The Failure of Conservation Groups to Criticize Wolf Slaughter

The state of Washington recently reported that its endangered wolf population had declined for the first time in 16 years. The state confirmed that it has 230 wolves, compared to 254 wolves in the previous year.

According to figures released by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington’s overall wolf population in 2024 decreased by at least 9.44%, and successful breeding pairs declined by 25%.

What accounts for this decline? Well, 37 wolves are documented as mortalities. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Department killed four wolves after the animals had conflicts with livestock.

In addition, an unknown number of wolves died from suspected poaching. Two wolves died while being captured by Fish and Wildlife. One wolf was killed by a cougar, and one by other wolves. One wolf was shot attacking livestock, one was shot in self-defense, and one died after ingesting plastic, according to Fish and Wildlife.

However, the most significant source of mortality was a consequence of tribal wolf slaughter. Colville tribal members accounted for more than half of the annual wolf mortality, killing a minimum of 19 wolves.

This ongoing killing of dozens of wolves by tribal members has been occurring for years, and it is hindering the recovery of endangered wolves in Washington. For instance, in 2022, tribal members slaughtered 22 wolves.

Wolves are covered statewide under the state’s endangered species law. Killing one of the animals without authorization can carry penalties of up to a year in jail or a $5,000 fine under the state’s law.

Last summer, the Fish and Wildlife Commission narrowly voted against downlisting wolves from “endangered” to either “threatened” or “sensitive,” moves that would have led to lower penalties for poaching and slightly easier access to permits to kill wolves that attack livestock.

Due to their Endangered Species Status, it is illegal for any citizen to kill in Washington State except in special instances, such as wolf-livestock depredation. However, tribal members are exempt from hunting regulations that restrict other citizens.

Unlike wolf trapping in states like Montana and Idaho, which allow the carnage of wolves, there are still limits on the number of animals that any individual trapper or hunter can take. However, the Colville tribe permits the trapping and hunting of wolves by any tribal member without limitations.

The high mortality of wolves by tribal members is setting back wolf recovery in the state. In particular, the Colville Reservation is a critical bridge between eastern Washington, where most of the state’s wolf population is found, and the colonization of the Cascades and western Washington.

The reservation contains excellent wolf habitat, which is why the tribe continues to massacre wolves in this area. The reservation is, in effect, a mortality sink. The good habitat (prey base) attracts new wolves and leads to their death.
Wolves return to the same places as the Colville Reservation because it is a suitable habitat for prey, and more get killed.

As much as I am dismayed by the tribal slaughter of wolves, I am even more outraged by the apparent willingness of so-called conservation organizations to accept the destruction of wildlife and wildlands by tribal people that they would denounce if perpetrated by anyone else.

While a few wolf advocacy organizations clinically noted the Colville tribe’s role in hindering wolf recovery in the state, none have chosen to criticize the tribe publicly.

This lack of accountability by the conservation community is part of what I call the Indian Iron Curtain, where environmental organizations are unwilling or, in some instances, even support the destruction of wildlife or wildlands done by tribal groups, which they would otherwise condemn if done by anyone else.

Not only does this perpetuate the myth that tribal people are somehow “natural environmentalists,” but it harms the wildlands and wildlife that are impacted. The annual tribal slaughter of bison by Yellowstone National Park, which many organizations support if a tribal member does the killing, is a perfect example of this double standard.

Throughout the West, these groups raise money off the backs of wolves. If a rancher or hunter kills wolves, I will get a message telling me to donate money to them to “save” wolves from slaughter.

One lame excuse I got from the ED of a wolf advocacy group for their lack of opposition to tribal slaughter was that the tribes have a “legal” right to kill wolves without restriction. Yet the same organization has no trouble blasting the annual carnage of wolves by hunters and trappers as unacceptable in states where it is legal to kill them.

For instance, a few years ago, there was outrage from conservation groupsafter 26 wolves were killed by trappers and hunters north of Yellowstone Park. Still, the very same organizations are silent about tribal wolf killings on the Colville reservation and elsewhere (like Alaska).]

Brooks Fahy of Predator Defense is one of the few people willing to condemn the tribal killings publicly.

Fahy says:” The silence from the “conservation” community on this subject is deafening.”

Fahy quips: “The Colville Tribe has essentially created an iron curtain of traps and bullets by preventing wolves from dispersing westward into the Cascades.”

As Fahy notes: “It does not make you an anti-Native American to be angry at what some of the tribes are doing, just like it doesn’t mean you’re antisemitic if you’re outraged over what Israel is doing in Gaza. It’s time to condemn unacceptable behavior.”

Most conservation organizations are loath to criticize tribes due to historical mistreatment, but in the end, it is the wildlife that suffers today. Why should wolves (grizzlies, salmon, bison, old-growth forests, etc.) have to accept the burden of past abuse of Indian people?

The double standard for tribal groups is part of a long-term change in conservation missions. When I came of age in the environmental movement in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a movement to consider ecology, evolutionary processes, and biocentric perspectives as the priority standard in advocacy. Since then, I have seen a significant shift towards anthropocentric attitudes and values in many organizations, to the detriment of overall conservation goals.

Social justice needs to be considered, but Nature Justice should have priority, for in the end, there is no social justice on a dead planet. We need to set limits on human exploitation, no matter who is doing it.

It’s time to take down the Indian Iron Curtain and hold all people who abuse, mistreat, or exploit Nature accountable. The wolves, bears, salmon, bison, old-growth forests, and wildlands will be glad you did.