Study links wolves to livestock revenue losses and increased costs

Published 7:30 am Tuesday, July 29, 2025

A new study supports the concept that Oregon ranchers face significantly higher indirect costs from wolves than the value of confirmed and probable livestock kills.

The Oregon State University Extension Service analysis also showed that ag operations facing heavy wolf pressure may have costs that exceed typical income from ranching.

Surveys indicated some producers relinquished private leases in areas with high wolf populations.

The peer-reviewed paper by ag economist Tim Delbridge and beef cattle specialist David Bohnert was published in July.

Indirect costs include smaller and less valuable calves, reduced pregnancy rates and added costs for predator management and deterrence.

New Oregon legislation passed with the reasoning that indirect costs of wolves far exceeded the market value for livestock kills.

The law now allows for state compensation of up to five times the value of calves, yearlings, goats and sheep, and up to three times the market value of other cattle.

However, additional funding required to pay for this multiplier was not included by the Legislature’s Ways & Means Committee.

For their analysis, Delbridge and Bohnert conducted an electronic survey that had 33 respondents in the summer of 2024.
Ranchers pinpointed the location of their grazing land and elaborated about predator pressure, impacts and ag activity for the specific site.

Responses were tied to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife maps.

“The strong correlation between ODFW wolf activity maps and producer reports of wolf pressure shows the value of ODFW data collection and monitoring work,” wrote Delbridge, in a post on the OSU Applied Economics Outreach Blog.

Producers who reported “extremely heavy” wolf pressure estimated average increased management costs of nearly $112 per cow, mostly related to additional labor time.

Those livestock tended to be located in or just outside an ODFW-labeled “area of known wolf activity.”

“The increased management costs tend to fall off sharply within a couple of miles from defined AKWA boundaries,” Delbridge wrote.

Some ranches might face severe financial losses that threaten the sustainability of their businesses, with others, only a few miles away, might see little impact.

“What people didn’t know before is the way distance affects things. … When you’re in the area of known wolf activity, it’s likely to be a different experience,” Delbridge said, in an interview.

Additional labor time includes the alteration of grazing behavior, increased range riding and the need to remove carcasses and bone piles that could attract wolves.

Those reporting extremely heavy wolf pressure also undertook labor-intensive practices, such as staying with cows through the night for several weeks.

In a case study, a Baker County ranch had $2,000 to $3,000 extra per year in labor expenses due to nearby wolves despite not experiencing any livestock deaths or injuries.

In another case study, a Grant County ranch with multiple confirmed kills had 45 more missing calves than normal one year. Elk sometimes avoid the acreage due to wolves, and the ranch’s annual hunting lease income has declined by as much as $5,000.

The authors estimated producers experiencing heavy wolf pressure experienced revenue losses ranging between $135 and $200 per cow, based on a five-year average.

That would be about $200 to $300 per cow under 2024 and 2025 beef prices, which have been at record highs.

Delbridge said reintroduction of wolves in Oregon and elsewhere in the West is primarily motivated by perceived ecological benefits of having an apex predator prowling the landscape, though there could be other advantages such as wildlife-related tourism.

While those benefits could potentially help the state and every resident, “The costs are highly concentrated on individual producers,” Delbridge said.