The return of wolves (Canis lupus) and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) to the landscapes of the American West over recent decades has brought new challenges of shared space between recovering predator populations, residents, and resource users – particularly livestock producers (Fascione et al., 2004; Clark et al., 2005). Recent research on regional conflict reduction between wolves and livestock (Martin, 2021b; Martin et al., 2021; 2025; Anderson et al., 2023; 2024), along with a growing gray literature on producer best practices (Barnes, 2015; Stone et al., 2016; Collins et al., 2024; Nickerson et al., 2024), have pointed toward the effectiveness of human presence for reducing livestock depredation (Wilkinson et al., 2020; Gonzalez et al., 2024). On contemporary western rangelands, where cattle are the predominant livestock type, human presence often takes the form of “range riding.”

Riding the range has a long history in the American West; indeed, the cowboy is perhaps the quintessential figure of the American range in popular consciousness. Since the late 2000s, range riding aiming to mitigate predator-livestock conflict (among other goals) – by professional riders, often funded by community-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs), landowner-led conservation groups, or state and federal wildlife agencies – has begun to emerge. Although range riding is increasingly prevalent throughout the region, however, there is limited scholarly work on the practice (cf. Parks and Messmer, 2016; Bogezi et al., 2021; Louchouarn and Treves, 2023; Anderson et al., 2024). Additionally, residents and stakeholders hold varying perspectives on what range riding is (its definition) and whether it works (perceived effectiveness). Debates over range riding are further complicated by the fact that it can involve different combinations of practices and organizational structures, depending on the social, economic, and ecological context of its use.

To better define the contours of this increasingly important topic, this study explores range riding’s definition and perceived effectiveness by engaging with on-the-ground examples and situating them within the broader context of political-economic, demographic, and land use changes associated with the so-called “New West” (Riebsame and Robb, 1997; Robbins et al., 2009; Charnley et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2019). In doing so, we propose that the questions surrounding range riding are fundamentally bound up with not just predators and livestock, but also the future of land use and resource management in the region. Toward these ends, we ask:

The history of the American West is one of shifting relations of labor and land access. The western range as a site of livestock grazing emerged out of colonial dispossession, displacement, and the genocide of Indigenous peoples aimed at the extension of state territory and private property (Wolfe, 2006; Farrell et al., 2021). The introduction of livestock – and the practice of riding the range – was deeply intertwined with broader colonial projects, serving as a means for European settlers to assert control over land and resources previously managed by Indigenous communities. The montane, semi-arid character of landscapes west of the 100th meridian presented a challenge for crop agriculture prior to irrigation (Fiege, 1999). However, such landscapes provided an important resource base for seasonal and spatially extensive livestock grazing (Stegner, 1992 [1962]; Knight et al., 2002), which in turn was used to lay claim to large territories – first through transitory sheep production (Wentworth, 1948; McGregor, 1989) and subsequently cattle (Sayre, 1999).

Ranching as an economic activity is based on grazing livestock for sale in a market economy, and relies on extensive labor across large and generally privatized landscapes (Ingold, 1988 [1980], 4, 236). In the second half of the 19th century, the western range was public domain, with the federal government allowing private ranchers to graze livestock unfenced and without formal regulatory oversight. In these open access conditions, shepherds and cowboys played an important role in protecting livestock and directing them toward prime forage. Although informal local norms and community efforts at resource management developed over time, the massive influx of cattle numbers, combined with market pressures, federal policies, national politics, and inhospitable climatic events, resulted in sometimes violent competition for forage, significant overgrazing, and resource depletion in the region (Rowley, 1985; Sayre, 1999; Huntsinger, 2016).

These pressures led to the (en)closure of the range: first through barbed wire fencing in the 1870s (Ingold, 1988, 245; Netz, 2004; Sayre, 2017), and later via governmental regulation. The open range era came to an end with the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, establishing what would become the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), respectively. Access to public lands for grazing was henceforth governed through the long-term lease of allotments, serving as a pseudo-property relationship alongside private deeded lands (home ranches) (Rowley, 1985; Sheridan, 2007; Martin, 2024). With expanded regional and national market integration via rail, ranch owners were motivated to maximize financial returns on their livestock investments, and the cowboy was increasingly transformed into a wage laborer (rather than a “quasi-kinsman”) (Ingold, 1988, 249; Sayre, 2015; 2017, 45-59; see Wentworth, 1948 and McGregor, 1989 on similar dynamics in sheep production).

Although predator extirpation was well-underway by the turn of the century, economic pressures toward reducing labor costs and optimizing pasture use required “continuous wholesale extermination of predators” (Sayre, 2017, 16, 56; on the earlier history of predator removal, see Coleman, 2008; Wise, 2016; Rutherford, 2022). Pastoralists globally have generally sought to eliminate the destructive impact of predation on livestock – largely through defensive measures. Western ranchers, for their part, sought to eliminate predators as such through the sorts of offensive campaigns that nearly extirpated gray wolves and grizzly bears in the contiguous U.S. by the early 20th century (Ingold, 1988, 238; Emel, 1995; Hawthorne, 2004).¹ With predator eradication cowboys would play a less prominent role, with producers shifting toward a less labor-intensive and/or deskilled production model, as the landscape was made safe for livestock (Sayre, 2017, 16, 54-56).

In the latter half of the 20th century, however, human-predator relations in the West changed dramatically amid shifting public and scientific attitudes toward predators. Wolves and grizzlies gained protection under the Endangered Species Act in the mid-1970s. Wolf reintroduction in the 1990s (Fischer, 1995; Bangs and Fritts, 1996; Smith et al., 2003) was hailed as an ecological success, as populations rapidly expanded across the region, with emerging narratives of positive landscape-scale effects – although the extent to which wolves were the primary drivers of those changes has been debated (Soulé and Noss, 1998; Ripple and Beschta, 2004; 2005; 2012; cf. Mech, 2012; Middleton, 2014; Marris, 2017). However, predator return has also sparked socio-political controversy, becoming an emblematic instance of human-wildlife conflict bound up with livestock depredation (Woodroffe et al., 2005; Nyhus, 2016; Frank et al., 2019).

Alongside predator restoration, the American West has witnessed significant political, economic, and demographic shifts since the last quarter of the 20th century, resulting in what is often described as the “New West.” These shifts include a reduced centrality of formerly dominant extractive industries (e.g., ranching, timber, mining) alongside the growth of recreation, service, and high technology sectors (Baden and Snow, 1997; Riebsame and Robb, 1997; Winkler et al., 2007), as well as greater environmental protections, rural and exurban population growth, and amenity migration, often described in terms of “rural gentrification” (Walker and Fortmann, 2003; Ghose, 2004; Bryson and Wyckoff, 2010; Hines, 2010; 2012; Gosnell and Abrams, 2011; Fletcher et al., 2023). These changes have led to controversy and concerns over land use change and its ecological impacts (Sheridan, 2001; Hansen et al., 2002); the loss of quality jobs and rising cost of housing in amenity-rich areas; and the socio-political consequences of unevenly experienced development, with sometimes dramatic contrasts between immense wealth and rural poverty. Notably, human-wildlife conflicts have often been conceptualized as being bound up with this (contested) transition from Old to New West (Nie, 2003; Clark et al., 2005; cf. Manfredo et al., 2003; 2017; 2020).

Although the direct impact of livestock depredation is generally negligible at the level of the region or the industry as a whole, predators can significantly affect individual producers in particular times and places (Bangs et al., 2005; Steele et al., 2013; Anderson et al., 2024), and such impacts are layered atop these broader New West political economic pressures. The combination of legal protections, human-wildlife conflict pressures, and public scrutiny associated with conservation have prompted the emergence of novel “coexistence”² efforts across the West and around the world, including adoption of nonlethal deterrents and new husbandry practices as an alternative to lethal removal for reducing depredation and mitigating conflict (Bangs et al., 2006; Sime et al., 2007; Martin, 2021b).

Insights from international research provide important context for these questions, highlighting both the challenges and possibilities of predator-livestock coexistence efforts. European studies, in particular, show that recovering predator populations often introduce new and overlapping conflicts, while outreach and mitigation programs can help reduce tensions but rarely resolve them fully (Davoli et al., 2022; Grossmann and Patkó, 2024). The effectiveness of coexistence initiatives also depends heavily on governance structures, institutional support, and the attitudes and trust of local stakeholders (Hartel et al., 2019; Kiffner et al., 2025; Ostermann-Miyashita et al., 2025). In some regions, cultural tolerance and traditional practices have created more enduring foundations for coexistence (Dorresteijn et al., 2014). Globally, compensation remains one of the most widely used tools, though it is debated because it tends to address short-term losses without building lasting tolerance (Zabel and Holm-Müller, 2008; Ravenelle and Nyhus, 2017). Together, this body of work underscores that predator-livestock coexistence strategies are most effective when they integrate ecological, social, and institutional dimensions – a key consideration for evaluating emerging tools like range riding.

In our own research in the American West, human presence – often in the form of range riding, but also via sheep herders – has been noted as a key component of reducing depredation, alongside a range of other deterrents (Wilkinson et al., 2020; Anderson, 2021; 2024; Martin et al., 2025). Although broad scientific validation is lacking, several studies have documented notable benefits of range riding (Bangs et al., 2006; Bogezi et al., 2021; Louchouarn and Treves, 2023; Parks and Messmer, 2016; Stone et al., 2016; 2017; Wilson et al., 2017). One distinct advantage of the approach is its applicability on large public grazing allotments, a feature that sets it apart from many other nonlethal conflict mitigation tools (Anderson et al., 2024; Martin et al., 2025).

Range riders may be employed by a single ranch or shared across multiple operations within a region, which can extend their coverage. By increasing oversight of livestock over extensive grazing areas, range riders can monitor animal health and remove predator attractants proactively (Louchouarn and Treves, 2023; Parks and Messmer, 2016). In addition to its potential to reduce conflict and support coexistence, one study found that range riding may also help build community trust and cohesion in predator-occupied rural areas by fostering communication and raising awareness of predator activity (Bogezi et al., 2021). Despite these reported benefits, empirical evidence of range riding’s effectiveness remains limited, and little research has explored the experiences or perceptions of participating range riders and ranchers.

Furthermore, range riding programs face significant challenges that have not been thoroughly examined. Parks and Messmer (2016) identified the lack of stable, long-term funding as a major threat to program sustainability. In addition, the significant labor demands required to maintain these programs remain underexplored, though are a potential challenge for an industry that has operated with reduced labor budgets since the mid-20th century (on the shifting dynamics of labor and ranching economics, see Robbins, 1994; Starrs, 2000; Knight et al., 2002; Sayre, 2017; Perritt, 2019).³ Although counterexamples exist – including holistic management and similar approaches (Gosnell et al., 2020) – rangeland cattle production in the West has largely shifted to a reduced labor model. This shift is related in part to the reduction of family labor availability associated with regional transformations and socio-economic pressures (on ranchland ownership changes, see Gosnell and Abrams, 2011; Gosnell et al., 2006; on the broader dynamics of labor and agrarian capitalism, see Mann and Dickinson, 1978; Mann, 1990). At the same time, western livestock producers now face increased demands for “boots on the ground” due to resurging predator populations – a tension that has been inadequately explored in the literature.

Although there is a long-standing tradition of riding the range, the context in which range riding takes place today is novel, converging as it does with industry shifts, regional transformations, and predator population recovery – raising important questions over whether and how old tools can work in the New West.

Range riding has emerged as an increasingly prominent and promising approach for reducing predator-livestock conflict and promoting coexistence across the American West, yet there remain open questions over definition (what is included within the practice) as well as viability (its effectiveness and sustainability). Exploring the experiences of three Montana range riding programs, this research begins to speak to these questions and to address the dearth of scholarly work around range riding (cf. Parks and Messmer, 2016; Bogezi et al., 2021; Louchouarn and Treves, 2023; Anderson et al., 2024). We hope that our findings will promote further investigation of range riding and the emerging tensions between this practice and the regional context – the New West – in which it takes place today, including dynamics of socio-political polarization and the political-economy of livestock production.

Interviewees appeared to converge around a definition of range riding as human presence on the landscape that serves to nonlethally reduce predator-livestock interactions, including depredation. This definition is consistent with the limited extant literature on the topic, which describes the goal of range riding as increasing human presence and supervision of livestock while grazing (Bangs et al., 2006; Barnes, 2015; Parks and Messmer, 2016; Stone et al., 2016, 2017; Wilson et al., 2017; Bogezi et al., 2021; Louchouarn and Treves, 2023). However, the frequency, duration, and type of interactions that range riders have with livestock and/or with predators varies, both in the literature and across our cases.

Range riding’s goals and impacts combine elements of livestock husbandry and predator deterrence (Anderson et al., 2024), and extend beyond reducing predator-livestock conflict to include the promotion of livestock health, grazing management, and/or facilitating compensation for losses. As shown above, range riders and program managers expressed divergent views around the central aims of range riding, often leaning toward a holistic vision but one shaped by local context and the priorities of producers. Interviewees appeared aware of these differing understandings – note the multiple caveats: “for me” (3); “our definition” (7) – yet most also recognized the broader “win-win” benefits of range riding generally (compare Rosenzweig, 2003; Wilkinson, 2012; Barnes, 2015). This complexity reflects, perhaps, the diverse values at play in range and wildlife management in the region (Manfredo et al., 2017; 2020; van Eeden et al., 2017; van Eeden, et al. 2025).

Such benefits depend on a highly skilled workforce – riders trained to assess forage and range health, manage livestock, track and deter predators with modern tools, treat sick or injured animals in the field, and build public trust. However, this broad skill set appears to be in tension with the limited resources available to attract and retain qualified riders. Relatedly, while one noted co-benefit of range riding includes building relationships across the diverse actors involved in predator coexistence, high turnover in these positions could also undermine the trust-building necessary for working with producers (Charnley et al., 2014; Stern and Coleman, 2015; Lauer et al., 2018; Lien et al., 2021).

Another central tension associated with range riding surrounds what we observe as the paradox of prevention. As several of our interviewees noted, successful deterrence can make it difficult to “prov[e] what you’ve prevented” (7) – and to thereby justify ongoing financial and institutional support of range riding efforts. This dynamic is doubly challenging when the locations and numbers of predators on the landscape are unavailable (Martin, 2021a; Merz et al., 2025; Martin et al., 2025). Indeed, this phenomenon has been highlighted around the assessment of nonlethal tools and techniques in other instances of predator-livestock coexistence (Stone et al., 2017; Martin, 2021b), and no doubt in part accounts for the frequent reference to co-benefits beyond conflict reduction: if there is added value provided by riders, their continued use can be justified even when predators are not actively present.

This points toward perhaps the most daunting challenge for range riding (and conservation broadly; Malcom et al., 2019; Martin, 2021a; 2024) – that of long-term economic support. As one interviewee summarized, “a great deal of [the future of this program] lies in money” (9, emphasis added). Interviewees discussed “donor fatigue” and skepticism that programs “haven’t … figured out how to pay for this yet” (4), as noted above. Although some argued that range riding programs should be aimed at “get[ting] people started” (1), with producers eventually taking on funding of range riders themselves, others explained that this would represent time and cost burdens on operations already working at thin margins (Reid et al., 2014; Woodall and Shannon, 2018; Smith et al., 2024) – a challenge further complicated by the differences between the up-front costs of equipment and the ongoing expense of added labor. Crucially, range riding differs from other common nonlethal tools and techniques – such as deterrents – in requiring ongoing labor over time; it is far from a “set it and forget it” approach requiring only an up-front investment (Martin, 2021b; Martin et al., 2021; Anderson et al., 2023).

Some interviewees argued that federal and state governments, rather than producers, ought to play a larger role in funding range riding programs given the history of government-sponsored predator reintroduction projects. This discourse mirrors themes of unevenly experienced costs and benefits of conservation – or environmental justice – raised in the literature (McInturff et al., 2021; Martin, 2024):

In many ways, range riding is not new – the day-to-day practice of contemporary range riders entails many of the same skills, techniques, and activities as those of the traditional “cowboy”. Yet it takes place in a novel context, a New West of resurgent predator populations, novel land use pressures, limited labor budgets and other economic challenges facing ranchers, as well as shifting social values toward wildlife. Understanding range riding through what Fletcher et al. (2023) refer to as the “production-protection nexus” – namely, the interrelation between wildlife conservation and political-economic forces – is essential for addressing the challenges of sustaining and expanding range riding as a potential solution to producer-livestock conflict in the region. Range riding for production – protecting cattle and rancher interests – has different motivations than range riding for protection – preserving grizzlies and wolves on the landscape, and the landscape itself as open space. The removal of predators in the late 19th and early 20th century shifted the landscape toward livestock production, and allowed for the establishment of grazing systems, and related economic and societal structures, that were less reliant on cowboy labor (Ingold, 1988; Sayre, 2017). The swing toward protection (of both predators, and relatively “wild” working landscapes) in the late 20th and early 21st century – in the context of shifting social values bound up with the New West – sparked a renewed need for range riders doing broadly similar work.

Many of these riders, as well as the environmental organizations that help fund their work, see their labor as a tool of predator-livestock coexistence – that is, integrating wildlife and nature protection with a thriving livestock production system, rather than seeing them as incompatible goals – even as producers they work with may be hesitant to be associated with these novel approaches. The ongoing shifts in economic systems and social values in the New West necessitate negotiation of these differing objectives, as well as associated shifts in funding, policy, labor models, producer practices, et cetera, in order to balance protection (conservation) with production (rural livelihoods). Range riding presents one potential tool for coexistence, for finding such a balance.

The question of coexistence is mediated through a highly variegated policy landscape, in which wildlife management measures across states can differ meaningfully (Merz et al., 2025; Martin et al., 2025). Some states, like Washington, mandate nonlethal conflict management measures and provide more state-funded support (Anderson, 2022). In others, like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, lethal measures (e.g., targeted removal by Wildlife Services, public harvest for wolves) are both allowed and easier to access (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 2014; Bradley et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2025) – potentially moving producers away from a co-adaptation mindset (Carter and Linnell, 2016; Martin, 2021b; Anderson, 2022).

Another aspect, as noted above, is that cattle producers in the region largely moved away from a labor-intensive production model over the 20th century. The added labor costs of range riding today thus run counter to broader industry trends, especially given reduced availability of family labor when younger generations leave the family ranch. It is indeed notable that some of the earliest efforts promoting nonlethal tools in the region took place with sheep producers (who already had herders present on the landscape with their animals) or with larger-scale operations (that were able to cover added costs more easily through economies of scale) (Martin, 2020; Epstein et al., 2022). Thus far, environmental nonprofits and government agencies have played a central role in subsidizing the use of these tools across the region (Martin, 2021b, 2024). Interviewees pointed out the value of reliable, ongoing, “year-after-year partners, more than just funders” in supporting their work (2). Notably, this labor is also always affective, involving sometimes emotionally taxing engagement with diverse and at times antagonistic partners in order to sustain these efforts (Epstein and Haggerty, 2022). However, long-term support – and the potential of community-supported, bottom-up alternatives – remains uncertain (Belsky and Barton, 2018; Haller et al., 2018; Martin, 2024).

Finally, range riding efforts can be further hindered by polarization and animosity surrounding predator conservation. As noted above, some producers “don’t want … people to know that they’re associated” with range riding (3), highlighting producer concerns and the influence of social norms and attitudes towards outsiders or the government within the community (Hechter and Opp, 2001; Heberlein, 2012). Others did not want to work with particular environmental organizations given their association with anti-grazing litigation – a dynamic discussed elsewhere in the region (Charnley et al., 2014; Martin, 2021a; Swette et al., 2023; Martin, 2024). One interviewee was thus keen to note that their funding is “not just [from] environmental nonprofits, it’s Livestock Loss Boards, it’s federal and state money … I think it’s really important for producers to know that as well because some of the traditional producers don’t want funds from those companies and organizations” (2).

Range riding – and its vision of “cowboying for coexistence” – goes beyond merely reducing interactions between predators and livestock. At its best, range riding is also about sustaining rural livelihoods and shaping the future of land use in the American West. As our interviewees noted, range riding is about keeping cows from being replaced by condos (7; Sheridan, 2001), ensuring that open space remains intact – for predators, livestock, and humans alike – by keeping people on the landscape and actively engaged in stewardship activities. Much like land managers (Martin et al., 2021; 2025), range riders also play a central role in building trust – between environmentalists, agencies, and resource users – helping to “stitch the west back together” (Charnley et al., 2014; Parks and Messmer, 2016). Yet fulfilling this mediating role requires sustained financial support for those doing this work, and a broader reckoning with the political-economy of ranching, land use, and labor in the New West.

A focus on range riding highlights the complex “human dimensions” of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence, and as such has received less attention in the literature (cf. Ban et al., 2013; König et al., 2020). Our research has sought to begin filling this gap while identifying future research directions. These include: the individual motivations and values of range riders themselves; questions of equity and access to range rider programs; differences in effectiveness and unique challenges associated with implementation on public versus private lands (Jacobs et al., 2025; Martin et al., 2025); and finally, crucial questions of economic drivers, institutional support, and the relations between range riders and livestock operations.

Range riding has emerged as one of a suite of tools and techniques in use across the West, helping producers navigate and mitigate the challenges of sharing space with predators. The revival of “riding the range” connects the New West with an older west, and with a more intimate and embodied connection between producers and the land. However, the long-term viability of range riding programs and the benefits they provide appears to depend on resolving key issues of labor and funding. These issues, in turn, are bound up with questions of who holds responsibility for the economic costs of predator reintroduction, recovery, and conservation, with implications for human-wildlife coexistence more broadly.