A new Oregon State University (OSU) Extension study reveals how the growing presence of gray wolves is reshaping the financial landscape for Oregon’s livestock producers.
The 2024 survey of sheep and cattle ranchers outlines the direct and indirect costs of wolves, including increased labor costs, diminished reproductive success and lower calf weights.
Since wolves were first confirmed back in Oregon in 2009, their numbers have steadily grown. By 2024, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife estimated a minimum population of 204 wolves.
The OSU Extension survey collected 33 responses from cattle and sheep producers whose grazing operations overlapped with or bordered areas of known wolf activity. The survey asked ranchers to rate the perceived pressure from wolves, estimate associated management and revenue costs, and rank their primary concerns. Responses revealed a wide spectrum of impacts; some ranches reported minimal interference, while others indicated severe disruptions that threatened their operational viability.
Pressure and costs
Economic losses from wolf presence manifested in two primary ways: added management costs and reduced livestock productivity. Ranchers in areas of “extremely heavy” wolf pressure reported spending $111.85 per cow annually on deterrence efforts ranging from additional range-riding and carcass removal. Even in areas labeled as “moderately heavy” or “heavy,” added costs per cow ranged from $13.75 to $20.52. These ranchers often modified grazing behavior and hired extra help, with labor valued at $20 per hour.
“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,” the study said. “Still, these responses suggest that wolf pressure can result in significant economic challenges.”
While confirmed wolf kills drew the most public attention, indirect costs loomed larger. Among the 22 cattle producers experiencing moderate or higher pressure, over half noted reduced pregnancy rates, often attributed to elevated stress levels in their herds. Producers also reported more missing calves, likely killed but never found. Wolf presence, even without attacks, triggered later calving seasons and lower weaning weights due to stressed, energy-depleted cows and calves.
Existing academic studies reinforce these observations. A 2014 study cited in the report found that a single wolf depredation could reduce average calf weaning weights by 20 pounds. Likewise, after a predation event involving nursing calves, cows spent 49% less time foraging or grazing, and it took about 10 days for their behavior to return to normal levels.
An OSU study in 2017 found a link between wolf presence and elevated cortisol levels in cows and ewes, indicating chronic stress. This stress correlated with 6-8% lower pregnancy rates, a 4% increase in pregnancy loss and up to 35 lbs. less calf weight weaned per exposed cow.
When translated into dollars, these impacts are substantial. Using a five-year average of $2.30/lb. for weaned calves, the OSU report estimates that affected ranches can face annual revenue losses of $135-200 per cow. At current cattle prices, those losses could climb to $300 per head. Added to the $10-100 per cow in wolf management costs, the result is a threat to the core profitability of many ranches.
“When added to the wolf-related management costs … 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,” the report noted.
A final survey question asked ranchers to rank their top concerns regarding wolves. Out of 31 respondents, 14 said their main issue was fear for their livestock’s welfare, while 10 pointed to financial losses as the greatest concern, especially among those dealing with higher wolf pressure.
Three case studies
In the first case study, a 500-head Baker County rancher said despite having no confirmed kills, the ranch experienced added labor costs and longer gather times after herding dogs were no longer effective. Two to three extra people are now needed for fall roundups, taking two additional weeks and adding $2,000-3,000 in labor costs annually. With per-cow margins often tight, this represents a 5-10% reduction in income.
The second case study of an operation in Grant County showed it has dealt with multiple confirmed kills and an uptick in missing calves—about 20 more per year compared to pre-wolf conditions, peaking at 45 in 2021. With each calf valued at over $1,200, the economic hit is significant. The rancher also experienced a decline in hunting lease revenue, as elk avoided meadows frequented by wolves. In some years, hunting lease losses have reached $5,000, further shrinking the ranch’s bottom line.
In the last case study, a Wallowa County sheep producer lost four animals—including two irreplaceable breeding rams—during a 2024 spring wolf incursion. The attack halted a vertically integrated wool business that had already invested in milling equipment and renovations for a downtown storefront.
The study concluded Oregon livestock producers have experienced a wide range of impacts from wolves. These impacts often fluctuate from year to year, making it difficult for ranchers to plan effective and affordable wolf management strategies. The study stated that “an understanding of the varied direct and indirect impacts of wolves on livestock operations will be important for successful coexistence in the state.” — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
