How does the presence of wolves affect Oregon’s livestock producers?

Since their return to Oregon in 2009, gray wolves have spread across much of the state. Their population now exceeds 200. As their numbers have grown, so has the threat of conflict with livestock operations.

A new survey of livestock producers examines their experiences with economic damages related to wolf depredation. This report also includes conversations with individual Oregon cattle and sheep producers to add to our understanding of how wolf presence affects the financial sustainability of livestock production throughout the state.

While initially concentrated in the northeastern part of the state, wolf packs are now active in Southern and Central Oregon, and as far west as the Cascade Range. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates that minimum known wolf numbers increased steadily from 2009 until 2020. They appeared to stabilize at approximately 175 from 2020 to 2023, before rising again in 2024 to 204 (Figure 1).

Recent media attention has shifted to the debate surrounding the reintroduction of wolves to Colorado and rising wolf populations in California. But wolf management and conflict with livestock continue to be controversial in Oregon.

In Oregon, as in other states, support for wolf reintroduction and protection is primarily driven by the perceived ecological benefit of having an apex predator on the landscape. However, recent evidence suggests this perceived benefit may be overstated and that ecosystem restoration requires more than the “quick fix” of wolf introduction alone.

Still, there remain good reasons to restore apex predators to food webs. There may be potential for economic development in the form of wolf-related tourism and indirect benefits from altered prey behavior.

A key challenge in reaching a policy consensus on wolf management issues is that the ecological and economic benefits of wolf presence tend to accrue to broad segments of society, while the economic costs associated with wolf presence tend to be concentrated among a smaller number of livestock producers in areas of wolf activity.

We received 33 complete survey responses. Figure 2 shows the approximate grazing locations referenced in the survey responses in relation to the areas of known wolf activity published by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in May 2024.

Survey respondents cited additional labor and other costs associated with wolf management, including the alteration of grazing behavior, increased range riding, and the need for removal of carcasses and bone piles that could attract wolves. These practices increase management expenses through the hiring of additional labor or the use of owner labor. Valuing labor at $20 per hour, we calculated the amount per head that survey respondents reported spending on wolf deterrence activities.

Those reporting extremely heavy wolf pressure also undertook labor-intensive management practices, such as staying with their cows through the night for several weeks at a time. These ranches tended to be located within or very near to the designated areas of known wolf activity (Table 1). The ranchers who reported moderate or heavy wolf pressure were slightly further away from officially recognized areas of wolf activity but still incurred roughly $10 to $20 per cow in additional annual management costs. Some respondents were located close to wolf areas but were relatively unaffected.

There is a high level of variability in wolf management costs between ranching operations, and the costs reported in the survey come from a small number of operations. Still, these responses suggest that wolf pressure can result in significant economic challenges.

In addition to increased costs, ranchers may also be affected by reductions in livestock revenue resulting from wolf pressure in their grazing areas. Survey responses indicate that ranchers perceive a decline in cow body condition due to increased stress and energy expenditure resulting from depredations by wolves. Of the 22 cattle producers that reported at least “moderately heavy” wolf pressure, 12 have seen reduced pregnancy rates relative to their experience before wolves arrived at their location.

Several respondents reported seeing larger numbers of missing calves than before wolves returned to their area. However, calf carcasses are often difficult to find in remote grazing areas, and losses are challenging to definitively attribute to wolves.

Other respondents indicate that calf weaning weights tend to be lower when the herd is facing wolf pressure, both because cattle exert more energy when avoiding wolves and because calf births tend to come later in the season when breeding cows are stressed.

Although few livestock producers have the internal records needed to accurately calculate the revenue reductions associated with wolf presence, existing academic literature can help us estimate the potential economic impacts for affected operations. A 2014 study found that a confirmed wolf depredation was associated with a 20-pound-per-calf reduction in weaning weight, averaged across the affected ranch’s herd. Similarly, following a predation event on nursing calves, the time spent by cows foraging or grazing decreased by 49% and took approximately 10 days to return to pre-predation levels.

These documented reductions in animal performance and behavior could be related to increased stress associated with depredation. Previous Oregon State University research noted that wolf presence near cattle herds with a prior depredation history resulted in increases in known indices of stress and associated brain biochemistry in cattle, which could reduce performance in cows previously exposed to wolves, leading to animal welfare concerns and impaired economic efficiency.

Likewise, a 2017 study noted increased levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress, in ewes for up to 76 hours following a canine attack.

These types of increases in stress have been shown to decrease the performance of ruminants:

• A 6%–8% decrease in pregnancy rate resulting in more open cows.
• A 4% increase in pregnancy loss.
• A 10% reduction in the proportion of cows calving within five weeks of the start of the calving season
• A 16-pound reduction in calf weaning weight
• And a decrease of up to 35 pounds in the quantity of calf weaned per cow exposed to bulls/artificial insemination during the breeding season.

Table 2 summarizes the revenue impacts described in the literature cited above, and Table 3 uses those values to calculate a range of revenue losses for cattle producers in wolf-affected areas. The range of revenue losses is calculated as 80%–120% of the estimates cited in the literature and based on an assumed calf weight of 550 pounds at the time of weaning.

Based on survey responses and existing research on wolf-livestock interactions, it is likely that some ranches facing heavy wolf pressure experience revenue reductions in the range of $135 to $200 per cow, using a five-year average calf price of $230 per hundredweight. Higher prices, as seen in 2024 and 2025, would result in larger economic losses, ranging from $200 to $300 per cow.

When added to the wolf-related management costs noted in Table 1, these economic costs may exceed the typical income from ranching, posing significant threats to the economic sustainability of ranches operating in or near areas of heavy wolf activity. This is consistent with survey responses indicating that some livestock producers have chosen to relinquish private leases in areas with high wolf populations.

A final survey question asked respondents to rank the most significant causes of rancher dissatisfaction with wolf presence. Out of 31 responses to the question, 14 ranked “I’m concerned for my cows and don't want them to be harassed, injured or killed” as their top reason for dissatisfaction. An additional 10 chose “The financial impact of wolves on our operation is too high.” The concern for the financial impact of wolf depredation was more common among ranches experiencing moderate to high wolf pressure.

Case studies

Long-form interviews and ranch visits can help supplement survey responses to better understand rancher responses and attitudes related to the presence of wolves on the landscape. We describe three individual cases, including two larger cow-calf operations both inside and outside official areas of known wolf activity, and a small-scale sheep producer operating inside a rural town in Northeast Oregon.

Case No. 1: Large ranch on the edge of an area of known wolf activity

This ranch, located in Baker County, manages about 500 cows on a mix of private land and a U.S. Forest Service grazing allotment. As of July 2024, the ranch has not experienced any confirmed or probable wolf kills. In 2019, they noticed that their cows were acting nervously, particularly around the working dogs that help them move their cattle. At the time they first noticed a change in the behavior of their cattle, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife did not officially recognize any wolf packs as active in the area. Approximately two years after the rancher first started seeing a change in their cattle, ODFW had enough evidence to identify the area adjacent to the ranch’s grazing allotment as an an area of known wolf activity, associating the area with a named wolf pack.

As a result of the wolf presence, the process of retrieving cattle from the Forest Service allotment in the fall has become more time-consuming and costly. Without the use of their working dogs, the ranchers need to drive the cows and calves out of the thick forest vegetation on horseback or on foot. This can be done effectively, but it takes significantly more time than it did with their dogs. They now need two or three additional people and spend two additional weeks each fall bringing the cows and their calves down from the allotment. If valued at typical wage rates, this additional labor requirement would result in approximately $2,000 to $3,000 in added labor expenses per year. Given the size of the operation, this represents a $4–$6 reduction in income per cow, or 5%–10% of the ranch’s operating margin.

The noteworthy aspect of this case is that there is a tangible economic impact on the ranch, despite no livestock injuries having been detected and the grazing lands falling entirely outside the area of known wolf activity. The wolf compensation program, administered by the Oregon Department of Agriculture, can reimburse livestock producers for some nonlethal wolf management costs and for confirmed livestock injuries or deaths. Ranches like this one, which experience economic impacts less severe than those of other producers, may not receive any compensation or support for the increase in production costs. Many Oregon ranches that are outside of but adjacent to known wolf populations likely face similar economic impacts.

Case No. 2: Large ranch with heavy wolf pressure and multiple confirmed wolf kills

This ranch, located in an active wolf area in Grant County, is larger than the average Oregon cattle producer. In recent years, the herd has grown to roughly 1,000 breeding cows. It now sells approximately 850 calves a year.

Wolf depredation has had a number of economic impacts on this ranch. Most obvious are the cattle that ODFW has confirmed as wolf kills. The first impacts on cattle behavior and condition began in 2019. State biologists confirmed two mature cows as wolf kills in 2023. Given the large area of land covered by the operation and the difficulty in finding wounded or slain cattle in the rough terrain, it is likely that there have been additional wolf kills that have not been identified.

Losing calves in this area is not uncommon, but the rate of loss has increased since wolves returned. Calves on grazing lands can be killed by other predators (coyotes, bears, cougars), injury or illness. This is an unfortunate but expected part of ranching operations. In each year since 2018, when the wolves were first identified in the area, the ranch found approximately 20 additional calves missing when they were gathered from the Forest Service allotment in the fall. In 2021, the ranch recorded 45 more missing calves than they see in a typical year. At a price of $230 per hundred pounds, these calves would be valued at approximately $1,265 each, representing significant financial losses. Higher cattle prices, as seen in recent years, lead to increased economic costs associated with lost calves and reduced weaning weights.

Cattle ranches operating in areas with heavy wolf activity often face economic costs beyond those related to direct wolf kills or missing cattle. Indirect costs include reductions in the weight (and thus sale prices) of calves that are less feed-efficient when in the presence of wolves. Labor costs increase due to the need for additional scouting and range-riding to protect cattle. Producers must remove carcasses and bones that can attract wolves to grazing areas. Managing reporting and reimbursement requests also takes time and removes the rancher from other operational tasks.

Another indirect impact to this ranch’s business and profitability comes in the form of reduced income from elk hunting leases on their privately owned meadows. Each fall, they lease access to elk hunters. In the years since wolves have returned to the area, the behavior of the elk has changed, and they no longer linger in the meadow lands. If there is a wolf active in the area, the rancher explains, the elk tend to leave and do not return for the rest of the season. This dynamic has not eliminated the income from hunting leases, but it has reduced it in some years by roughly $5,000.

Case No. 3: Small sheep producer within city limits

This case involves a small-scale sheep producer located in the town of Lostine, Wallowa County. The producer raises about 60 sheep for the production of wool and yarn that will be subsequently sold in a vertically integrated shop on the main street. The sheep are a genetic cross developed locally for preferred yarn and wool characteristics and named after the producer for marketing purposes.

Given that Lostine sits on the road that tourists travel to reach Wallowa Lake and other Wallowa County destinations, the shop would primarily target out-of-town customers and would be a potential source of economic growth in the community.

For many years, the forested hills above the towns of Lostine, Wallowa and Enterprise have had significant wolf populations. Still, there was no significant impact in the town of Lostine itself until 2023. In the spring of 2024, this small-scale sheep producer lost several sheep to wolves over several weeks, from a pasture immediately adjacent to the home. Additional fencing was installed, and friends and neighbors helped by sleeping outside to deter wolves from re-entering the pasture. Protecting the remaining sheep became the producer’s primary focus.

Ultimately, four sheep were killed, including the only two breeding rams.

The market value of the sheep themselves does not fully reflect the economic damages faced by the producer. Since significant genetics were lost with the death of both breeding rams, the producer will have to attempt to redevelop the desired attributes through further breeding efforts.

The store, which has already been remodeled and fitted with yarn milling equipment, will sit vacant until a steady supply of wool and yarn can be ensured once the flock is rebuilt. The most significant impact on the producer’s decision-making follows from the risk of future wolf attacks. While the producer can try to protect the sheep by improving fencing, putting the sheep in night pens and staying overnight with them, this increases the human stress associated with managing the livestock enterprise. Additionally, the thought of rebuilding a breeding program while the risk of future wolf kills remains has become particularly daunting.

Conclusions

As demonstrated by these case narratives and survey responses, Oregon livestock producers have had a wide range of experiences with wolves. Some ranches face severe financial losses that threaten the sustainability of their businesses, while other ranches, only a few miles away, might see little impact.

Livestock producers may face significant damages in a particular year but not the next, making it difficult to make management decisions and plan a cost-efficient wolf management strategy.

Livestock-wolf interactions will likely continue to be an issue for Oregon ranches. An understanding of the varied direct and indirect impacts of wolves on livestock operations will be important for successful coexistence in the state.

References

Carbonaro, G. (Dec. 27, 2024). Gray Wolves Make Remarkable Comeback in California. Newsweek.

Cooke, R.F., D.W. Bohnert, B.I. Cappellozza, C.J. Mueller and T. DelCurto. 2012. Effects of temperament and acclimation to handling on reproductive performance of Bos taurus beef females. Journal of Animal Science. 90:3547-3555.

Cooke, R.F., D.W. Bohnert, M. Meneghetti, T.C. Losi and J.L.M. Vasconcelos. 2011. Effects of temperament on pregnancy rates to fixed-timed AI in Bos indicus beef cows. Livestock Science. 142:108-113.

Cooke, R.F., D.W. Bohnert, M.M. Reis and B.I. Cappellozza. 2013. Wolf presence in the ranch of origin: Impacts on temperament and physiological responses of beef cattle following a simulated wolf encounter. Journal of Animal Science. 91:5905-5911.

Cooke, R.F., L.R. Mehrkam, R.S. Marques, K.D. Lippolis and D.W. Bohnert. 2017a. Effects of a simulated wolf encounter on brain and blood biomarkers of stress-related psychological disorders in beef cows with or without previous exposure to wolves. Journal of Animal Science. 95:1154-1163.

Cooke, R.F., K.M. Schubach, R.S. Marques, R.G. Peres, L.G.T. Silva, R. Carvalho, R.S. Cipriano, D.W. Bohnert, A.V. Pires and J.L.M. Vasconcelos. 2017b. Effects of temperament on physiological, productive, and reproductive responses in Bos indicus beef cows. Journal of Animal Science. 95: 1: 1-8.

Francisco, C.L., R.F. Cooke, R.S. Marques, R.R. Mills and D.W. Bohnert. 2012. Effects of temperament and acclimation to handling on feedlot performance of Bos taurus feeder cattle originated from a rangeland-based cow–calf system. Journal of Animal Science. 90(13):5067–5077.

Hill, S.R., and K. Killpack. 2021. 2021 Cost and Returns Estimate: Cow-Calf Budget: 500-head in Southwestern Idaho. University of Idaho Extension. CCB-CC3-21.

Hoag, D., S. Breck, K. Crooks and B. Niemiec. 2022. Economic Consequences of the Wolf Comeback in the Western United States. Western Economic Forum. 20(1).

Hobbs, N.T, D.B. Johnston, K.N. Marshall, E.C. Wolf and D.J. Cooper. 2024. Does Restoring Apex Predators to Food Webs Restore Ecosystems? Large Carnivores in Yellowstone As a Model System. Ecological Monographs 94(2): e1598.

Jackson, K. (Mar. 17, 2025). How Wolves Became Yellowstone’s $82 Million Tourist Attraction. Outside.

Kluever, B.M., S.W. Breck, L. D. Howery, P.R. Krausman and D.L. Berman. 2008. Vigilance in cattle: The influence of predation, social interactions, and environmental factors. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61:321-328.

Martin, J., S. Chamaillé‐Jammes and D.M. Waller. 2020. Deer, wolves, and people: costs, benefits and challenges of living together. Biological Reviews 95(3):782–801.

Lennox, R. J., J. W. Brownscombe, C. Darimont, A. Horodysky, T. Levi, G.D. Raby and S.J. Cooke, 2022. The roles of humans and apex predators in sustaining ecosystem structure and function: Contrast, complementarity and coexistence. People and Nature, 4,1071–1082.

Muhly, T.B., and M. Musiani. 2009. “Livestock depredation by wolves and the ranching economy in the Northwestern U.S.” Ecological Economics 68(8–9):2439–2450.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. Oregon Areas of Known Wolf Activity.

Ramler, J.P., M. Hebblewhite, D. Kellenberg and C. Sime. 2014. Crying Wolf? A Spatial Analysis of Wolf Location and Depredations on Calf Weight. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96(3):631–656.

Raynor, J.L., C.A. Grainger, and D.P. Parker. 2021. Wolves make roadways safer, generating large economic returns to predator conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(22):e2023251118.

Ripple, W.J., and R.L. Beschta. 2004. Wolves and the Ecology of Fear: Can Predation Risk Structure Ecosystems? BioScience 54(8):755.

Schmelzer, E. (Feb. 3, 2025). When wolves kill livestock, should Colorado grant ranchers anonymity for compensation claims? The Denver Post.

Sims, C., D. Aadland, D. Finnoff and J. Hochard. 2020. What are the benefits of delisting endangered species and who receives them? Lessons from the gray wolf recovery in Greater Yellowstone. Ecological Economics 174:106656.

USDA-NASS. 2025. Quickstats Database.

Ward, M.A., A.F. Summers, S.L. Rosasco, J.K. Beard, S.A. Soto-Navarro and D. M. Hallford. 2017. Effects of stress from predation in gestating ewes — A case study. New Mexico State University College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences: Guide B-411. (Accessed 4/22/25).