Delisting debate: Trump administration pushes to remove gray wolves from Endangered Species Act protections

Move brought outrage from conservation groups, while drawing praise from ranchers and Republicans

VALLEY FALLS, Ore. (KTVZ) — The Trump administration is moving to permanently delist the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act, a decision spotlighting the struggles of a Southern Oregon ranch family at the heart of the nationwide debate.

A wolf at the fence line

On the Flynn family farm in Southern Oregon, video shows Wolf 158 standing over one of rancher Tom Flynn’s calves, moments after killing it. Just a few feet away, the calf’s mother stands over her dead young, watching in visible distress.

Flynn recalls the encounter bluntly: “He just killed one. He has no fear of me. There are more babies out there, just within a couple of hundred yards of him.”

For weeks, the gray wolf stalked the Flynn family’s livestock, leaving them in constant fear.

Fish and Wildlife officers camped out on the property, using every non-lethal method allowed by law to capture and relocate the wolf, but he says nothing worked. At one point he noted, “Well, that’s nice—he’s heading right for the feed ground where there’s a bunch of baby calves, and it’s just half a mile behind the house.”

Eventually, more than a dozen of the Flynns’ calves were killed before authorities euthanized the animal. “After a three-week period,” Flynn said, “it finally came back to what I could have done in the first five minutes of encountering that wolf.”

Ranchers back the delisting push

Rep. Cliff Bentz, a Republican who serves Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District, backs the change. “I think the Trump administration is exactly right,” he said.

Bentz argues that, for rural ranchers, wolves are not an abstract conservation question but a direct threat to their livelihood.

Bentz says ranchers lose more than calves to wolves—chronic stress from stalking leads to fewer pregnancies in herds. Some conservation groups, however, question those claims.

Bents also emphasized that ranchers are not compensated for lower pregnancy rates from their cattle, "We want to have these apex predators running around wreaking havoc, then those who want it that way have to pay for it, period," Bentz emphasized in an interview with the Problem Solvers.

Farmers and ranchers, meanwhile, remain frustrated by repeated livestock losses, despite increased state investment in non-lethal deterrents and compensation. Though ranchers can be compensated for calves confirmed killed by wolves, the process can take time and does not cover livestock deaths that wildlife officials can’t directly verify.

“A wolf is a killing machine. It is truly in the business of killing,” Bentz said. “On the one hand, we’re busy trying to make sure we have food and driving down food prices. On the other hand, we’re busy encouraging wolves. Wow, what a crazy thing.”

He added that many ranchers in places like Eastern Oregon are already operating on thin margins. “What we ought to be doing is just trying to figure out how to make sure that those folks who, for the last hundred years, have eked out a living in these marginal spaces, like Eastern Oregon, for example, don’t have to bear another burden, such as wolves killing their livestock.”

Conservation groups fight back

The decision is not sitting well with conservationist groups like the Center for Biological Diversity. Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director and senior attorney for the organization, said, “Wolves made progress towards recovery across the country because of the protections of the Endangered Species Act.”

She added, “When wolves are federally protected, what we see is that the states work more closely with livestock operators, giving them more resources and tools.”

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife currently encourages non-lethal deterrents, such as removing livestock carcasses, increasing human presence, using fladry or temporary fencing, and installing alarms or light-based scare devices.

In 2024, Oregon’s Department of Agriculture awarded $790,000 in grants for preventive measures and confirmed losses, up sharply from $478,000 the previous year, with all requests for compensation fully granted.

Adkins worries that removing federal protections could send wolf numbers crashing again: “When wolves lose federal protections, they’ll just turn back to the Band-Aid shortcut of just killing the wolves.”

A Democratic response from Congress

Congresswoman Janelle Bynum declined an on-camera interview but issued a written statement responding to the debate. “Supporting farmers who feed our communities and protecting our vulnerable wildlife shouldn’t be mutually exclusive,” the 5th District Democrat said. “I’ll continue working in Congress toward conservation efforts that prioritize the livelihood of our farming families without compromising on protections for our endangered species and our environment.”

The Problem Solvers made several follow-up attempts to clarify her position and dig deeper into the issue, but never received a response.

Rep. Bentz criticized her stance and urged her to spend more time with ranchers on the ground: “She needs to get out there and actually listen, because those people who run a McDonald’s—and she does, she owns a bunch of them—should understand exactly where beef comes from. She serves it every day in her restaurants. And for her not to be aware of this additional cost being imposed upon the food chain that she relies upon is just amazing to me.”

What delisting would and wouldn’t change in Oregon

If the federal delisting goes through, it would not mean open season on wolves in Oregon. The state would still maintain strict protections for the species, and any lethal control would remain tightly regulated.

However, delisting would give farmers and ranchers somewhat more flexibility to kill a wolf that is actively threatening their livestock. Even then, officials stress that delisting would not mean widespread sport hunting of wolves across the state.

Oregon’s wolf population rises, but so do depredations

After years of stagnation, Oregon’s wolves have rebounded, fueled by westward expansion and successful breeding in both eastern and western management zones.

Wolf advocates hailed the population growth as a relief but tempered optimism with sharp concerns about illegal and legal killings.

“I’m relieved to finally see a noteworthy increase in Oregon’s overall wolf population, but we’re not in the clear by any means,” said Amaroq Weiss, a senior wolf advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Far too many wolves are being killed illegally, and while state officials are concerned about wolf poaching, they continue to authorize high levels of legal wolf killing over livestock conflicts.”

Statewide, wolf depredations have averaged around 70 investigated incidents per year since 2021. However, 2025 is expected to exceed this average, with final counts to be released next spring.

ODFW authorized targeted removals of 11 wolves in the East Management Zone due to chronic depredation. Eastern Oregon is one of the few places in the country where wolves are not federally protected.

Ranchers lawfully shot another three wolves caught in the act of attacking livestock. The total of 14 wolves killed for livestock conflicts in 2024 nearly matches the 16 killed in 2023. Seven additional wolf deaths are currently under investigation, some tied to suspected poaching or poisoning in eastern and western zones.

State vs. county control

While the Flynns and Rep. Bentz spoke highly of Oregon Fish and Wildlife, they expressed support for shifting control of wolf protections to the county level. The Flynns emphasized that each Oregon county is distinct, with its own needs and political leanings. They also don’t feel Salem and the State of Oregon represent rural interests and ways of life.

Bentz agreed, saying, “My counties are huge. Harney County is 10,000 square miles, and Malheur County is almost 10,000 square miles also. These are huge, huge, huge areas. So of course, the counties should have a lot to say about all the activities that go on within them — particularly when it comes to wolves.”

Looking forward

For the Flynn family, the scars of losing more than a dozen calves to Wolf 158 are still fresh. For conservationists, the worry is that rolling back federal protections could erase decades of progress in bringing wolves back from the brink.

For now, a Southern Oregon ranch stands as a vivid example at the center of a countrywide debate over how to balance protecting predators with protecting the people who live and work alongside them.