Documentary Looks at Wolf Reintroduction

Of Wolves & Men: An Interview with William Campbell

By David Nolt, 2-04-08

	All photos by William Campbell.

No wildlife species is as iconic and controversial as the wolf. Canis Lupus is a symbol of wildness and healthy ecosystems to some, but to others it is a callous killer and an economic threat.

Loathed and loved, the American Gray Wolf has gone through a tumultuous history in the West. They were hunted as vermin to virtual extinction by the early 20th Century, reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, and now are around 1,500-strong across the Northern Rockies. Biologists say wolves are officially recovered in the West and should be removed from the Endangered Species List, but – true to form – disagreements over wolf management between pro-wolf and anti-wolf groups has delisting at a standstill.

In 1999, journalist William Campbell began a documentary film to tell the story of what wolf reintroduction meant for people living in wolf territory. The result, “Wolves in Paradise,” sheds invaluable light on this story, giving a face and a voice to the many people trying to live with this species.

Campbell’s documentary follows wolf reintroduction and wolf recovery outside of Yellowstone National Park, into the Paradise and Madison Valleys where wolves encounter cattle, ranchers, environmentalists, federal officials and landscapes steadily succumbing to rural subdivisions and vacation homes.

In the Paradise Valley, the Davis family learns firsthand how wolves can affect a small ranch. In the Madison Valley, Sun Ranch owner and former Silicon Valley executive Roger Lang launches a well-funded experiment to better learn how to ranch with wolves. Feeling the effects of the Western migration firsthand, Madison Valley ranchers turn proactive on growth and form the Madison Valley Ranchlands Group. And environmentalists – often at odds with ranchers – begin to change their strategies in an effort to help both wolves and ranchers.

In an issue often convoluted by polarization and simplistic caricatures, Campbell’s film gives viewers an intimate look into the lives of those involved in this unprecedented story. “Wolves in Paradise” captures the beauty and wildness of the Greater Yellowstone Area, the tenacity and grace of the many different people living around the nation’s first National Park and the flurry of changes confronting both people and wildlife in this area.

William Campbell recently took time for an interview with NewWest.Net from his Livingston, Montana office.

How did this project begin?

I was covering land-use issues around Yellowstone, and part of that included the reintroduced Yellowstone wolves. I basically let the animals take me to meet the people. In most cases it was due to conflict situations, but over a period of years I got to know members of the ranching community, the federal wolf managers and a lot of the environmental community. Living here gave me the opportunity to be a fly on the wall in the whole process.

The purpose of the show was to let viewers see what the ranching community has to tolerate and what they’re up against living with wolves. Living with wolves is not easy. What often happens to a small rancher can also happen to a conservation landowner like Roger Lang, who has lots of resources. There’s not an easy solution.

For me, it wasn’t a form of self-expression. I was basically taking the time to give back to the community what I’d observed over the last eight years. It was one of those situations where, although I work for the national media, I thought this documentary could be something that would be very useful locally to help create a dialog for people trying to live with wolves in the years to come.

Did you have any preconceptions about people on either side of this issue, and what did you learn about the people involved in this?

Yeah. When I first started the ranchers were so incredibly vocal against the wolves, at least in the local press and with some of them you’d meet. I went to a branding in ’99 at the Davis Ranch. There were all these neighbors – a lot more of them were in the cattle business then than there are now – so I was assuming the conversation would be wolves, wolves, wolves, but actually wolves didn’t even come up until much later in the afternoon. And this was after Martin had a run-in with wolves.

What I discovered is ranchers are part of the fabric of why we like Montana, especially the smaller ranches. The big corporate ranches don’t add much to the mystique or flavor of the place. It’s the smaller rancher that keeps 2,000 acres open and a couple hundred head of cows.

The Davis family was obviously a very important part of the film. When you first introduce them you show the “Wolves: Government-sponsored terrorists” bumper sticker. You have Martin saying “Wolves and livestock don’t mix,” yet as it goes on you get to see they’re very likeable, thoughtful people just trying to get by in a lifestyle they really love. Do you think the Martins are pretty representative of ranchers?

I do. Martin is very articulate and a very well-spoken, thoughtful person. But I wouldn’t have focused on someone like that if I felt he was one rancher that was different from all the rest. They’re all very decent, nice people. It made sense to cover him because he was constantly moving his cattle onto his private summer pasture in wolf territory – to follow one season where we had no idea what would happen – and also follow the cattle operation at Roger Lang’s Sun Ranch during the same summer.

Talk a little bit about Roger Lang (owner of the Sun Ranch in the Madison Valley) who is definitely representative of non-traditional landowners in the New West.

He’s more progressive than most landowners. One of the things I didn’t get into too deeply was the changing economics of the land. Traditionally, the ranchers in a place like Paradise Valley would expand their ranches by buying their neighbors’. Now it’s impossible to do that; the land prices are such that the last family-owned ranch in either the Paradise or Madison Valleys to expand their ranch by buying their neighbors happened maybe 10 or 12 years ago. The land prices are such that you can’t buy land and make money running cows on it.

In terms of large parcels of land, what we’re seeing out here is people investing in real estate. It’s become an investment for people, and depending on their interests, they can do various things with it. Some close it off and manage the land as a traditional cattle ranch. Others like Roger Lang want to be part of the ranching community and to be part of the conservation community as well.

It seems there is definitely ground being covered on that. One thing I really got from this movie is that this issue and the people involved are not merely black and white. Ten years since wolf reintroduction, have we covered ground here?

We have, and it’s a really good thing to see. When I first started covering the wolf reintroduction, ranchers and environmentalists were at loggerheads. I had people in the environmental community who thought I was a complete jerk for talking to the ranchers and the feds.

Over the last five years we have seen a lot of ranches turning into subdivisions. There is the issue of preserving open space. When you look at 2,000 acres in the Paradise Valley, you would rather see a ranch than a housing development.

Martin Davis started to notice the change. In the show he says, “I’m starting to hear the environmental folks say ‘I like wolves but I like ranchers too. Where there is a ranch there is open space.’” I saw the change as well. There was even a recent essay in the Patagonia catalogue challenging the environmental community to listen to the ranching community.

Some of the smaller, local conservation groups like Keystone Conservation saw a need to work with the ranching community. GYC is working with ranchers. I think that’s a breakthrough. Someone like Janelle Holden – who is the daughter of a rancher and knows the talk and respects them – I think it shows in the way she approaches them and works with them. I think because of that, the ranching community will be much more amenable to accepting help on their land if they have problems with wolves.

I think the ranchers feel more included now. Number one, they were involved in the state wolf plan. Two, they have more control over what they can do if they do see wolves harassing their livestock. I think at the same time they also feel that they’re no longer pariahs in the eyes of the conservation community. They’re getting a little bit of respect.

There is still tension. There isn’t a big Kum-By-Ya, but the wolves are bringing different sides together.

How effective do you think the Madison Valley Ranchlands Group has been?

I haven’t done a serious amount of reporting on them, but I think they’ve been very effective by making newcomers aware to the whole idea of development. There is some dissent amongst the landowners there, but by-and-large they’ve managed to take the idea of development and at least have some sort of say in how land is going to be developed by engaging the newcomers. When someone buys a parcel of land, they automatically get a free membership to the Madison Valley Ranchlands Group and a subscription to the newsletter. So, you immediately feel you’ve been invited to the table, as Roger Lang says.

What do you think the future holds for wildlife in the Paradise and Madison Valleys in respect to subdivisions and development?

The more subdivisions you get the more fences you get. It will tend to push more of the wildlife onto the smaller ranches. It will just concentrate the conflict. It’s really hard to tell what’s going to happen with wolves.

Do you think any of the deterrents are working in regards to preventing cattle depredations?

There were about 60 wolves killed by the time I finished filming in 2006. There are some deterrents that are effective at certain times of the year. They do know that a human presence is a great deterrent, but you can’t have people out there all the time. The range rider program tries to keep people out with the cows on federal and some private land. They know that flaggery [red cloth streamers on fence lines] can be effective if used correctly.

During the first 10 years after introduction the wolves were pampered. They came in and moved around through the valleys, and the ranchers didn’t want to be involved in the federal program at that point by trying to haze the wolves. Over the last few years they’ve become a bit more involved because they realize, “These damn things aren’t going away so we might as well try and scare them.” The idea is to make wolves wary of people, and that’s what they should be if they’re going to be wild.

One way to look at it is to look at how many wolves are actually around and on the landscape outside the park. There are a lot, but if you look at how many depredations there are, there really haven’t been that many. But one of the things I discovered is that I don’t think we found one pack of wolves that weren’t involved in some sort of livestock depredation. Some did it one year and not the next.

How is compensation working? It seems like a no-brainer to help ranchers deal with depredations.

They don’t feel the compensation has been sufficient. Many ranchers that have wolf problems believe they have lost more cattle to wolves than they can prove. They get market value for a loss but if you figure all the time it took reporting the depredation, protecting the scene, returning with the Wildlife Services agent, and then moving the cows, it’s not that much. I think it’s going to be easier for them to accept the compensation run by the state if the wolves are delisted because it will be a compensation program designed by ranchers.

How do they compensate for stressed cattle?

They don’t have a program to compensate for weight loss due to stress.  In some cases, stress from wolves is a bigger problem than depredation

Wolves were obviously here before us. Isn’t that just part of ranching in this area?

Yes, but part of ranching in this area was killing wolves in order to make this place accessible to ranching. They weren’t just killed by the ranchers; ranchers didn’t have the time to kill all the wolves. The U.S. Biological Service – the government – killed the last wolves. They were removed in order to make ranching a viable business out here.

Roger Lang talks about how he grew up in California with the idea that cows are bad. They are certainly a non-native species with significant impacts on the land.

It’s true. I think that there are a lot of people who are questioning whether cows should even be on the landscape in the New West and whether or not you can make enough money to make ranching worthwhile. To a rancher that’s been in the business for a long time and owns their land, ranching is a way of life and a viable business. But as the land changes hands at the current prices, the economics of running cows in wolf territory will be challenging. 

The Sun Ranch is in an area that is like a funnel to all the wildlife in that region, so they have huge herds of elk that move through that land. They have antelope, deer, grizzly bears. It’s like a little Yellowstone just because of the way the land is situated. Lang uses those cows and moves them around to keep the grass down and the range healthy. But in the long-term, whether or not it’s financially viable to run cows in a place with wolves is still up in the air.

How do you think the three states’ (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) plans will deal with the situation?

They all have different plans according to state politics. Montana formed a state wolf group back under Gov. Racicot, and they got representatives of the environmental community and ranchers together. Also, because wildlife is so much a part of daily life in Montana and the fact that there were naturally occurring wolves earlier up in the northern part of the state – I think Montana just addressed the wolf issue earlier. For that reason, Montana politicians aren’t so politically shrill about wolves.

The government line for wolves In Montana is, “We want to treat them like any other wildlife.” That’s a far different cry from, “They’re a varmint. We want to wipe them all out.” That has been the approach in Wyoming. The feds rejected the original Wyoming wolf plan. They now have an area around Yellowstone and the Tetons where wolves will be treated as a trophy game animal with a controlled hunting season. But for the rest of Wyoming they will be treated like coyotes and you can shoot them on sight with no permits.  But until the wolves are delisted, they are still protected under the ESA.

In Idaho they have a plan that will meet the federal requirements for delisting. But, the governor has been quoted as saying he will buy the first hunting permit in an attempt to reduce the population to the minimum federal numbers.

The rewriting of the 10-J rule this year will allow states to take action against wolves that they feel are threatening wild game populations. I think we’re going to see a large number of wolves killed fairly quickly in Wyoming and Idaho.  Montana doesn’t have any current plans for population control to protect elk herds, but that could change.

So, if you have a keystone species that can be a bit more delicate than other species around here and you have the challenges with ranching and development and soon hunting, do you think there is a possibility that wolves could be hunted right back to the brink of extinction?

We’ll have to wait and see. In Montana, that probably wouldn’t happen under the current administration. Depending on a particular state’s aggressiveness, if they kill too many wolves, they’re in danger of getting them re-listed as an endangered species again. There are biologists that feel that hunting wolvers will make them more wary of people.

In the film, Yellowstone National Park Wolf Biologist Doug Smith very eloquently explains the controversial nature of wolves. They have this reputation as just awful beasts that will stalk children and torture prey without even eating it. You spent a lot of time around wolves on this project. What’s your take on the myths surrounding wolves and the reality?

Wolves do have a mythical reputation. It is interesting to look at how ranchers see wolves and grizzly bears. A lot of ranchers admire grizzly bears. They dislike what they can do to their livestock, but at the same time they have a bit more respect for the grizzly because they kill quicker and they’re a loner; they rarely kill more than they can eat.

Wolves hunt in packs. The way they kill is not clean. To take down a heifer may take hours. So, the ranchers will say, “You may think this is strange because we’re raising these cows to send them to slaughter, but at the same time we don’t want to see them tortured.” You can understand, in a way, why there’s this animosity. But at the same time, it’s like Doug says: They’re living with a reputation that is undeserved. Most of the time they aren’t in any trouble.

Wolves are going to be here for the foreseeable future. What is the benefit of having wolves on the landscape both for people and the environment?

I feel that we’re really lucky to live in a place where we have wolves and grizzly bears. There are few places in the lower 48 that have all the animals that we have around us at all time. Having wolves back on the land changes the dynamics of all the ungulates. Now there’s a natural predator that hunts them. It makes the landscape whole again.

Unfortunately, southwest Montana is not that wild anymore; this isn’t Alaska or northern Canada. There really aren’t a lot of places for wolves to wander where they won’t come into contact with people or livestock.

-----------------

On Friday, February 8th, the Park County Environmental Council will screen “Wolves in Paradise” at the Livingston Depot at 7 p.m. Following the screening, the public will have the chance to interact with a panel including Yellowstone National Park Wolf Program Director Doug Smith; Former Sun Ranch manager and Greater Yellowstone Coalition Board of Directors President Todd Graham; Montana Wolf Coordinator Carolyn Sime; Paradise Valley rancher Martin Davis; Paradise Valley Rancher Bob Weber; Keystone Conservation Director Janelle Holden; and State Representative and Paradise Valley rancher Bruce Malcolm.

“Wolves in Paradise” was produced by Homefire Productions and KSUM/Montana PBS for the Independent Television Service (ITVS) with funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Humanities Montana, and the Greater Montana Foundation.  National broadcast on PBS Plus is scheduled for December 2008.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.