Why It Matters: Wolf management in Washington State has been a rollercoaster following October 9, 2025, when lethal removal authorization was approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in response to chronic wolf livestock depredations. Shortly after the authorization was made public, a lawsuit was filed in Western Washington’s King County against the management effort newly underway in Northeastern Washington. The court first issued a restraining order, followed weeks later by a dismissal of the case. This sequence disrupted the delicate balance that is essential to implementing the North American Model of Wildlife Management; one where science-based decisions must navigate competing stakeholder interests to sustain both predator recovery, sportsmen’s interests, and rural livelihoods, especially for a species a species as controversial as the gray wolf.
Highlights:
- A temporary restraining order briefly blocked WDFW from lethally removing a wolf from the Sherman pack, but the court ultimately denied a longer-term injunction by affirming the agency’s authority for lethal management of depredating wolves in the portions of the state where they are delisted.
- The incident highlights the real-world challenges of wolf recovery in shared landscapes, where unchecked predation can threaten rural economies and grazing operations.
- Through active involvement in the Washington Wolf Advisory Group (WAG), the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) advocates for durable, balanced solutions that safeguard both predator and prey populations.
The escalating tension between recovering wolf populations and livestock producers in Washington’s northeast counties has long demanded a structured, collaborative response. The wolf-livestock interaction protocol, developed in 2017 with significant input from the WAG, stands as a cornerstone of this effort. The protocol provides clear, science-driven criteria for intervention when non-lethal deterrents prove insufficient. Specifically, it authorizes lethal removal if a wolf pack is confirmed responsible for three livestock depredations within 30 days, or four within a 10-month period, with the aim of disrupting problematic behaviors before they lead to habituated predation.
The WAG is a diverse citizen panel convened by WDFW, which includes representatives from ranching, hunting, environmental, and other at-large interests. This group played a pivotal role in crafting the Conflict Management Protocol by fostering dialogues among often-adversarial stakeholders. WAG ensured that the protocol was both operational and emphasized incorporating an array of adaptive measures such as non-lethal deterrents, enhanced range-rider programs, and compensation for verified losses. This collaborative framework was tested in real time throughout the spring and summer of 2025 as conflicts rose in Ferry County. Far from a blunt instrument, the protocol embodies the North American Model’s emphasis on sound science and public trust to prevent conflicts from spiraling into broader ecological or economic disruptions.
The fragility of these protocols was abruptly revealed in mid-October 2025, when a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the King County Superior Court halted WDFW’s authorization to lethally remove an adult wolf from the Sherman pack. Filed by two wolf advocacy groups, Washington Wildlife First and Kettle Range Conservation Group, the lawsuit alleged that WDFW’s October 9 decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” The TRO went into effect on October 15 and paused on-the-ground management, while the pack continued to pose a threat to grazing operations across Ferry and Steven Counties. With the TRO in place, the state agency’s hands were tied, thus prolonging vulnerability for livestock during a critical transition period. The pause was short-lived; on October 23, Judge Suzanne Parisien denied the wolf advocacy group’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and thereby restoring WDFW’s deference to implement the protocol. This example underscores how seriously judicial interventions can undermine adaptive management.
Ultimately, episodes like the Sherman Pack saga reinforce the vital need for inclusive forums like the WAG, where CSF actively participates to bridge divides and forge enduring policies aligned with the North American Model of Wildlife Management. As a seated member of the WAG, CSF champions the sportsmen’s perspective, ensuring that wolf conservation does not come at the expense of the robust ungulate populations essential for wolf survival, hunting heritage, and the economic stability of rural communities. Through quarterly meetings, such as the August session in Clarkston where WAG dissected protocol applications amid budget constraints for non-lethal efforts, CSF pushes for refinements like improved public outreach, post-delisting planning, and a commitment to the North American Model of Wildlife Management. CSF remains committed to ensuring sportsmen’s voices are heard in shaping adaptive, science-based management plans that support wildlife conservation and hunting heritage.
