Recent headlines declare that grizzly bears killed a “record” number of cattle in Wyoming’s Upper Green River region in 2024. While provocative, these claims are misleading.
Opinion
Due to concentrated cattle grazing in bear habitat, livestock and grizzlies frequently cross paths on the Upper Green River allotment northwest of Pinedale. Yet, even here, livestock losses remain extremely low. The U.S. Forest Service authorized almost ten thousand individual cattle (separating cow/calf pairs) to graze the Upper Green River cattle allotment in 2024. The ranchers on this allotment reported 94 cattle killed by large carnivores, 91 of which were due to bears. Using these numbers, large carnivores, including grizzlies, killed less than 1% of the cattle authorized on the Upper Green River allotment in 2024.
While the reported figure may not account for undiscovered grizzly-killed cattle, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department addresses possible undiscovered depredations by multiplying confirmed calf losses by a factor of 3.5 (or by 2 for yearlings) for damage compensation.
Based on the most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report, bears (including grizzlies) are responsible for approximately 0.6% of total cattle losses throughout Wyoming, demonstrating further that grizzlies are an exceedingly small threat.
In a broader context, all predators, including wolves, coyotes, bears and others collectively account for only a small portion of total cattle and calf losses in Wyoming.
Grizzly-related cattle losses in Wyoming remain statistically minor when compared to the tens of thousands of cattle deaths caused by illness, birthing complications and extreme weather, which do not receive the kinds of attention or taxpayer subsidies that predator-caused losses garner.
Meanwhile, the 16 permittees on the Upper Green River allotment pay a total of just $34,376 ($1.35 per animal unit per month) to graze livestock on 170,000 acres, far below the $655,200 ($26 per animal unit per month) it would cost on private land.
Given the scale of this public subsidy, it is reasonable to expect that grazing permittees would approach the arrangement with some understanding. Instead, the minimal losses attributed to grizzlies are often treated as intolerable, despite being part of the cost of doing business in predator-occupied landscapes.
Ironically, the extremely low cost of public lands grazing may amplify ranchers’ perceptions of livestock losses. When annual grazing permits are as minimal as $2,000 per operator, losing even a single cow (valued at roughly $1,960 to $2,940, based on recent market prices) can seem disproportionately severe. However, if grazing fees accurately reflected the land’s true market value, for example, approximately $40,000 annually per operator on the Upper Green River allotment, individual cattle losses to native carnivores would constitute a much smaller proportion of overall operational expenses.
While some ranchers, particularly those with allotments deep in occupied grizzly habitat, may experience more frequent conflicts, multiple state programs already exist to compensate them. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department reimbursed ranchers $372,343 in 2022 for verified livestock losses to grizzlies, the highest compensation total for any species that year. The Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board also allocates funding toward carnivore conflict prevention and response.
Science-based land management acknowledges that grizzlies perform ecological functions that benefit public lands and the native species dependent on these lands. In places like Wyoming’s Upper Green River, grizzlies enhance habitat complexity by aerating soils while digging for roots and rodents, distributing nutrients through scavenging and reducing ungulate browsing pressure in sensitive riparian habitats. Grizzly predation helps control localized impacts, promoting the regeneration of native vegetation, especially in areas already stressed by livestock grazing. Ranchers who graze grizzly habitat participate in a system made possible by public investment. Ideally, such investment would foster an ethic of gratitude and coexistence.
The available data indicate that cattle losses to grizzly bears have significantly decreased in recent history. It is also notable that the USDA has ceased publishing detailed predator-specific cattle death reports for a decade, despite continuing these reports for sheep. This omission raises questions about whether the facts on the ground are consistent with the narratives commonly promoted by the livestock industry.
Exaggerating isolated spikes in livestock depredation distorts public perception and fuels misguided policy responses, threatening long-term grizzly conservation. To maintain perspective: even in “record” conflict years, the great bears remain a small factor in cattle mortality.
This data is looking at a statewide level, it isn’t misleading it is labeled as causes of death in Wyoming. The problem with the Upper Green is it is not a good environment to ranch. Sublette County is scenic, but it’s not a place that any livestock wants to be and to say otherwise is unrealistic. Them cows would be a lot happier and require a lot less fuss if they got teleported somewhere a little more southern. For all we try to do to prop this state up as a ranching state and the history everyone likes to hold onto that legacy was mostly sheep, not cattle. Wyoming barely registers on the scales in agriculture nationwide, it’s always been that way and it isn’t going to change. Look at the weather around the state last night and into this morning. Snow blowing sideways and freezing temperatures , where just a little ways south of us irrigation is already up and running.
The information in Figure 1, which is cited elsewhere in the piece, is very misleading. Causes of cattle death across the entire state are being compared to cattle deaths caused by grizzlies and wolves – which occur only in the northwest part of the state. The writer should not mislead people this way. Wyofile should not allow this misleading information to be published. The intent is apparently to make the concerns of agricultural producers in Wyoming seem small, instead of having an honest discussion about them.
Well written article Dagny. Previously Mike K. wrote an excellent article which showed how grizzlies have out migrated onto habitat well outside of the original core habitat established in the recovery plans. The recovery plans clearly state that grizzly habitat was never intended to include private land and BLM land. Therefore, in those outside areas trapping and relocation has oftentimes been used to separate grizzlies from private livestock – the problem is that much of the core habitat is saturated with grizzlies.
The Upper Green is a real dilemma though because there is considerable over lapping of suitable grizzly habitat, well established grand fathered grazing leases and even wilderness areas. I guess its a case of multiple use of the federal lands unintentionally causing the wildlife/livestock conflicts. In some ways its a worst case scenario with respect to having the ideal conditions to foster conflict – however, everyone has rights – grizzlies and ranchers. Wyoming has established our animal damage program as a fix to a very difficult situation.
Animal damage payments are made from Game and Fish funds generated by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses in Wyoming. That is, Wyoming Game and Fish is managing the grizzly/livestock conflict even though the grizzlies are still listed as a ESA species. Our State of Wyoming program is effective and under competent management. The Wyoming district courts have ordered Game and Fish to compensate ranchers for depredation losses and this has been the law of the land for many years. The American public is not paying for the depredation losses and Wyoming has invested over $70 million in grizzly bear management expenses – again, all paid for by the sale of licenses. Wyoming has an excellent program and the grizzly bear populations are flourishing in our state. All is well – the sky is not falling. That you Wyoming hunters and anglers for supporting grizzly recovery you’re the ones paying the bills.
The worn-out comparison of public lands grazing fees to private land grazing fees simply serves to show how little the writer understands the situation, the complexity of ranching, and the history of the West. Though they have been trying since the days of “Cattle Free in 93”, the boviphobics have not been able to win on science, so just keep trotting this out. In a typical private land grazing arrangement, the owner provides maintenance and everything else, with the exception of perhaps salt, mineral supplements, etc. And, the private land is usually much more fertile, better watered, and supports more animals per acre, as it was the land chosen first by early settlers. In contrast, most public lands were what was left over; often too high, too cold, or too dry to be suitable for homesteaders. Additionally, there are non- fee costs that public land grazers bear, including fence maintenance and developing water resources that are used by wildlife as well as livestock. To put it simply, contrasting grazing fees on public and private land is like comparing a cheap subcompact car with a luxury sedan. They both have four wheels and will transport you, but that is where the similarity ends.
You give a strong argument against allowing cattle on federal land.
Not a small factor when it is your cattle that are lost to the depredation, especially considering the blood sweat and tears invested in the stewardship of these cattle. In the other “non predator” causes of death a rancher has every opportunity to defend themselves using the tools available, and there is none of these causes that are forced on them by the non-ranching community. This is not the case against grizzly bears and wolves. Ranchers have a great disadvantage in the lack of ability to defend against things that are forced on them by others that do not have to live with their decisions!
Great article! Filled with documented facts unlike the negative comments! The fact is that surveys show the majority of Westerners including Wyoming citizens support having healthy populations of grizzlies (and wolves) but the rancher-hunter industries dominate wildlife decisionmaking. Keep up the good work!
Public landowner, +1 vote for more grizzlies and charging a fair market price for grazing livestock on public lands. No more ag subsidies and no more taxpayer money for overhead operating costs, like losses to natural predation. The free markets for the US consumer, but socialism for the rancher approach isn’t working. I can’t afford beef at the market, but still pay for its production in terms of environmental degradation and taxpayer dollars? No.
For those foodies who travel, put South Africa on your list. Exceptional quality beef, at a fraction of the cost for a comparable cut in the US. $12 USD for a gorgeous ribeye so generously cut you have trouble finishing it. When you get outside the orange stain, you start to realize how badly you’re being screwed over by America’s ag industry and oligarchs.
Which would of course increase the cost of eating meat. Cheap hamburgers at 15 bucks is your goal?
Grizzlies pose a significant threat to elk calf survival!
The North Jackson region elk calf to cow ratio this year is 15 to 100. It has been even lower in past years. A healthy ratio is 30 to 40 calves per 100 cows.
The time has come to massively reduce the numbers of wolves and also start reducing the grizzly population in the GYE through managed hunts.
The North Jackson elk herd is literally disappearing and the Grizzly predation at calving areas plays a large role as well as wolf predation all year long.
It’s not all about you Jack – I mean Chad.
No Gordon, it’s about the elk.
When the bison were wiped out, would you have told the Sioux “it’s not all about you”?
There are thousands of elk. Become a better hunter or change areas. Biodiversity is more important than you.
Gordon, I have hunted the North Jackson Region for elk since 1989. When areas in that region go from 1500-2000+ tags allotted per year to 20 this upcoming fall, that isnt “biodiversity” that is the road to extinction.
The North Jackson region elk herds currently have a 15/100 calf to cow ratio, to simply sustain a herd it should be 30-40 and was historically as high as 60. The story is the same at the north end of Yellowstone where that elk population was cut by 75-80% and the elimination of thousands of tags there as well. The entire GYE needs predator numbers control, not elimination but managed.
You’re supporting the mismanagement of wildlife by accepting the slaughter in the name of “biodiversity”. Elk migration patterns were changed in the early 1900s by human development and in the past 30 years again by uncontrolled predator populations. The elk are literally boxed in with long distance migrations barely existing.
Maybe educate yourself a little better on this topic.
This article’s argument is based on a classic non sequitur. While true that disease et.al causes more cattle deaths that in no way supports logic of allowing a controllable option to ravage calves. This start up news letters slant is fairly obviously left leaning “progressive” and out of touch with the vast majority of those not residing in Jackson and a part of Laramie