A juvenile wolf, born April 2024, of the newly formed Grouse Ridge Pack standing in front of a trail camera on USFS land on Jan. 23, 2025 in Jackson County.
After several years of stagnation, Oregon’s wolves appear to be bouncing back. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) 2024 Annual Wolf Report shows the state’s known wolf population has finally grown, reaching 204 individuals. It’s a welcome change from recent years of near-flat growth and ongoing threats from poaching and agency killings. However, within the numbers there are some concerning trends. Wolves have a long way to go until they have truly recovered.
“For the first time in several years, it looks like Oregon’s wolves have had a little breathing room,” said Oregon Wild’s Wildlife Program Manager, Danielle Moser. “Though human-caused mortality continues to be the primary obstacle to statewide recovery, any substantial growth is a welcome sign.”
A Mixed Bag Beneath the Headline
While the headline number shows growth, a deeper dive into the report reveals a more nuanced story.
Eastern Oregon, home to the majority of the state’s wolves, accounted for a net gain of just four wolves since 2020. Even more concerning is the continued drop in the number of breeding pairs. For the fifth consecutive year, breeding pairs in Eastern Oregon declined, falling to a level not seen since 2017. As ODFW itself has long emphasized, breeding pairs is the most important indicator of population health.
And as recently as last week, the state authorized the killing of a wolf in Wallowa County’s Bear Creek Pack.
On the other hand, Western Oregon is more straightforwardly positive. After declining in 2023, the number of wolf packs there rebounded and reached an all-time high. Even more encouraging: the number of breeding pairs in Western Oregon more than doubled to seven, helping drive a statewide increase in this critical metric.
While the news is good on the Westside (Western Oregon is now home to nearly 25% of the state’s wolves), the population only grew by four animals.
With less than 50 known wolves across a vast area, recovery remains fragile.
(Barely) Growing Faster than the Worst-Case Scenario
This year marked the first time since 2020 that Oregon’s wolf population exceeded the “worst-case scenario” growth rate identified in the state’s own Population Viability Analysis—the same one used to justify delisting wolves in 2015. At the time, independent scientists criticized the model as far too optimistic. The average growth rate since delisting is now back above that worst-case trajectory (7.9% vs. 7.0%), though just barely—about two wolves above the projection.
Mortality Remains a Barrier to Recovery
Despite the uptick in numbers, mortality remains a major challenge. Twenty-six wolves died in 2024, with human-caused deaths still far outpacing natural ones. Of those, 11 were killed by ODFW, seven were known victims of poaching, and three were shot under the controversial “caught-in-the-act” provision. Only two wolves died of natural causes last year.
Since 2009, just 14 wolves are found to have died naturally—underscoring how rare it is for wolves in Oregon to live out their lives free from human conflict. Many of these were pups. Additionally, seven wolf mortalities from 2024 remain under investigation.
The Path Forward
Shockingly, since 2008, only 12 wolves in Oregon are known to have died of natural causes. This stark statistic underlines the harsh realities wolves face from human killing and inadequate protection. Known wolf deaths surged by 80% this year, following already high numbers in the previous years. Last year, and since recovery began in the state, just over 8% of wolves – including pups – are known to have died from any cause other than humans.
This trend is not just unsustainable. It speaks volumes about the value ODFW puts on wolves even as it gives in to industry demands and decries an inability to “manage” the species.
Late last Friday afternoon, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) released its 2023 Wolf Report. The report, which was not directly linked to in the agency’s press release, update page, or email reveals a series of disturbing trends.
ODFW attempted to present its data in the most positive light. This is a trend we’ve discussed before. We even named our first deep-dive “Friday Trash” after the agency’s pattern of releasing embarrassing news on Friday afternoons to avoid scrutiny. For more analysis, check out our 2018 edition called “Spring Cleaning.”
Sadly, a look at the most recent numbers reveals things have only gotten worse. Still, rather than try something different, the agency continues to go to great lengths to polish the proverbial turd.
Here’s a closer look at the data the state hopes you won’t notice. It shows Oregon’s wolves are facing critical challenges.
Rampant Poaching and State-Sanctioned Killings
A shocking 20% of the state’s known wolf population was killed last year, with at least 36 wolves confirmed dead.
33 were killed by humans. Most of them on purpose. That includes 10 who were poisoned in multiple incidents, two who were shot, 16 state-sanctioned killings, four vehicle strikes, and one incident deemed “self-defense.” This high level of poaching, poisoning, and intentional killing underscores a severe threat to wolf conservation efforts in Oregon.
The number of wolves killed by state authorization doubled from any previous year, with 16 wolves shot and killed by agents of the state. ODFW justified these actions as responses to livestock predations, which remained very low (<0.03% of all cattle deaths) and decreased last year. This self-defeating cycle is exactly what scientists have documented around the country and predicted would happen when the state weakened protections for wolves in 2015 and 2018.
To have any credibility, the agency must reassess management practices that currently favor and expedite lethal measures over requiring more effective, sufficient non-lethal methods, and giving them a chance to work.
0% Population Growth
2023 marked another year of stagnant growth, continuing a distressing trend where the wolf population has grown by less than 3% over the past four years. This last year, the known wolf population remained at 178.
Even though we used a legitimate statistical analysis to account for potential inflection points based on changes in management paradigms, in 2018, ODFW criticized a chart we put forward predicting stagnant population growth. Especially based on the arguably more important number of breeding pairs, it now looks borderline optimistic:
When wolves were delisted by the state, they did so based upon a model criticized by independent scientists for being fundamentally flawed and too optimistic. In that model, 7% annual growth rate was set as the worst-case scenario. After this year’s report, annual growth since delisting is 6.3%.
Even in the worst-case projection, ODFW expected Oregon would now be home to no less than 189 wolves. Even less scientifically defensible, in justifying a bill to bar judicial review of delisting, a state senator testified that the population would surpass 700 animals by 2018!
Sadly, the same politicians who passed that bill under a cloud of ethics violations continue to demonize wolves and spread fear for political gain. Just last week Congressman Cliff Bentz was quoted saying “The challenge is going to be how to convince the nation these animals are just what they were created to be, killers. Cold killers, that’s what they do for a living.”
Decrease in Breeding Pairs & Packs
In justifying slow growth in previous years, ODFW argued breeding pairs was the most important indicator of population trends. There is some truth to that. Breeding pairs are the backbone of any growing wolf population. Yet in Oregon, their numbers have dropped to levels not seen since 2018.
This decline occurred both in Western and Eastern Oregon, signaling a statewide concern that cannot be ignored. The decline in breeding pairs is a clear indicator that human-caused mortality – poaching and state-authorized killing – is directly impacting their ability to sustain their populations.
Photo Credit: ODFW
The number of wolf packs has also decreased statewide – particularly in Western Oregon.
But it’s not as rosy in Eastern Oregon as many reports would have it. Though the vast majority of the state was once habitat for the native carnivore, the agency has written off most of the landscape and said the region is now essentially full. However, scientists say the state has the habitat and prey base for a population of nearly 1,500 wolves.
Meanwhile, at a far lower number, Eastern Oregon’s wolf population declined for the second consecutive year. That’s after increasing by only a single animal the year before. Eastern Oregon’s known population is now just 133 animals. That’s a 9% decrease from last year and a 6% decrease since 2019.
And yes, some of that decrease is accounted for by ODFW’s decision to translocate ten wolves to Colorado. But, rather than a sign of Oregon’s tremendous success, it was a choice that further slowed recovery here. Too bad it turned out that offers from even more overtly anti-wolf states like Idaho to send their wolves to “liberals who want ’em” were just childish rhetoric.
Natural Deaths: A Rare Fate for Oregon’s Wolves
Shockingly, since 2008, only 12 wolves in Oregon are known to have died of natural causes. This stark statistic underlines the harsh realities wolves face from human killing and inadequate protection. Known wolf deaths surged by 80% this year, following already high numbers in the previous years. Last year, and since recovery began in the state, just over 8% of wolves – including pups – are known to have died from any cause other than humans.
This trend is not just unsustainable. It speaks volumes about the value ODFW puts on wolves even as it gives in to industry demands and decries an inability to “manage” the species.
More Conflict Where Protections Are Weaker
Separately, ODFW noted a decrease in livestock predation incidents and an increase in wolf killing. Counterintuitive as they may seem, these numbers are related. It’s exactly what scientists have documented across the country and predicted would happen when protections for wolves were weakened here.
Killing wolves may be easy and cathartic for some. However, it leads to more conflict, which leads to more wolf killing, and more conflict, and more killing, and on and on.
For a period of time, ODFW was forced to try something different. And it worked. Under a legal injunction, the state was prohibited from killing wolves. That was followed by increased protections from a settlement agreement between conservationists, the livestock industry, and the state. During those years, the agency did not kill wolves. The population grew, and there was less conflict with livestock. That’s what everyone says they want. Less dead cows, less dead wolves, and less angry people.
But, rather than double down on success, Oregon’s legislature and wildlife commission gave in to political pressure and lowered the bar for killing wolves. So it was that, yet again, in 2023, scientists’ warnings came true.
In Eastern Oregon, where protections are weaker, wolf killing increased yet again in 2023. Even as the population decreased, predation incidents went up. More dead wolves, more dead cows, more angry people.
Meanwhile, in Western Oregon, where wolves enjoy stronger protections, less wolves were killed. The wolf population increased by 40%. Meanwhile, incidents of predation decreased by 60%. Less dead cows, less dead wolves, less angry people.
ODFW’s Lack of Transparency
Adding to the concerns, ODFW has stopped sharing critical data on livestock predation claims that definitively turn out not to involve wolves. Historically, 40-80% of such investigations concluded that wolves were not the culprits. This lack of transparency prevents a clear understanding of the situation. It fosters misinformation and does nothing to disincentive “crying wolf” and wasting taxpayer dollars on unnecessary investigations.
The agency is also now lumping together reporting on taxpayer compensation for livestock managers who lose livestock to wolves along with those who simply lose track of their animals in wolf country. Embarrassingly, even politicians consider radically increasing compensation paid for the loss of unattended livestock; for every dollar spent to pay actual (and “probable”) losses to wolves, $1.50 is paid out for animals that just go missing.
Department of Fish and Wildlife or Department of Livestock
Conservationists, scientists, and the public have long lamented ODFW’s inability (unwillingness?) to honor their conservation mission. For decades, the agency has bent over backward to appease ag interests and the hunting/fishing community while ignoring their charge to serve all Oregonians. In addition to the usual Friday news dump and euphemisms to which we’ve become numb, the agency lamented the decline of wolves not as a conservation failure but rather because it delays their ability to move to a new phase in Western Oregon. That new phase would reduce protections and allow wolf killing in line with Eastern Oregon. (more dead wolves, more dead cows, more angry people)
Despite no one ever being so much as licked by a wild wolf in Oregon, the agency created a new category of wolf killing called “human safety.” Oregon allows the killing of any animal in defense of human life. Perhaps understandably, investigators give a lot of benefit to any doubts. Past incidents have shown that while people are killing wolves out of fear, there is no objective evidence of wolves actually threatening humans. In fact, a subsequent public release of information on one “self-defense” killing showed the animal was shot while running away.
And, as ever, while staying silent on any of the positive aspects of the recovery of a native, persecuted, keystone species, the agency laments the “burden” of wolf recovery to landowners and livestock managers. As a landowner who owns a farm in wolf country (a tremendous privilege, not a burden – even when nature makes things challenging), I know that’s not the full story.
We Must Demand Better
The 2023 wolf report from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife paints a grim picture of the state of wolf recovery in Oregon. Frustratingly, it’s not a surprise. It’s exactly what we and scientists said was coming – a token persecuted population of wolves that remain at the center of ongoing and entirely unnecessary conflict, controversy, and killing.
The data reveals a series of failures in current management practices and a worrying trend for the keystone species. Oregonians who value wildlife alive more than dead must demand better from ODFW. Stronger protections, increased transparency, and a genuine commitment to sustainable conservation practices are needed to ensure that wolves can once again thrive and play out the role they played since time immemorial on Oregon’s landscapes.
Nearly four years ago to the day, as America faced unprecedented challenges, the Forest Service began a rushed and rigged process to undermine the only protections for Eastern Oregon’s largest and oldest trees. Just hours before President Biden’s inauguration, a Trump political appointee signed a decision gutting protections known as “the Screens.”
Oregon Wild, conservation allies, tribes, and scientists all joined the fight and challenged the removal of these protections in court.
Late last Friday, those protections were fully reinstated!
This is a shared victory. In making her ruling, the judge noted the thousands of you who weighed in through comments, as well as our members and supporters who came from across the state to pack the courthouse.
Safeguards of Wildlife, Water, and Climate
Eastern Oregon’s diverse forests are often overlooked, but science is telling us they play a globally important role in the urgent fight against climate change and the biodiversity crisis. One of the safeguards of those important values are known as the Screens.
The Screens prohibit trees over 21” in diameter at breast height (dbh) from being logged in the National Forests of Eastern Oregon and Washington that were not included in the Northwest Forest Plan. They are the most meaningful – and arguably only – protections for big and old trees in those places.
These protections were initially put into place by herculean efforts from environmental champions, including our own Tim Lillebo. After three decades, we know they have effectively protected wildlife habitat, sequestered carbon, and conserved other important values.
Court Cites Public Concern, Restores the Screens
Represented by CRAG Law Center, joined by half a dozen conservation allies, and supported by the Nez Perce Tribe, we took the agency to court for its illegal actions to undermine public process and strip away the protections of the Screens. It was a relief when, last August, a magistrate agreed the agency had violated several of the country’s bedrock environmental laws. He recommended the Screens be reinstated.
However, in a quirk of the justice system, those recommendations had to be formally approved and adopted by another judge. We had to wait until March to know if those recommendations would stick. And they did!
Friday’s ruling affirms a Magistrate Judge’s decision last summer, saying the agency violated numerous bedrock environmental laws, and fully reinstates the Screens.
Threats on the Horizon
Still, we know the fight continues.
Forest Service leadership continues to push for more discretion to do the bidding of their industry collaborators. They may still appeal this case, wasting more time and money.
Even as the Biden Administration works to develop national rules to protect mature and old-growth trees, agency leadership continues to push in the opposite direction.
Specifically, for over six years, regional leadership has been working with an exclusive group dominated by industry allies to change forest plans in Eastern Oregon.
The Timber Industry Wants to Cut Big Trees in Eastern Oregon. The Trump Administration is Happy to Help.
It’s hard to think beyond pandemics, childcare, and personal finances these days. The Trump administration’s lurching through a public health & economic crisis isn’t helping. However they seem to have laserlike focus on using the crisis to undermine environmental protections their industry friends would like to see go away.
At the national level, we see the suspension of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules, bail outs for the fossil fuel industry, and opening up wildlife refuges to hunting.
More locally, we see the Forest Service (USFS) designating the destructive and already dangerous industry of logging along with mining and grazing on public lands as “mission critical” while protecting Americans by restricting our hiking opportunities.
Then there’s a whole bunch of seemingly little stuff. Some of it matters a whole awful lot. One example is the 21-inch rule. Also known as “the Screens”, the rule says that live trees 21” and larger in diameter can not be logged on USFS lands East of the Cascades. At the behest of the timber industry and their allies, Trump’s Forest Service is trying to weaken them.
The rule was put into place in an effort to end the “forest wars” of the 1990’s. At that time, aided by federal agencies, the timber industry was liquidating the last of Oregon’s old growth. As the public began to fight back, the conversation west of the Cascades was dominated by spotted owls. In central and eastern Oregon, it was largely about salmon – which depend on functioning forests to provide the clean cold water they need to thrive.
Interim plans were put in place to protect values under threat from business-as-usual logging and grazing. Those plans created a truce of sorts. In the long run, the USFS was tasked with creating more holistic and enduring plans ensuring protections for things like old growth, clean water, and wildlife habitat while allowing timber production to continue – albeit at a slower and more ecologically sustainable pace.
On the west side, that holistic plan took the form of the Northwest Forest Plan. However, before a similar plan was fully formed for the east side, politics changed leaving the Screens in place as the most (and arguably only) meaningful protection for what remained of Oregon’s large trees and old growth.
Fast Forward ~25 Years
Forests in eastern Oregon are no longer being logged as heavily as they once were. However, logging big old trees in Eastern Oregon never completely went away. Local mills are still capable of milling trees much larger than 21 inches, and big old trees are coming off private lands at an unsustainable rate feeding hungry mills as far away as Asia.
Over the last few years, the pendulum is swinging back hard with large projects proposing high volumes of industrial logging under the guise of “thinning”, “restoration”, and “collaboration”. Further, fire suppression, overgrazing, and other forms of mismanagement remain the norm. Even with the Screens in place to protect them, old growth doesn’t come back in 25 years.
Industry and those who want to cut the last big trees, of course never liked the Screens – or any restriction on logging and grazing. They argue the Screens are arbitrary and temporary. It’s been 25 years. It’s time to throw them out. They find sympathy with the politicians they lavish with campaign contributions as well as old school USFS decision makers and even a few nominal “green groups”.
In addition to wanting to make eastern Oregon great again by logging big trees, those who tend to see forests as farms don’t like one species of tree in particular – grand fir. It takes a long time for more “desirable” trees like larch and ponderosa pine to grow to 21 inches. Not so for grand fir. They grow quickly and often die young.
In an age of fire suppression and reduced logging, there is probably more grand fir now than at many times in the past. This has resulted in a lot of logging-centric rhetoric about grand fir “encroaching” and “taking resources” from more “desirable trees”.
Blue paint means “cut it”. The woodpecker who lives here likely disapproves of the forester’s choice!
A woodpecker, hibernating black bear, or any of the dozens of species dependent on large structure in eastern Oregon forests likely have a very different view than an industry accountant on what is or isn’t desirable.
In the absence of abundant and functioning old growth forests, those young big trees serve a critical role on the landscape.
Notably, the Screens were not arbitrary. They were informed by the best available science.
The Screens don’t only protect old growth. They protect large structure, habitat for snag-dependent wildlife, appropriate hydrology, soil health, carbon sequestration and more. They also didn’t discriminate based on species or corporate profits, unlike timber sale planners.
And yes, the Screens were meant to be temporary. But they were meant to be a placeholder until there was a holistic plan in place like the Northwest Forest Plan. That never happened.
What would be arbitrary would be to assign an expiration date of 2020 to the Screens. It’s a little too convenient to get rid of the Screens just when the pendulum is swinging toward more logging and less oversight.
Miles and Inches
Rather than just comply with the rule, over the last 25 years, the USFS frequently attached “Plan Amendments” to individual projects. Those amendments allowed the Forest Service to ignore or change the Screens and other rules on a project by project basis.
Oregon Wild didn’t always oppose them. There are rare instances where we believe it may be appropriate to cut trees over 21 inches. For example, it might be ok to cut a young 25” grand fir growing under a 300 year old ponderosa pine that would serve as ladder fuel in the event of a fire and is only there because of human interference – like suppression of natural fire.
The Nature of Big Trees
By whatever name it’s called – and there are some colorful nicknames – grand fir is a native species. It is doing exactly what it evolved to do given the current fire regime and provides many important values beyond their dollar value as saw logs.
Clearing around every large legacy tree causes other problems. For instance, aggressively thinned forests have an unnatural shortage of clumps which are common in old growth forests. Large grand fir also help mitigate for the shortage of large green pine trees and snags.
Protecting large trees doesn’t really interfere with forest management. Agencies can make great progress on their purported restoration goals (such as reducing densities, changing species composition, and reducing ladder fuels) by focusing on thinning smaller trees.
– Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild
However, as so often happens when conservationists give an inch, the Forest Service took a mile. Plan Amendments became the proverbial rule rather than the exception.
Ultimately, a judge told the Forest Service that continually exempting projects from the 21” rule was unlawful and they had to stop. Those who want to cut big and old trees were not happy. Under pressure from industry and industry allies, Trump’s USFS has begun a process to reassess (pronounced weak·en) the 21” Screens – the most meaningful protection for old growth and big trees in Eastern Oregon.
Dismantling the Life Raft at Sea
Because of the Screens, our forests provide higher quality habitat, store more carbon, and have more large structure. However, there remains a major deficit of that large structure in eastside forests. Living or dead, this structure provides critical ecological values – especially for wildlife. By definition, it takes more than 25 years for old growth to return. In the meantime, large young trees – including grand fir – are often filling the niche.
Rather than create a plan that maintains and creates more large structure in a comprehensive way, [it seems to us] the USFS is just planning [almost certain to] simply to weaken the rules and find a way to start cutting big trees again.
Essentially we’re sitting in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. And rather than create a plan to row in the same direction to get to shore, we’re focused on how to dismantle the lifeboat because “at least we can all agree it was meant to be temporary”.
There are some wonderful folks who work at the USFS. Even so, under the Trump administration, and the pressure being brought to bear by local politicians and industry apologists, it seems naive to think the Forest Service will produce an unbiased scientific review or a carefully-crafted, ecologically-appropriate adjustment to the Screens.
…Especially after they’ve spent the last two decades trying to work around them.
As it is, the Trump administration has essentially redefined the word “restoration”. The only measures of that benign term have become the number of acres logged and the volume of raw material sent to mills.
The Forest Service has been using loopholes to propose ever bigger and more destructive projects in sensitive landscapes while sidestepping robust environmental analysis and meaningful public input. We’ve seen the result of that in controversial projects like industrial logging proposals along the Wild & Scenic Lostine River.
Moving Forward
We’re thankful some leaders like Rep. Peter DeFazio and Oregon’s Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley have called on agencies to slow down during the COVID-19 pandemic. However we’ve yet to see them take note.
It’s been 25 years and the Screens are doing their job. There’s no rush to solve a problem that arguably doesn’t even exist: there are a multitude of unimplemented projects that have been planned; the bottom has fallen out of the timber market, log yards are nearing capacity, and we don’t have an overabundance of big or old trees.
If the Forest Service wants to get past the “temporary” Screens that have been working for 25 years, they need to take their time and develop a holistic plan that is in line with the best available science and modern values. The process must allow for meaningful public input from all stakeholders. In short they have to be replaced with something better.
It’s up to leaders like Oregon’s Senators Wyden and Merkley to make sure that happens. Or just tell the USFS to focus on legitimate restoration and real problems like overgrazing, the fire deficit, a deteriorating and outdated road system, and a lack of funding for non-extractive programs.
And it’s up to forest defenders and true conservationists to defend the 21-inch Screens.
This blog only speaks for Oregon Wild. However, we want to publicly share our appreciation for our partners at Greater Hells Canyon Council who helped with this piece and remain tireless defenders of old growth protections and public lands in Northeastern Oregon.
