into place on October 1 when car owners in the state can begin purchasing vanity license plates that fund non-lethal wolf-management tactics, including range riders, which I blogged about two weeks ago. For more information about the plates, how to get them, and the programs they help fund, visit this page on Conservation Northwest's Web site.

Washingtonians' efforts to make a place for wolves ultimately show that the fate of these animals will come down to our willingness to share an existence with them.

Go Fisher

Although it's an awesome place, the Pacific Northwest isn't complete.

Several species were either entirely or partially wiped out from the area in the 19th and 20th centuries. These included the wolf and the fisher.

Those missing pieces have started a comeback, and people can help them take a next step. In 2008, fishers were returned to the Olympic National Park through a successful reintroduction program. Now, the National Park Service is proposing to reintroduce this member of the weasel family to the Cascade Mountains, and the agency will be taking comments on the plan until September 30. To voice your support for this next phase of reintroduction, visit this page from Conservation Northwest.

By bringing fishers back to another part of the Pacific Northwest, we help restore the full promise of this great area.

A Range of Options

The simplest answer isn't always the right one.

In dealing with wolves, we can take the easy route and exterminate them again, or we can look for solutions that allow us to live with them. The second option is infinitely more complex in terms of both its challenges and its opportunities.

Living with wolves requires planning and work, but it also has impacts that reach far into our ecosystems. For example, the presence of wolves decreases bank erosion along rivers because they keep elk from eating all the vegetation beside the streams.

Here's some news from Conservation Northwest that shows living with wolves is possible if we embrace more developed ideas. To sum it up, the article talks about the use of "range riders," who are individuals that watch over livestock herds. The strategy virtually eliminates predation by wolves.

The easy road is to ignore science and delist wolves, turning them over to state governments whose intention is to kill wolves, not manage them.

We have more and better options though, and it's in the interest of both humans and wolves that we choose them.

What a Contrast

See? It's not really that hard.

Two days ago, I blogged about the approach taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in deciding whether to take away the protections wolves have as an endangered species. The main issue was that FWS had removed top scientists from its decision-making panel. As a contrast to that, take a look at how Metro Parks of Summit County in Ohio has made science the centerpiece of its approach to living with coyotes:



It is clear that science is the key to how Metro Parks deals with fears about coyotes. By comparison, FWS appears rooted in a fear-based approach. The difference is stunning. Using Metro Parks' method, people learn about coyotes and the best ways to handle relationships with them. Also, listen to the language used by Metro Parks' agents. It is based on the idea of connecting to and understanding the environment. FWS, on the other hand, has excluded the sources of information needed for such understanding.

Scientific information is crucial to developing our connection with our environment and making the best decisions for the entire system. Metro Parks of Summit County sets a great example, showing it can be done.

Silenced Science

To make the best possible decisions, we must listen to those who know most about the issues.

With this basic fact in mind, one must question whether the United States Fish and Wildlife Service really wants to make the best decision when it comes to wolves. As the following interview from the California Wolf Center shows, wolf experts were recently removed from a panel that is to help decide if wolves should have their protections as an endangered species removed. Listen to the interview by playing the YouTube video:



It turned out that objections to the removal of the scientists caused FWS to rethink its approach to the decision-making process. However, its initial decision to remove the scientists undermines the agency's credibility on this issue. No one genuinely interested in doing what is right for wolves would think of silencing those who study the species for a living.

Click here to comment on the proposed delisting and tell FWS that wolves still need protection.

Wolf experts say the species should not be delisted. This scientific perspective should lead the decision-making process, not be excluded from it.

Rally Time

We know their sound well, but wolves rarely get heard as far as environmental policy is concerned. The National Rally to Protect America's Wolves in Washington, D.C., on September 7 hopes to change this.

Wolves were nearly wiped out in the lower 48 states by the 1970s and received protection under the US Endangered Species Act in 1974. Now, less than 20 years after their reintroduction to the American West, they are being hunted in high numbers again, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed removing their ESA protection.

The idea of pulling federal support from wolf recovery at this point raises the question of why the government even bothered to reintroduce them in the first place. Doing so has simply given people yet another thing to kill.

In response to the current political climate, the organizers of the wolf rally are bringing people together to show support for wolf recovery and for protecting the animals under the ESA. For more information about the rally, click here.

Giving wolves a political voice now is important to ensuring their sound remains a part of this world.