State Wolf Management Report Card
We graded the ten states with established Gray Wolf populations.
Three of those states already hold that decision. If wolves lose federal protections, the other seven will too. This report card is a tool for agencies and advocates alike: where each state stands, what separates a strong plan from a weak one, and what it would take to improve.
WHAT WE ASKED
TRANSPARENCY
Can the public see what the state is doing?
-
Budget transparency
-
Wolves killed, and by what method
-
Frequent depredation updates
-
Public hearings and a named point of contact
HUMANE + ETHICAL
Does it treat wolves, and ranchers, decently?
-
Ban on trapping, snaring and poison
-
No recreational or mandated hunt
-
Lethal control only as a last resort
-
Ranchers actually compensated
SCIENCE
Is the plan built on evidence, or on a target?
-
Independent scientific review
-
Population reporting with its uncertainty
-
Invests in non-lethal methods research
-
Goals that value wolves, not suppression
HOW WE SCORED IT
It is an absolute scale, not a curve. A state is measured against what a good approach does, not against the other nine — which is why nobody got an A, and why every state can improve next year without any other state getting worse. Why these twelve questions and not others →
1 · ½ · 0
One point if the state does it, half if it does it partly, zero if it doesn’t.
4
Four questions make a dimension score out of four — transparency, humane and ethical treatment, science.
÷ 3
The overall score is the average of the three. That number is the letter grade.
12
Every one of the twelve scores links the document it came from.
SHARE THE REPORT CARD
Use the below shareable social posts to let your network know about the report card or share your state's grade!