People’s tolerance for wolves goes up when they see one. It also goes up when they don’t.
That apparent contradiction explains why attitudes toward wolves have grown consistently friendlier over the past decade, according to a new study in the journal Conservation Science and Practice.
The study, released on December 12, was co-authored by husband-wife duo Alexander and Elizabeth Metcalf of the University of Montana School of Forestry, Justin Gude of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Michael Lewis of UM’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research. It compared a 2023 wolf-tolerance survey to results from the same questions asked in 2012 and 2017, reaching a total of 7,607 Montanans over that decade.
“The surveys show overwhelming positive trends and declining negative trends,” Alexander Metcalf told Mountain Journal. Those saying they were “tolerant” or “very tolerant” of wolves made up 41 percent of respondents in 2012. That share rose to 50 percent in 2017. When the researchers ran the same survey in 2023, 74 percent held that attitude.
In the same period, tolerance for wolf hunting moved in the opposite direction. In 2012, 71 percent of Montanans were tolerant or very tolerant of wolf hunting. That fell to 61 percent in 2017, and 58 percent in 2023. Wolf trapping slipped from 40 percent tolerant or very tolerant in 2012 to 36 percent in 2023.
The research crew went looking for what drove wolf tolerance upward. They found several somewhat unexpected factors. For example, Montana’s overall population has grown considerably over the decade. Most of those newcomers have landed in the state’s urban centers, and identify as politically conservative by a 2:1 margin, Metcalf said. The researchers hypothesized that could lead to less love for wolves, since conservative politicians have led most of the campaigns to remove Endangered Species Act protections.
“But we don’t see an urban/rural divide that you might expect,” he said. “And [newcomer] migration isn’t having much effect on tolerance. It’s that widespread.”
Instead, the way people encounter wild wolves makes most of the difference. And most of those encounters take place on a visit to somewhere like Yellowstone National Park, where seeing a wolf ranks among the top-sought experiences among tourists.
Paradoxically, the next important factor is not seeing a wolf — anywhere.
“The lack of anything happening serves to bolster your tolerance,” Metcalf said. “No news means good attitude, and bad experiences are extremely rare. Most people’s wolf experiences are positive. That seems to be what’s really driving this increase in tolerance over time.”
Although gray wolves had been naturally repopulating northern Montana since the 1980s, the release of transplanted Canadian gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park in 1995 brought the animal to nationwide attention. The study noted that “wolves have expanded their range and population size while being the subject of myriad lawsuits, stories, conspiracy theories, political maneuvers and persecution.” Attitudes were widely mixed, with few people having any direct wolf experience on which to base an opinion.
“We don’t see an urban/rural divide that you might expect. And [newcomer] migration isn’t having much effect on tolerance.”
Alexander Metcalf, School of forestry, university of montana
Instead, many relied on “Big Bad Wolf” tropes based on Little Red Riding Hood or Three Little Pigs, according to literature scholar S.K. Robisch. In his 2009 book, Wolves and the Wolf Myth In American Literature, Robisch compared his visits with wolf-watchers in Yellowstone’s Lamar Valley with the extensive bookshelves of folklore, fantasy, romance and warrior tales built around wolf characters.
“I was concerned with the study of mythic and scientific approaches in literature that have put imaginary wolves into the minds of the most seasoned, clinical thinkers,” Robisch wrote. “Many of these images are possessed of a power equal to the scapegoat, the minotaur, or the phoenix, and some are as ancient. They prompt the most and least responsible actions human beings take toward predatory animals, preservation efforts and the politics of habitat.”
That thinking continues to play out in today’s wolf management debates, Metcalf says. Observed from the judge’s bench or legislative lectern, wolves are a hot controversy in need of immediate control. They met their federal recovery goals of 300 animals and 15 breeding pairs in 2002, prompting lawsuits demanding and resisting their removal from Endangered Species Act protection. In 2011, Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester attached a rider to a must-pass budget bill delisting gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains and blocking further judicial review. Montana, Idaho and Wyoming promptly opened wolf hunting seasons, followed by trapping and snaring provisions.
This December has been a busy month in wolf policy news. Colorado Republican Representative Lauren Bobert’s “Pet and Livestock Protection Act,” co-sponsored by Montana Republican Representative Troy Downing, Idaho Republican Russ Fulcher, and Wyoming Republican Harriet Hageman, won House approval on December 18. If passed by the Senate, it would remove gray wolves from ESA protection throughout the Lower 48 states, overturning a 2022 federal court order that kept wolves protected.
“As written, the ESA makes the gray wolf out to be a liability to avoid, not a resource to be protected,” Downing said in a December 18 statement. “It is critical that we trust the science and look towards a more precise conservation approach when dealing with unique populations.”
“I was concerned with the study of mythic and scientific approaches in literature that have put imaginary wolves into the minds of the most seasoned, clinical thinkers.”
S.K. Robisch, author, Wolves and the Wolf Myth In American Literature
More locally, a Wyoming man accused of torturing a captive wolf in a bar has contested his felony criminal charges. Cody Roberts claims the state’s animal cruelty laws didn’t apply to predators such as wolves. His lawyer on December 19 submitted a seven-page brief quoting the law that “nothing in this article may be construed to prohibit … the hunting, capture, killing or destruction of any predatory animal, pest, or other wildlife in any manner not otherwise prohibited by law.” Roberts was initially fined $250 in 2024 for possession of warm-blooded wildlife before being indicted by a grand jury for the felony cruelty to animals charge, as reported by WyoFile.
For Metcalf, this points up a paradox in human-wolf relations: The people who don’t like wolves play a disproportionate rule in their management.
“Almost every other hunter loves their prey,” Metcalf said, noting how mountain lion hunters advocate for increased cat populations as do organizations like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Mule Deer Foundation. “But wolf hunters hate wolves. And they’re a really small percentage of overall pop — about 1.2 percent. But they show exceedingly negative attitudes and outsized control and effect on wolves.”
