BEY01F, a female born in the 2023 litter of the Beyem Seyo pack after being released close to where she was captured with a new collar, January 2025.
Photo:Axel Hunnicutt/CDFW
By Ching Lee
With California wolf populations expanding and attacks on livestock on the rise, the state announced this month a new phase of managing the protected species, saying it will consider allowing more aggressive forms of nonlethal hazing to deter the predators.
But frustrated ranchers say provisions under Phase 2 of the state plan do little to address problem wolves and that they remain powerless to protect their livestock and livelihoods, even as the canines become more emboldened and increasingly venture near homes, putting people’s lives at risk.
Concerns about upticks in livestock depredations and potential wolf-human interactions prompted Modoc County in March and Sierra County earlier this month to declare local emergencies. Other Northern California counties with increased wolf activity also have considered similar measures, with Lassen County calling for state intervention.
Modoc County Supervisor Ned Coe, who works as a California Farm Bureau field representative, said the emergency declarations came as county officials and residents realized “we had more of a potential problem with public safety than with loss of livestock.” He cited reports of wolf tracks where children play, resident wolf sightings and calves killed by wolves near people’s homes.
“Part of the problem with them being in such close proximity to ranch homes is the wolf in the western states, where they’re protected, has developed zero fear of humans,” said Coe, himself a rancher.
Phase 2 of the wolf plan requires confirmation of at least four breeding pairs of wolves for two consecutive years. There are now seven known wolf packs and an estimated 70 wolves roaming the state.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife said it plans to “evaluate legal pathways” under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts “to potentially issue permits” allowing use of more aggressive nonlethal means of harassment, including shooting at wolves with rubber bullets or bean bags and chasing them away on motorized vehicles such as ATVs.
Paul Roen, Sierra County supervisor and rancher, described Phase 2 as “just a feel-good move” by the department, as Phase 2 still does not allow lethal options to remove problem wolves. He said it’s also unclear “what kind of hoops” ranchers will have to jump through to get a permit.
CDFW spokeswoman Katie Talbot said the department does not yet have a timeline for when it will begin issuing permits, “but we are looking at this now and evaluating next steps.”
The department said it plans to release an online tool to provide more timely information about the location of GPS-collared wolves. Talbot said the tool is still in development but that it will allow ranchers to more quickly and easily monitor the movement of collared wolves.
For now, the gray wolf’s status has not changed: It remains endangered under state and federal law and is fully protected, though CDFW said it will conduct a status review to determine if the wolf should remain on the endangered species list.
Because of the wolf’s protected status, ranchers generally agree that their hands are tied, as they are prohibited from doing anything that could kill, harm or harass the animal without facing criminal or civil penalties. Though the law allows for the killing of a protected species in self-defense, there must be imminent threat to human life, and ranchers say there needs to be more legal clarity on what that means.
With spring calving and cattle starting to return to valley pastures, there’s concern that wolves will follow their food source to where people live.
“They’re right within the communities. They’re right outside town. They’ve been right in the yards of a couple of ranchers’ houses,” Roen said. “They’re not going anywhere because they’re now getting plenty of prime rib.”
His county’s emergency declaration urged the state to initiate regulatory changes to give California sheriffs the authority to remove specific wolves that pose a public safety threat—just as is allowed for black bears and mountain lions.
Photo:Axel Hunnicutt/CDFW
By Ching Lee
With California wolf populations expanding and attacks on livestock on the rise, the state announced this month a new phase of managing the protected species, saying it will consider allowing more aggressive forms of nonlethal hazing to deter the predators.
But frustrated ranchers say provisions under Phase 2 of the state plan do little to address problem wolves and that they remain powerless to protect their livestock and livelihoods, even as the canines become more emboldened and increasingly venture near homes, putting people’s lives at risk.
Concerns about upticks in livestock depredations and potential wolf-human interactions prompted Modoc County in March and Sierra County earlier this month to declare local emergencies. Other Northern California counties with increased wolf activity also have considered similar measures, with Lassen County calling for state intervention.
Modoc County Supervisor Ned Coe, who works as a California Farm Bureau field representative, said the emergency declarations came as county officials and residents realized “we had more of a potential problem with public safety than with loss of livestock.” He cited reports of wolf tracks where children play, resident wolf sightings and calves killed by wolves near people’s homes.
“Part of the problem with them being in such close proximity to ranch homes is the wolf in the western states, where they’re protected, has developed zero fear of humans,” said Coe, himself a rancher.
Phase 2 of the wolf plan requires confirmation of at least four breeding pairs of wolves for two consecutive years. There are now seven known wolf packs and an estimated 70 wolves roaming the state.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife said it plans to “evaluate legal pathways” under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts “to potentially issue permits” allowing use of more aggressive nonlethal means of harassment, including shooting at wolves with rubber bullets or bean bags and chasing them away on motorized vehicles such as ATVs.
Paul Roen, Sierra County supervisor and rancher, described Phase 2 as “just a feel-good move” by the department, as Phase 2 still does not allow lethal options to remove problem wolves. He said it’s also unclear “what kind of hoops” ranchers will have to jump through to get a permit.
CDFW spokeswoman Katie Talbot said the department does not yet have a timeline for when it will begin issuing permits, “but we are looking at this now and evaluating next steps.”
The department said it plans to release an online tool to provide more timely information about the location of GPS-collared wolves. Talbot said the tool is still in development but that it will allow ranchers to more quickly and easily monitor the movement of collared wolves.
For now, the gray wolf’s status has not changed: It remains endangered under state and federal law and is fully protected, though CDFW said it will conduct a status review to determine if the wolf should remain on the endangered species list.
Because of the wolf’s protected status, ranchers generally agree that their hands are tied, as they are prohibited from doing anything that could kill, harm or harass the animal without facing criminal or civil penalties. Though the law allows for the killing of a protected species in self-defense, there must be imminent threat to human life, and ranchers say there needs to be more legal clarity on what that means.
With spring calving and cattle starting to return to valley pastures, there’s concern that wolves will follow their food source to where people live.
“They’re right within the communities. They’re right outside town. They’ve been right in the yards of a couple of ranchers’ houses,” Roen said. “They’re not going anywhere because they’re now getting plenty of prime rib.”
His county’s emergency declaration urged the state to initiate regulatory changes to give California sheriffs the authority to remove specific wolves that pose a public safety threat—just as is allowed for black bears and mountain lions.
A newly collared wolf from the Beyem Seyo pack is released close to where she was captured by the helicopter team in January.
Photo/Malia Brytus/California Wolf ProjectMeanwhile, ranchers face mounting losses as wolf numbers grow. The state’s $3 million compensation program to reimburse ranchers for livestock kills, indirect production losses and nonlethal deterrence ran out of money less than a year after it was fully implemented. Though the state added another $600,000 last October, the program now covers only direct kills.
CDFW’s Talbot said the department has prioritized the $600,000 for depredation only “to ensure the funds can extend as long as possible.”
That’s a problem, Siskiyou County rancher Dan Chase said, as he has had no confirmed kills, but the management changes he’s made to coexist with wolves come at a significant cost. For example, he weans calves early to avoid taking them to grazing allotments in wolf territory. That means having to find other feed. In his feed yard, he installed electric fencing with brightly colored flags, known as fladry, but they get blown over and require constant upkeep. What’s more, wolves get used to them and are not deterred, he said.
But his biggest “nemesis,” he said, is the wolves’ impact on cattle reproduction, with cows unable to breed or aborting due to stress.
“When you look at the revenue that’s gone because of this stress factor that our cows are under, even though we do all these things as far as management, it’s catastrophic,” he said.
A recent study by the University of California, Davis, confirmed what ranchers have said all along—that their most significant cost is not from direct livestock kills but from stress-related impacts due to wolf presence, with cattle losing weight and failing to conceive.
“This conflict is real and escalating. People are not crying wolf,” said Ken Tate, UC Cooperative Extension specialist who co-authored the study with Tina Saitone, a specialist in livestock and rangeland economics.
The study estimated indirect costs in 2023 at $69,627 to $162,658 per wolf, or more than $1.4 million to $3.4 million. That year, there were 21 wolves reported across three packs. Tate said it was no surprise that the initial $3 million for rancher compensation was spent so quickly. Most of that money went to nonlethal measures that ranchers implemented to deter wolves, CDFW reported.
To adequately compensate producers, Tate said the department and the Legislature “need to think about orders of magnitude greater,” with program costs running $30 million to $90 million.
The research also shows that “ranchers are funding the conservation and survival” of the state’s wolves, Tate said. Due to the state’s small elk population, most of the wolf scat collected in the study found the predators’ diet consists largely of cattle. It’s no wonder that every wolf pack is in areas with livestock grazing, he said, because the carnivores are dependent on cattle.
Since his first encounter with wolves in February 2024, Modoc County rancher Ray Anklin said he has spent more than $100,000 on deterrence, including using electric fencing, fladry, a noisemaker and a drone for monitoring and hazing. He estimated spending more than 1,800 hours repairing fences after his cattle ran over them as they were being chased by wolves. He applied for compensation, but the state had stopped paying for deterrence. Though he also lost 10 head of cattle last year, only one was considered a confirmed wolf kill, as there was not enough carcass in the others for an investigation.
With wolves entering new territory, Anklin said he expects there will be more wolf-human confrontations. He noted his 12-year-old daughter and a member of his crew have had recent wolf encounters.
Photo/Malia Brytus/California Wolf ProjectMeanwhile, ranchers face mounting losses as wolf numbers grow. The state’s $3 million compensation program to reimburse ranchers for livestock kills, indirect production losses and nonlethal deterrence ran out of money less than a year after it was fully implemented. Though the state added another $600,000 last October, the program now covers only direct kills.
CDFW’s Talbot said the department has prioritized the $600,000 for depredation only “to ensure the funds can extend as long as possible.”
That’s a problem, Siskiyou County rancher Dan Chase said, as he has had no confirmed kills, but the management changes he’s made to coexist with wolves come at a significant cost. For example, he weans calves early to avoid taking them to grazing allotments in wolf territory. That means having to find other feed. In his feed yard, he installed electric fencing with brightly colored flags, known as fladry, but they get blown over and require constant upkeep. What’s more, wolves get used to them and are not deterred, he said.
But his biggest “nemesis,” he said, is the wolves’ impact on cattle reproduction, with cows unable to breed or aborting due to stress.
“When you look at the revenue that’s gone because of this stress factor that our cows are under, even though we do all these things as far as management, it’s catastrophic,” he said.
A recent study by the University of California, Davis, confirmed what ranchers have said all along—that their most significant cost is not from direct livestock kills but from stress-related impacts due to wolf presence, with cattle losing weight and failing to conceive.
“This conflict is real and escalating. People are not crying wolf,” said Ken Tate, UC Cooperative Extension specialist who co-authored the study with Tina Saitone, a specialist in livestock and rangeland economics.
The study estimated indirect costs in 2023 at $69,627 to $162,658 per wolf, or more than $1.4 million to $3.4 million. That year, there were 21 wolves reported across three packs. Tate said it was no surprise that the initial $3 million for rancher compensation was spent so quickly. Most of that money went to nonlethal measures that ranchers implemented to deter wolves, CDFW reported.
To adequately compensate producers, Tate said the department and the Legislature “need to think about orders of magnitude greater,” with program costs running $30 million to $90 million.
The research also shows that “ranchers are funding the conservation and survival” of the state’s wolves, Tate said. Due to the state’s small elk population, most of the wolf scat collected in the study found the predators’ diet consists largely of cattle. It’s no wonder that every wolf pack is in areas with livestock grazing, he said, because the carnivores are dependent on cattle.
Since his first encounter with wolves in February 2024, Modoc County rancher Ray Anklin said he has spent more than $100,000 on deterrence, including using electric fencing, fladry, a noisemaker and a drone for monitoring and hazing. He estimated spending more than 1,800 hours repairing fences after his cattle ran over them as they were being chased by wolves. He applied for compensation, but the state had stopped paying for deterrence. Though he also lost 10 head of cattle last year, only one was considered a confirmed wolf kill, as there was not enough carcass in the others for an investigation.
With wolves entering new territory, Anklin said he expects there will be more wolf-human confrontations. He noted his 12-year-old daughter and a member of his crew have had recent wolf encounters.
A wolf from the Lassen pack approaches a bull in June 2023.
Photo/Ken Tate and Tina SaitoneSo long as wolves are an endangered species, Amaroq Weiss, senior wolf advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, said she thinks “they deserve protections until we can get them to more sustainable levels.” She expressed disappointment that the state allocated only $600,000 last year for rancher compensation and said her organization would like to work with farm groups to lobby for more funding.
“We acknowledge there are many ranches that are taking actions and are doing their best,” she said. “We completely support the Legislature allocating more funding so that those folks can be supported, and hopefully more folks will come on board.”
She said she’s also in favor of making available to ranchers workshops by groups such as Working Circle, a nonprofit that works with ranchers in California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington to reduce wolf-livestock conflicts.
Lassen County rancher Wyatt Hanson said he has been “very open to ideas” on how to lessen wolf impacts. He has had wolf kills on his home ranch where his family lives and on leased land in Sierra County. He uses scare boxes and fladry as deterrence.
Hanson said he would like the state to create a bigger budget to pay for ranchers’ indirect losses and for the money to be better managed so that it could be distributed more equitably.
He also acknowledged some division early on within the ranching community about taking payment for wolf impacts, as “that’s just admitting that it’s OK.” Some ranchers contend that accepting compensation allows conservation groups to downplay their concerns.
Roen, the Sierra County supervisor and rancher, said if the state does not address “the true financial impact” of wolves on livestock producers by fully funding the compensation program, the issue may end up in court.
“We’re kind of at a crossroads,” he said. “We’ve got to see which way they want to go.”
Ching Lee is editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at [email protected].
Photo/Ken Tate and Tina SaitoneSo long as wolves are an endangered species, Amaroq Weiss, senior wolf advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, said she thinks “they deserve protections until we can get them to more sustainable levels.” She expressed disappointment that the state allocated only $600,000 last year for rancher compensation and said her organization would like to work with farm groups to lobby for more funding.
“We acknowledge there are many ranches that are taking actions and are doing their best,” she said. “We completely support the Legislature allocating more funding so that those folks can be supported, and hopefully more folks will come on board.”
She said she’s also in favor of making available to ranchers workshops by groups such as Working Circle, a nonprofit that works with ranchers in California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington to reduce wolf-livestock conflicts.
Lassen County rancher Wyatt Hanson said he has been “very open to ideas” on how to lessen wolf impacts. He has had wolf kills on his home ranch where his family lives and on leased land in Sierra County. He uses scare boxes and fladry as deterrence.
Hanson said he would like the state to create a bigger budget to pay for ranchers’ indirect losses and for the money to be better managed so that it could be distributed more equitably.
He also acknowledged some division early on within the ranching community about taking payment for wolf impacts, as “that’s just admitting that it’s OK.” Some ranchers contend that accepting compensation allows conservation groups to downplay their concerns.
Roen, the Sierra County supervisor and rancher, said if the state does not address “the true financial impact” of wolves on livestock producers by fully funding the compensation program, the issue may end up in court.
“We’re kind of at a crossroads,” he said. “We’ve got to see which way they want to go.”
Ching Lee is editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at [email protected].
