This brief communication presents selected findings from recent social and economic monitoring of national forest policies in the Pacific Northwest. Qualitative interviews with timber industry professionals, USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) employees, and rural community members provided local perspectives on increasing the pace and scale of timber harvests on national forests. Challenges noted by interviewees included spatial consolidation of the wood processing facilities, limitations of the timber supply from federal lands, misalignment between timber sales and industry needs, market volatility, labor shortages, and regulatory complexity. Interviewees expressed skepticism about the Forest Service’s reliability in delivering consistent timber volume and highlighted barriers in the bidding process that disadvantage smaller operators. Workforce issues—both in wood processing facilities and logging operations—further constrain current and future production capacity. Our findings suggest that increasing timber harvests will require coordinated, long-term efforts to build trust, improve Forest Service capacity, and better align timber sale offerings with market needs. Rather than attributing production shortfalls solely to environmental regulation, the study emphasizes the need for federal policies that address structural and economic realities of the forest industry. These insights can inform durable strategies for forest restoration and timber production in the American West.

U.S. laws and policies have implicitly and explicitly sought to use forests to benefit the nation and adjacent rural communities through a social contract, whereby forest harvest supports community stability. However, the forest industry in the Pacific Northwest experienced a supply shock in the 1990s with the reduction in federal harvest and the creation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), which occurred against a backdrop of changing investments across the forest and broader manufacturing industries. This study gathers, queries, and analyzes data from multiple sources to examine how industrial geographies of timber production and processing have shifted over the last 50 years in the region with attention to outcomes in rural areas. We compare harvest, employment, and mills across rural, urban, and urbanizing counties. Steep declines in harvest occurred in rural counties, while gradual declines in numbers of sawmills coincided with location shifts to more urban or urbanizing counties. Rural and urbanizing counties remain more economically reliant on the forestry sector, but the industry today is more connected with the land base in rural areas through harvesting, and more connected with urban areas for processing. We conclude that the story of the Pacific Northwest timber economy is as much, if not more, a story of capitalist political economy as it is one of environmental regulation. Our findings raise questions about the feasibility of the social contract as well as the adequacy of the workforce and infrastructure needed to support urgent wildfire risk reduction activities on federal forestlands.

Conservation entails cultural practices shaped by our worldviews, values, beliefs, and priorities for our interactions with nature. These inform how we categorize which species we want to occur in which landscapes. In Western conservation organizations, conceptualizations of species 'belonging' typically align with a dichotomy of native versus introduced species. This is a cultural paradigm, informed by biological considerations, and it is not uniformly shared across different cultures, resulting in varied conceptualizations of species belonging. These conceptualizations may continue to evolve as socio-ecological systems change over time. Thus, misalignment in perceptions of species belonging can manifest in seemingly intractable conflicts. We apply a cultural evolutionary lens to: (1) consider the social history of the native-introduced dichotomy; (2) describe social and ecological factors causing friction around the dichotomy; (3) explore how conservation can integrate diverse and changing values about species belonging, and (4) make predictions about future socio-ecological change that may shape conservation governance and our categorization of species. In doing so, we encourage conservation scientists and practitioners to practice reflexivity about the cultural nature of conservation and management of introduced species. This application of cultural evolution presents a unique lens for recognizing the inevitability of both social and ecological change and inspires critical consideration of how diverse and changing values might be integrated into, and shape, the future of conservation.

California has experienced increasing frequency and intensity of wildfire, with the five largest fires on record since 2018. Over the same period, licensed cannabis production has grown to a high-grossing industry, while remaining an important source of rural livelihood. Importantly, the geography of cannabis production overlaps with high fire hazard areas more than any other crop in the state. We developed and deployed a state-wide survey of licensed outdoor producers to determine direct and indirect impacts of wildfire, as well as how producers have responded to these threats. Quantitative and narrative data were subjected to statistical and thematic analyses, demonstrating key findings around fire-related losses, mitigation tools and techniques, and perceptions of risk. Producers experienced a range of impacts beyond direct burning, including reduced light (affecting grow rates), ash deposition (with impacts on product quality and saleability), and production disruptions. Producer responses to the threat of fire and smoke varied, in part affected by the costs of mitigation, yet some common strategies emerged. However, while most growers reported impacts from fire, these were often outweighed by concerns over other pressures on production and profitability. Our hope is that these findings around the experiences and concerns of California's cannabis producers will inform future research directions and provide the first steps toward policy interventions to better address the challenges of living with wildfire.

As wolf and grizzly bear populations recover across the American West, livestock producers face renewed challenges of coexistence, prompting increased interest in nonlethal conflict mitigation strategies. One such tool – range riding – uses human presence to prevent depredation and monitor livestock. While range riding is gaining traction among conservation practitioners and producers alike, empirical research on its implementation, effectiveness, and sustainability remains limited. This study examines range riding in the context of the “New West,” focusing on three long-standing programs in western Montana. Through semi-structured interviews with range riders and program coordinators (n= 7) supplemented by document analysis and broader research within the region, we explore how range riding is defined and practiced, its perceived benefits and challenges, and the labor and funding structures that support it. We find that range riding is understood as a flexible and context-specific form of human presence on the landscape, combining elements of predator deterrence, livestock monitoring, and grazing management, while facilitating producer compensation for livestock losses and relationship-building in rural communities. Interviewees described diverse benefits of range riding, including reduced livestock losses, improved communication between riders and ranchers/landowners, and its role in helping sustain working landscapes amid broader socio-economic shifts. However, programs face significant challenges: limited long-term funding, high labor demands, and difficulties in hiring and retaining skilled riders capable of building trust with ranchers and the broader community. Ironically, the success of range riding in reducing depredation can jeopardize its continued funding – a dynamic we term the “paradox of prevention.” Our findings suggest that range riding represents a return to traditional rangeland practices – “cowboying” – amid novel political and economic circumstances. As such, its future depends on durable funding, supportive policy frameworks, and recognition of its role in shaping coexistence between predators and people in the New West.

AbstractThe expansion of grey wolves (Canis lupus) across the western United States, including on public lands used for extensive livestock grazing, requires tools and techniques for reducing wolf–livestock conflict and supporting coexistence. We examined approaches used on forested lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, which we characterize as large, rugged and remote (LRR) landscapes. Research on the spatial aspects of where tools and techniques are deployed and their effectiveness across geographic settings is scant.We selected six national forests located in six western states where managers seek to mitigate ongoing wolf–livestock conflict and conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with stakeholders (n = 69) to discuss approaches to conflict mitigation and perceptions of the effectiveness of different tools and techniques.We developed a three‐part typology categorizing tools and techniques for conflict reduction: livestock husbandry, non‐lethal deterrents and targeted lethal removal of wolves. Across these categories, interviewees noted that many approaches are challenging to scale up to the geographic context of Forest Service grazing allotments and LRR landscapes.The techniques perceived by our informants to be most effective for mitigating conflict in LRR landscapes include: human presence (mobile range riders); flexibility in grazing management; husbandry practices to minimize livestock vulnerability; and targeted lethal removal of wolves (used in combination with non‐lethal techniques).Social, economic and political factors also influence the ability of producers to implement desired conflict mitigation tools in the national forest context. For example, the economic costs of implementation in LRR landscapes, and policies associated with grazing on federal lands, can limit mitigation options.Policy implications. Geography matters! Efforts to address wolf–livestock conflict are more likely to be effective if they are designed to fit the local geographic context. Effectiveness may also increase if mitigation efforts go beyond technical approaches, considering the social, economic and institutional context in which conflict is embedded.Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.

The emerging field of convivial conservation (CC) draws on the tradition of political ecology (PE) to present a “radical” alternative to contemporary environmentalisms, speaking to the challenges of conservation in the Anthropocene as well as the global ascent of reactionary populism. Building on previous work arguing for the ongoing value of dialogue between PE and the American West, I here develop a conversation between CC and another radical intervention, the collaborative conservation of the West’s so-called “radical center” (RC). Using the nexus of wolf–livestock conflict and public lands grazing, I first trace a genealogical history of western environmental politics before turning to CC as critical corrective to the shortcomings of the RC. Scholarship on the commons and commoning provides an analytical bridge and political toolkit for linking the empirics of place with the aspirational aims of conviviality, and naming and navigating on-the-ground obstacles to collaborative conservation efforts in the region. This dialogue in turn highlights deeply rooted tensions of capitalist political economy and questions of non/belonging rooted in settler colonialism—necessary regional engagements for building from polarized antagonism toward an alternative environmental politics of coexistence and conviviality.

California (USA) supports the largest legal cannabis market in the world, yet faces increasing risk from wildfire. While anecdotal evidence of impacts to cannabis crops has been documented during recent extreme fire seasons, the economic losses resulting from smoke exposure and other indirect effects (e.g., ash fall, mandatory evacuations, power outages) are not well understood. We conducted an online survey of licensed cannabis farms across the state, reporting wildfire impacts on cannabis crops from 2018 through 2021. We summarized regional variation in reported cannabis crop losses, fit a hierarchical multinomial model to assess the effects of proximity to fire and smoke exposure on crops, and trained a random forest model to make impact predictions for all state-licensed outdoor cannabis farms. We found that cannabis farms experienced wildfire-related crop losses across all cannabis growing regions in 2020, but that northern regions experienced particularly high crop loss across all four study years. We also found that exposure to wildfire smoke was a stronger predictor of reported impacts than proximity to wildfire. The output of our random forest model suggested substantial impacts for the cannabis industry in 2020, with predicted crop losses between 4.54% and 21.61% statewide, and between 9.09% and 42.83% in the northernmost counties. Estimated potential economic losses in 2020 and 2021 were as high as $1.44 billion and $970.04 million, respectively-losses which themselves exceed annual values of many of California's other agricultural commodities. Together our results indicate substantial impacts of wildfire for the California cannabis industry as a whole. We suggest that more attention be given to strategies for mitigating cannabis crop losses from wildfires, especially in light of increasing fire occurrence and severity under climate change.

Animal fear can be an important driver of ecological community structure: predators affect prey not only through predation, but also by inducing changes in behaviour and distribution-a phenomenon evocatively called the "ecology of fear." The return of wolves to the western United States is a notable instance of such dynamics, yet plays out in a complex socioecological system where efforts to mitigate impacts on livestock rely on manipulating wolves' fear of people. Examining Washington state's efforts to affect wolf behaviour to reduce livestock predation, we argue that this approach to coexistence with wolves is predicated on relations of fear: people, livestock, and wolves can arguably share landscapes with minimal conflict, as long as wolves are adequately afraid. We introduce the "socioecology of fear" as an interdisciplinary framework for examining the interwoven social and ecological processes of human-wildlife conflict management. Beyond frequently voiced ideas about wolves' "innate" fear, we examine how fear is (re)produced through human-wolf interactions and deeply shaped by human social processes. We contribute to the critical physical geography project by integrating critical social analysis with ecological theory, conducted through collaborative interdisciplinary dialogue. Such integrative practice is essential for understanding the complex challenges of managing wildlife in the Anthropocene.

In resource management, new terms are frequently introduced, reflecting ongoing evolution in the theory and practice of ecology and governance. Yet understandings of what new concepts mean, for whom, and what they imply for management on the ground can vary widely. Coexistence—a prominent concept within the literature and practices around human-wildlife conflict and predator management—is one such term: widely invoked and yet poorly defined. While for some coexistence is the latest paradigm in improving human-wildlife relations, the concept remains debated and indeed even hotly contested by others—particularly on the multiple-use public lands of the American West, where gray wolf conservation, livestock production, and the claims of diverse stakeholders share space.The multiple meanings of coexistence present serious challenges for conservation practice, as what the concept implies or requires can be contested by those most central to its implementation. In this study we examine wolf-livestock management—a classic case of human-wildlife conflict—by focusing on the experiences and perspectives of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) managers. We reviewed coexistence's multivalence in the literature, complementing semi-structured interviews conducted with USFS employees on case study forests from across the western states. Through this, we highlight the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the concept, and the unique yet under-explored perspective that resource managers bring to these debates.This work draws on insights from political ecology to emphasize the situatedness of manager practice—taking place within a broader set of relations and contextual pressures—while extending political ecologists' traditional focus on the resource user to a concern with the resource manager as a key actor in environmental conflicts. Through our engagement with the experiences and perceptions of USFS managers, who must balance conservation aims with long-established land uses like livestock grazing, we hope to clarify the various dimensions of coexistence. Our hope is that this work thus increases the possibility for empathy and collaboration among managers and stakeholders engaged in this complex socio-ecological challenge.

Abstract Threats posed by wild predators to livestock production have too often resulted in human–wildlife conflict, to the detriment of these keystone species and broader biodiversity conservation. Long‐standard practices of lethal control are increasingly seen as costly, controversial, and ineffective, however, with nonlethal alternatives ever more prominent. In addition to assessing these tools' ecological effectiveness, there remains a key role for the social sciences, particularly qualitative research, in identifying obstacles to and opportunities for the long‐term sustainability and scaling up of these coexistence interventions. The Wood River Wolf Project (WRWP), a collaboration among ranchers, environmental organizations, and government agencies in Blaine County, Idaho, has pursued coexistence between gray wolves and domestic sheep since 2008, demonstrating and developing nonlethal techniques and garnering regional and international attention as a model for collaborative coexistence. Yet the Project has also struggled with changing conditions and internal challenges. Investigation of this prominent effort—its history and practices as well as the broader socio‐political and economic context—highlights the challenges of adaptive governance in the face of reduced capacity and hostile legal‐political contexts, while providing important insights for practitioners and policymakers promoting wildlife coexistence in shared landscapes.

Carnivore predation on livestock is a complex management and policy challenge, yet it is also intrinsically an ecological interaction between predators and prey. Human–wildlife interactions occur in socioecological systems in which human and environmental processes are closely linked. However, underlying human–wildlife conflict and key to unpacking its complexity are concrete and identifiable ecological mechanisms that lead to predation events. To better understand how ecological theory accords with interactions between wild predators and domestic prey, we developed a framework to describe ecological drivers of predation on livestock. We based this framework on foundational ecological theory and current research on interactions between predators and domestic prey. We used this framework to examine ecological mechanisms (e.g., density‐mediated effects, behaviorally mediated effects, and optimal foraging theory) through which specific management interventions operate, and we analyzed the ecological determinants of failure and success of management interventions in 3 case studies: snow leopards (Panthera uncia), wolves (Canis lupus), and cougars (Puma concolor). The varied, context‐dependent successes and failures of the management interventions in these case studies demonstrated the utility of using an ecological framework to ground research and management of carnivore–livestock conflict. Mitigation of human–wildlife conflict appears to require an understanding of how fundamental ecological theories work within domestic predator–prey systems.

Carnivore predation on livestock is a complex management and policy challenge, yet it is also intrinsically an ecological interaction between predators and prey. Human-wildlife interactions occur in socioecological systems in which human and environmental processes are closely linked. However, underlying human-wildlife conflict and key to unpacking its complexity are concrete and identifiable ecological mechanisms that lead to predation events. To better understand how ecological theory accords with interactions between wild predators and domestic prey, we developed a framework to describe ecological drivers of predation on livestock. We based this framework on foundational ecological theory and current research on interactions between predators and domestic prey. We used this framework to examine ecological mechanisms (e.g., density-mediated effects, behaviorally mediated effects, and optimal foraging theory) through which specific management interventions operate, and we analyzed the ecological determinants of failure and success of management interventions in 3 case studies: snow leopards (Panthera uncia), wolves (Canis lupus), and cougars (Puma concolor). The varied, context-dependent successes and failures of the management interventions in these case studies demonstrated the utility of using an ecological framework to ground research and management of carnivore-livestock conflict. Mitigation of human-wildlife conflict appears to require an understanding of how fundamental ecological theories work within domestic predator-prey systems.

Left Coast Political Ecology (LCPE) is a network of undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral scholars and faculty engaged in a collective practice of political ecology grounded in strong connection to the "Left Coast" of North America. In this manifesto, we build on successful 2015 and 2018 workshops on the practice and value of political ecology today to communicate our origins, efforts, and ideas towards building a community of praxis amid the urgencies and uncertainties of our time. We first articulate those organizing and theoretical lineages that influence and inform our work. We trace the evolution of LCPE through diverse genealogies and cross-pollinations – from the "Berkeley School" to Black, Indigenous, feminist, and decolonial studies, through political struggles within and beyond the academy. In grappling with the challenges of our institutional histories of settler-colonial, capitalist, and racist dispossession, we then propose a "coastal epistemology", one that troubles the notion of a settler-colonial or neoliberal "frontier" while finding value in encounter, conversation, and emergence. We seek to make transparent our positions of relative privilege as well as the precarious contexts in which we work and live, while mobilizing and embodying political ecology's long-standing normative and liberatory aims. Next we share some of the diverse methodological approaches employed by our members and collective, with the aim of providing inspiration and solidarity to others contending with similar challenges. Ultimately, we suggest a vision for what a political ecology adequate to our moment might look like and require: a necessarily collective and hopeful project, amid processes of colonial violence, capitalist inequity, and climate catastrophe. The Left Coast Political Ecology network invites you to dream and organize with us, to share resources, experiences, and community, and to help push our field and our institutions toward more socially just and ecologically sustainable futures. Keywords: Coastal epistemology, Left Coast, network, radical geography, praxis, West Coast

Political ecology, initially conceived to better understand the power relations implicit in management and distribution of natural resources in the developing world, came “home” to the American West in the 1990s and 2000s. This groundswell of research did much to problematize socio-environmental conflicts in the region, long typified by tensions over land and resources, identity and belonging, autonomy and authority. Since first touching down in the West, however, the “big tent” of political ecology has only grown bigger, incorporating new perspectives, epistemologies, and ontologies. At the same time, the nexus of environment and society is perhaps even more salient today, amid a regional conjuncture of populist revolt, climate change, and rapid political economic transformation. Here we reflect on three longstanding regional concerns – energy development, wolf reintroduction, and participatory governance – leveraging the pluralism of contemporary political ecology to better understand their contemporary incarnations. In so doing, we highlight the need to bring together insights from both “traditional” approaches and newer directions to better understand and engage contemporary challenges, with their heightened stakes and complexity. Such an approach demonstrates what we might learn about global processes in this place, as well as what insights regional praxis (often woefully provincial) might gain from elsewhere – new ways of seeing and doing political ecology. Our goal is to generate discussion among and between political ecologists and regional critical scholars, initiating new collaborative engagements that might serve the next wave of political ecology in the 21st century American West.

In The Odyssey, Odysseus and his crew must navigate the Strait of Messina between two great hazards: the six-headed monster Scylla on one side, and the whirlpool Charybdis on the other. This conceit here guides a critical engagement with scientific knowledge and state power, grounded in the positionality and practices of government agents charged with the management of controversial species and processes in the American West. Based in ethnographic and archival research on wolf-livestock conflict and public lands grazing in Central Idaho, I relate how agents with the U.S. Forest Service and Idaho Department of Fish and Game navigate conditions not of their own choosing. Sailing the "choppy seas" of complex systems and multiple-use mandates, with the "whirlpool" of cuts to capacity on one side and the "monster" of political controversy and litigation on the other, agents appear to collect less or more ambiguous information on their charges, resulting in a partial "blindness" or illegibility. Although a rational adaptation to unrealistic expectations, this ignorance is not bliss but rather symptom and source of dysfunction, limiting agents' ability to carry out monitoring, collaboration, and effectively conduct on-the-ground management. Understanding patterns of illegibility requires that we attend both to broader contextual pressures and situated motivations. In so doing, we might account for the seeming disconnect between agencies' stated aims and practices, complicate traditional assumptions of evidence-based scientific management and analyses of bureaucratic rationality and state power, and make sense of the apparent dysfunction around environmental governance in the American West today.