Thoughts on a Wolf Execution

[Please be sure to read the two comments from Amaroq Weiss. Just click on "comments" at end of post. She adds so much insight.]

On September 2, a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife sharpshooter executed the black alpha male of the Togo wolf pack. Though the Center for Biological Diversity and Cascadia Wildlands had requested an injunction to block the killing, a Thurston County Superior Court Judge said the two groups had not met the legal standard needed for the injunction. WDFW reported on their website that their director, Kelly Susewind, welcomed the judge’s decision to deny the injunction. At 5 p.m. on August 31, the alpha male’s stay of execution was lifted. The GPS collar he wore would make the killing easier.


HTML5 Audio PlayerThis wolf’s death is most likely the beginning of the end for the Togo pack. This wolf’s death also exemplifies why livestock should not be grazed on public land.

The first two attacks WDFW attributed to the Togo pack were on calves and occurred on fenced private land where the rancher used nonlethal deterrents. After those two attacks the rancher continued using multiple nonlethal deterrents and the attacks stopped. But nonlethal deterrents did not work as well on the public land where the next four attacks occurred. Investigators stated that the nonlethal deterrents used by one rancher on public land were not adequate. In other instances, the areas where attacks occurred were so remote and so rugged that only range riders might be effective.

WDFW officials investigated each of the six attacks. I’ve read their reports. In only one attack was there an eye witness; a woodcutter saw a black wolf running from an area where an injured calf was later found. The WDFW report does not say the black wolf was collared. However, since all six attacks occurred in the Togo wolf pack’s territory, WDFW used that circumstantial evidence to convict the pack.

The alpha male of the Togo pack was shot and wounded on August 23 by a rancher. He said he was checking out his cattle when he saw wolf pups and heard barking and growling. As a black wolf approached, he claims that he shot it in self-defense. Most newspaper reports I read tell only the rancher’s side of this story. But the Seattle Times quotes WDFW as saying, “Vocalizations by wolves are not uncommon when people approach wolf pups, and adult wolves often attempt to escort perceived intruders away from areas where pups are present. While these behaviors are not necessarily predatory in nature, they can feel threatening.”

A few days later, after the judge lifted the restraining order, the now wounded wolf was sentenced to death for the six attacks on livestock. Running on a broken leg, his collar revealing his location, he was gunned down by that sharpshooter in a helicopter.

WDFW trail cam photo

While WDFW says they took out the alpha male to see if they could stop the pack from attacking livestock, in reality killing the wolf could produce the opposite result. The alpha female is now the sole provider for herself and two pups. That’s a very demanding job, and she may end up killing a calf on public land—easy prey—to keep her offspring alive. If she does, she too may be executed. If the pups are not killed with her, they will be left to survive on their own. Taking calves on public land may then be essential for them to beat starvation. Of course, it will also sentence them to die.

Wolves have every right to live on public land. They were here, after all, well before this continent was settled. And they have no other place to live. But public lands available to wolves are diminishing and increasingly encroached upon by human uses including livestock grazing. Wolves have only a tiny fraction of their original range and original population left.

Cattle, on the other hand, can—and should—live on private land. Their grazing on public land is driven by economics. The cost of public land grazing is much less than the cost of private land grazing. We the people subsidize increased profits for ranchers at the expense of wolves.

Wolves do not take livestock to spite or injure a rancher. A wolf taking a calf or cow on public land is driven by an instinct to survive. The loss of some livestock to wolves should be considered a cost of doing business for a rancher who benefits from subsidized public land grazing. And that cost of doing business can even be decreased because a rancher can be reimbursed for a confirmed loss to wolves. All six attacks attributed to the Togo pack were confirmed as wolf kills by WDFW.

In an attempt to coexist with wolves, the loss of livestock on public land should NOT be considered a strike against wolves under the Washington wolf management plan, or under any state’s plan. If this were the case, the Togo pack would only have two strikes against them—the two attacks on private land—instead of six. The pack would be far from meeting the standard for issuing a kill order. The alpha male would still be alive and helping the female feed the pack.

If a rancher is not willing to coexist with wolves on public land—to accept possible livestock losses for which he can be reimbursed—the rancher should keep his cattle on fenced private land protected by a number of nonlethal deterrents.

An alternative approach—and the one I prefer—is to keep all livestock off of all public land.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1. Support the Center for Biological Diversity and Cascadia Wildlands, currently suing the state of Washington over its lethal removal policy.
2. Read the WDFW reports.

My award-winning Deep into Yellowstone can be ordered signed from me or unsigned on Amazon.

My best selling In the Temple of Wolves can be ordered signed from me or unsigned on Amazon

My forthcoming book,
The Wilds of Aging: A Journey of Heart and Mind 
can be reserved