Don Jenkins
Capital Press
A consultant interviewed more than 90 people and found ranchers and environmentalists have some things in common, such as fear and suspicion.
OLYMPIA — Ranchers and environmentalists agree that conflicts over wolves in Washington state are intense and polarizing, fed by fear, suspicion and high stakes, according to a report prepared for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
A consultant, Francine Madden, interviewed more than 90 livestock producers, conservationists, hunters, wildlife managers and elected officials between January and March for a recently released 43-page assessment on the human-side of wolf policy.
Predation of livestock and the lethal removal of wolves have deepened the clash between interest groups, according to Madden.
“Most people interviewed across all groups felt the conflict has gotten worse in the recent past, with many noting that it has gotten much worse,” she wrote. “Some stakeholders feel that the emotions on all sides of the wolf issue are running so high that neither side can really hear each other. This applies, as well, to hearing the science.”
WDFW wolf policy coordinator Dave Ware said the report, which cost the department $82,000, revealed deep-seated passions. Ranchers and environmentalists criticized WDFW for purportedly failing to provide strong leadership or playing favorites. Ware said the report can help the agency communicate better. “We really don’t have expertise with the social side,” Ware said.
Among Madden’s observations:
• With few exceptions, most people, regardless of their viewpoint, thought an east-west divide distinguished Washington from other states’ wolf conflicts.
• Some WDFW officials said groups have unrealistic expectations about the agency’s ability to traps wolves to put on radio collars and to count breeding pairs.
• Ranchers and hunters think Idaho and Montana, which all have wolf hunting seasons, are models for how to manage wolves. Environmentalists see those states as models of what not to do.
• Ranchers felt others had little at stake because wolves won’t change their daily lives or jeopardize their livelihoods. Environmentalists felt their interests were being slighted and that they’re fighting for healthy ecosystems and what most people want. Both sides say they worry about the next generation.
• Ranchers thought Washington’s recovery plan was too ambitious, especially compared to Oregon’s. Environmentalists complained about a rush to take away wolves’ endangered status under the Endangered Species Act.
• Environmentalists are reluctant to compromise on lethal control because they don’t trust WDFW to be a genuine advocate for recovery. Ranchers feel their way of life is under attack and compromise will invite more challenges to their practices.
• Environmental groups were widely perceived, even among their own members, to benefit financially from the wolf conflict. While some issues are hard to grasp, fundraising appeals based on “stop the slaughter of wolves” are easy to understand.
• Some ranchers acknowledged reasonable environmentalists are working toward wolf recovery. Many environmentalists voiced respect for ranchers’ respect for wildlife, conservation ethic and hard work.
The agency has retained Madden, executive director of the Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration, to facilitate a meeting Thursday in Spokane of WDFW’s wolf advisory group.
At Madden’s recommendation, WDFW plans to close the group’s afternoon session to the public for what Madden and Ware describe as team- and trust-building exercises. The group’s meetings have previously been open and the move to close this one has drawn complaints.
The wolf advisory group came in for heavy criticism in Madden’s interviews. Group members and people who had attended meetings said the panel’s role was unclear and distrust among members was evident.