Peace in the valley? Qualitative insights on collaborative coexistence from the Wood River Wolf Project

Abstract

Threats posed by wild predators to livestock production have too often resulted in human-wildlife conflict, to the detriment of these keystone species and broader biodiversity conservation. Long-standard practices of lethal control are increasingly seen as costly, controversial, and ineffective, however, with nonlethal alternatives ever more prominent. In addition to assessing these tools' ecological effectiveness, there remains a key role for the social sciences, particularly qualitative research, in identifying obstacles to and opportunities for the long-term sustainability and scaling up of these coexistence interventions. The Wood River Wolf Project (WRWP), a collaboration among ranchers, environmental organizations, and government agencies in Blaine County, Idaho, has pursued coexistence between gray wolves and domestic sheep since 2008, demonstrating and developing nonlethal techniques and garnering regional and international attention as a model for collaborative coexistence. Yet the Project has also struggled with changing conditions and internal challenges. Investigation of this prominent effort-its history and practices as well as the broader socio-political and economic context-highlights the challenges of adaptive governance in the face of reduced capacity and hostile legal-political contexts, while providing important insights for practitioners and policymakers promoting wildlife coexistence in shared landscapes.

Human–wildlife coexistence in science and practice

“…van Eeden, Rabotyagov, et al (2021) identified political ideology as critical in stakeholder conflicts while examining human‐wolf conflicts in the United States. Also examining human‐wolf conflict in the United States, Martin (2021) shows that openly addressing struggles in project implementation can provide important lessons for practitioners in landscapes recolonized by wolves. McInturff et al (2021) combine ecological information and stakeholder perception to map predation risk and show that integrated social–ecological approaches improve the management opportunities for reducing livestock depredation by carnivores.…”

Coexistence Praxis: The Role of Resource Managers in Wolf-Livestock Interactions on Federal Lands

“…Conflict surrounding gray wolves has ignited much scholarly interest. Alongside growing recognition of the human dimensions of HWC, research has increasingly looked to the social sciences to supplement exploration and engagement with the wicked problems of conservation (Baruch-Mordo et al, 2009;Dickman, 2010;Peterson et al, 2010;Redpath et al, 2015;Charnley et al, 2017;Martin, 2021b; on wicked problems, see Rittel and Webber, 1973;Crowley and Head, 2017;DeFries and Nagendra, 2017;Mason et al, 2018). Research on the human dimensions of wolf conflict draws attention to the various ways social attitudes, perceptions, and values affect interactions among wolves, livestock, and human groups.…”

“…From this perspective, nonlethal deterrents aim to cause changes in predator behavior, as through the production of a "landscape of fear" in which predators learn to avoid humans and/or livestock (Miller and Schmitz, 2019;Wilkinson et al, 2020;Gaynor et al, 2021;Anderson et al, in review). Other approaches stress adaptation on the human side, such as monitoring of predator populations to reduce predator-livestock overlap, and adoption of livestock husbandry techniques to reduce attractants to and interactions with predators (Stone et al, 2017;Martin, 2021b). Adaptations on the livestock side (although largely driven by humans) include switching to livestock breeds better able to defend themselves against predators, training livestock to adopt behaviors similar to wild ungulates that make them less vulnerable to depredation and negative encounters (Barnes, 2015), and synchronizing the calving season with that of wild ungulates to cause "predator saturation" (Breck et al, 2011).…”

“…Carter and Linnell argue that coexistence in shared landscapes requires that "human interactions with carnivores are governed by effective institutions that ensure longterm carnivore population persistence, social legitimacy, and tolerable levels of risk" (Carter and Linnell, 2016, p.525). These findings suggest that applied interventions often go hand-in-hand with policy-based approachessuch as government regulations regarding the harvest of predator species, use of lethal control in response to conflict, and conflict-mitigation programs to provide financial compensation for predator-caused losses-or can be undermined through perverse incentives (Dickman et al, 2011;Martin, 2021b).…”

“…In the decades since federal reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho in 1995 and 1996, significant thought, effort, and funds have been put toward sharing landscapes between people, livestock, and recolonizing wolf populations. Despite varying combinations of program and policy responses across states in the region-nonlethal deterrents, compensation for losses, and the use of public hunting seasons and lethal control-concerns and controversy remain over wolf conservation, livestock depredation, and the management efforts of state and federal agencies (Clark et al, 2005;Young et al, 2015;Expósito-Granados et al, 2019;Martin, 2021b).…”