Ranchers, conservationists clash over federal orders to remove Mexican gray wolves

Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced the removal of two Mexican gray wolves after the predators killed and injured livestock in the American Southwest.

What we know:

The decision has drawn criticism from conservation advocates who say this type of removal represents a slippery slope. Redacted copies of the removal orders do not specify the exact locations where the wolves are being taken from, but the documents note that one wolf was killed in May in the same area. Officials noted that the May action only temporarily ended depredations, or the killing of livestock.

Conservation advocates state that these removals merely check boxes rather than identifying long-term solutions that benefit all parties involved.

"Any time we have a lethal removal as well as cows getting eaten out there in the landscape, there's something that is failing in this program," said Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project.

Government agencies have spent decades reintroducing the Mexican gray wolf into the wild across Arizona and other parts of the American Southwest.

According to Wolf Conservation Center data, the current headcount in Arizona and New Mexico sits around 319 wolves.

Under the recent agency action, one of the orders explicitly allows for the killing of a wolf in order to complete the removal process.

"When it comes to lethal removals, it's putting a Band-Aid on the issue," Musser said. "When you remove one of those wolves, the rest of the pack are gonna struggle, and they are going to start taking greater risks, and you're likely to have even more issues in the future."

READ MORE

• Mexican Gray Wolves vs. Arizona ranchers: A battle reaches Capitol Hill

Dig deeper:

These ongoing issues create financial strain that ranchers say they cannot absorb. Eastern Arizona rancher Doug Stacy spoke in 2025 about the ongoing debate between livestock owners and conservationists.

"When you start losing several calves a year that could've, you know, helped pay for diesel fuel and all the things that go into ranching, it starts hitting you in the pocket," Stacy said.

Musser stated that she understands the frustrations felt across the agricultural community.

"Livestock losses are real, and ranchers deserve meaningful support," Musser said. "But killing or moving a wolf does not, by itself, change the conditions that allowed conflict to develop. Ranchers and wolves both need effective prevention, not another cycle of loss, blame and removal."

A memo authorizing the lethal removal mentions that the rancher involved did not have an interest in proactive management options.

"How do we get to the point where someone doesn't want help, what did they feel wasn't happening where they weren't being supported?" Musser said.

Musser points to the Range Rider program as one option to mitigate conflicts, but says there must be checks and balances to these types of programs.

"Having nonlethal tools in place is not the same as having an effective conflict-prevention program," Musser said. "A range rider on the payroll is not necessarily a well-run range-riding program. Prevention depends on timing, training, sustained presence, livestock management and the ability to read and respond to what the cattle, wolves and landscape are telling us. Prevention is a practice, not a checklist."

What's next:

Musser noted that progress for the Mexican wolf recovery program relies heavily on cooperation from all parties.

"I know that ranchers in other places that we've worked with, with the project up north, they are not going to the meetings because they're not having any issues, so what can we do to support everybody out there, including the wolves?" Musser said.

Musser added that having top predators like wolves, bears, and mountain lions in the wild directly supports the overall health of the state's ecosystem.