Wolves on Trial in California’s Northeast

Who gets to decide the next chapter for California’s gray wolves—and on what terms?

They trailed in from all corners of Modoc County, plus a few from southern Oregon and farther across the range, to pack the county supervisors’ workshop in Alturas the last week of February. Ranchers, sheriffs, wildlife officials, and at least one charismatic lobbyist stood shoulder to shoulder in the standing-room-only hall. Three hundred in attendance. The burning question? Whether the gray wolf, newly returned to California after decades away, should remain federally and state protected—or be “delisted” so that ranchers can manage problem predators without the looming threat of legal action.

“It’s either too dry, too wet, too hot, too cold,” said Jessie Harris of the Modoc County Cattleman’s Association as he opened his remarks. “Now on top of all we have to do is this dilemma: We believe if these wolves move on to a certain producer, they could potentially put him out of business. At the very least, we think that wolves causing the damage need to be dealt with. I don’t know how to get to this point, but the Cattlemen are willing to work with all of you.”

Image credit: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Harris’s blunt call to “deal with” depredating wolves is hardly unique among ranchers here. Concerns have intensified with recent reports of a small group of Oregon wolves crossing into Modoc County, allegedly killing multiple head of cattle before returning north. Another traveling Oregon wolf, known as OR-158, made news across the border for what state officials deemed five confirmed and four probable depredations in just 20 days—only to slip back across the region’s porous boundary and spark new anxieties among California ranchers. That lone wolf has since been euthanized by Oregon state officials.

A Community on Edge

Modoc County Sheriff Tex Dowdy underscored how emotional the issue has become. “Our hope tonight is to address your concerns and come up with solutions,” he told the crowd. “But keep in mind, these presenters don’t make the policies; they can’t unilaterally decide on delisting.” His office, he said, fields calls from anxious residents who fear losing livestock—or worse, seeing wolves move closer to children and pets.

Similar apprehension echoed in the comments of Michael Costello of “Howl for Wildlife,” an advocacy group that’s firmly pro-hunting and pro-delisting of large predators. Costello insisted that lethal management—especially once gray wolves are removed from endangered-species protections—is the only path to balancing predator numbers with local livelihoods.

“We focus on effective advocacy, and by that I mean developing the right messaging to reach decision-makers,” Costello explained. “We’re pushing really hard to get the wolves delisted at the federal level, because that’s the first step. Once states can manage their own wolves, we believe regulated hunting is the best mechanism for sustainable wildlife management.”

Costello warned that the ranching community must effectively communicate its plight to lawmakers in Sacramento and to California’s two U.S. Senators, who hold critical votes on federal delisting legislation. “In places like Marin or L.A. County,” he said, “people have no idea about the real, on-the-ground consequences of living with wolves. They only hear about the ‘rainbows-and-unicorns’ version of apex predators.” At one point, he called those people yuppies. “Our job is to break through that bubble.”

If there were wolf advocates present, they never did open their mouths.

Image credit: Kalli Hawkins

Agency Management, Authority, and data

Not everyone in attendance wore spurs. Kent Laudin, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) wolf biologist, took a turn at the mic to explain his work—and found himself in the hot seat. “I’ve been a wolf biologist for 28 years—in Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and now here in California,” he said, addressing a packed room of skeptics. “I am definitely pro-ranching, 100 percent in support of family ranches. Working landscapes are critical to wildlife habitat.”

Yet Laudin also acknowledged the fundamental legal barriers: Under state law, “take” of a wolf—defined as harassing, harming, or killing—is strictly prohibited, except in the extremely rare case of defending human life. That leaves ranchers who witness a wolf attacking a calf or yearling with little recourse. Laudin sympathized, saying, “My day-to-day is letting producers know if a radio-collared wolf cluster is in their area, so they can check for a possible dead animal. But lethal control? It’s outside our authority as long as the wolf remains a protected species.”

Axel Hunnicutt, head wolf coordinator at CDFW, added that the agency is bound by an existing Gray Wolf Management Plan finalized in 2016—one that never set a strict population recovery goal. “It’s an older plan, written when California had essentially one known pack,” he said. “Now we have at least five breeding pairs, more than 50 wolves, and that number might be higher. But lethal removal isn’t even on the table unless federal and state protections are lifted.”

Hunnicutt reminded the crowd that California, which formed a working group on wolf reintroduction and management back in 2014, has steadily funded outreach and compensation for livestock owners. The state’s Wolf-Livestock Compensation Program reimburses ranchers for “confirmed” or “probable” kills, though some attendees remained wary of a system they see as insufficient and cumbersome. Much of that compensation also extends to private operations on public land allotments—something that many in the state’s more progressive circles have questioned or opposed outright.

According to data provided to WNP by Hunnicutt, the vast majority of that $3 million in funding was awarded to private landowners, however, that data can’t be disentangled from compensation provided to ranchers operating solely on private lands to that of award money provided to ranchers who own private land while also leasing allotments on adjacent public land.

What is clear is that the California Wolf Livestock Grant Program is currently open and retroactive to the summer of 2024 for confirmed kills. The $600,000 funding is not yet dry. Livestock producers can apply for reimbursement for depredation, threats to their herd of cattle, and preventative measures.

Who Subsidizes Who

Questions from the floor made it clear that tensions run deeper than the official presenters sometimes acknowledge. Many ranchers recounted anemic deer and antelope herds and expressed anger that “subsidizing” wolves on livestock effectively boosts wolf numbers beyond what local ungulate populations can sustain. “We can’t even draw a deer tag, and now we’re adding wolves on top of mountain lions and bears?” one attendee asked, voicing a sentiment that drew wide applause.

A glitch in the subsidizing sentiment is a reality that, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, revenue from big game tags, including deer, funds recovery projects for deer and elk. It also supports ongoing recovery efforts for bighorn sheep after decades of decline due in part to unregulated hunting and unchecked livestock ranching and has for several years helped finance monitoring for mountain lion activity in the area — a proactive coexistence measure.

Others shared pointed stories of slow agency response times or forensic disagreements, particularly when investigating possible wolf kills. One rancher described losing multiple calves, only to learn from the official determination that the evidence wasn’t “confirmed.” Another demanded, “If we can’t protect our livestock when a wolf is in the act of killing it, aren’t we training these predators that there’s zero consequence for going after cows?”

The CDFW posts investigation reports on its website. From April 2024 through November 2024 (when the most recent reports are published), there have been 61 investigations, and 45 are recorded as confirmed kills. There were seven incidents on Tribal land, two of which were confirmed kills. On public land, there have only been two confirmed kills recorded.

Legislation and Lawsuits Emerge as Coexistence Alternative

While speakers like Costello and local elected officials pinned their hopes on federal delisting, Erin Ryan of Congressman Doug LaMalfa’s office spelled out the numbers: “You need 60 votes in the Senate. That’s a heavy lift. We can get a House majority on it, but the Senate’s another story.” Ryan suggested ranchers keep documenting losses, writing letters, and rallying neighbors to contact California’s two senators, whose support might prove crucial to passing nationwide legislation.

“Delisting at the federal level is the first step,” Ryan said. “Otherwise, hands remain tied—even if the state eventually revisits its own endangered-species listing. One step at a time.”

California is officially in “Phase 2” of its three-phase wolf management plan, which triggers a future review of the wolf’s status upon eight breeding packs. The state’s current management plan sets no finite population target for delisting under state law, but hunting groups and livestock groups like the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) are ready — if they haven’t already begun — to campaign for the delisting of the gray wolf.

In fact, CCA has already threatened to sue, and it won’t be the first time. The livestock lobbying group filed a lawsuit along with the California Farm Bureau against the state’s Fish and Game Commission, claiming that the department illegally placed the gray wolf on the state’s endangered species list. In early 2019, a state judge upheld the gray wolf listing in California.

In Whose Hands Is The Future for Wolves?

At day’s end, the Alturas town hall concluded with little consensus. Yet it rang with the same urgency echoed at countless similar gatherings across the West: On one side, a resurgent predator once nearly eradicated. On the other, rural families whose livelihoods—and sense of security—now feel threatened. The modest meeting hall finally emptied after more than two hours of heated testimony.

Just days after the congregation in Alturas, Sheriff Dowdy submitted a letter to CDFW, again expressing his concerns for livestock and human safety in the rural area. A handful of ranchers vow they’ll push for data-driven estimates of just how many wolves Northern California can sustainably host, given what they say is already a depleted deer and elk population. Others plan to back renewed lawsuits if federal or state agencies fail to define a path for removing—or at least reducing—protections.

Further still, some voices caution that if rules never allow lethal management, “shoot, shovel, shut up” responses may rebound alongside the gray wolves themselves.