As gray wolves reemerge in Shasta, humans look for ways to address threats to livestock
Long eradicated from Northern California, gray wolves are reappearing — but their new habitat also means new threats for ranchers whose livestock provide easy prey. Efforts are being made at the county, state and federal levels to find solutions that allow for coexistence between people, their livestock and wolves.
There’s a subject that’s been brought up consistently throughout Shasta County Supervisor Corkey Harmon’s tenure that he said isn’t going away any time soon: wolves.
As gray wolves have reemerged in Northern California over the last several years, livestock kills are becoming more frequent. It’s a cause of concern for several of Harmon’s constituents, he said, who are ranchers that rely on their livestock.
“These families, this is how they make a living. At some point, somebody’s going to say, ‘Hey, we got to protect ourselves.’ I don’t want to see that happen,” he said, referring to the idea that ranchers may try to take matters into their own hands and kill wolves to protect their livestock, something that’s currently illegal.
Gray wolves are protected under the Endangered Species Act, meaning people are restricted from intentionally killing, harassing or harming them or destroying their habitat. They became endangered after westward expansion in the 1800s led to efforts to eradicate them — as agriculture expanded, wolves’ natural prey was wiped out, causing them to target livestock. The first wolf reemerged in California in 2011. Today, most of the gray wolves in the state live in northeastern California, with one confirmed pack fully residing in Shasta County.
“Wolves play essential roles in balancing their environments, influencing forest compositions and the behavior of other species,” the Endangered Species Coalition said in its argument for why gray wolves should remain protected.
But the government-mandated protections for gray wolves are a source of frustration for at least some ranchers in the North State, whose livestock are threatened by the predators. In 2025, there were 196 confirmed wolf attacks on livestock across all of California.
Local, state and federal agencies are working to find solutions to wolf conflicts, but determining which solutions are best has presented a challenge to ranchers, environmentalists and lawmakers alike.
Harmon said the risk of residents in his district taking wolf conflicts into their own hands is becoming more urgent, so he’s been working to figure out how to mitigate the issue. At Tuesday’s board of supervisors meeting, he sponsored an agenda item to add a “Wildlife Liaison” position to the county, which would serve as a point of connection between livestock producers, wildlife agencies and federal, state and local government officials during wildlife-related matters, such as investigating attacks on livestock.
“This role focuses on wildlife monitoring, conflict mitigation, information sharing, and support for ranchers and growers affected by wildlife activity,” the position description says, “while supporting the recovery of wildlife in California through proactive conflict reduction.”
County Senior Administrative Analyst Bryce Ritchie presented the position at Tuesday’s meeting. He told supervisors that while wolves have been the primary focus of discussions involving wildlife activity, the term “Wildlife Liaison” was chosen because it applies to other animals discussed in legislative sessions, including bears and spotted owls.
Staff are looking to have the position funded by the state, Ritchie said, but if the state chooses not to fund it, different funding sources will be researched. He explained that the county had to create the classification for the position in order to apply for funding, and supervisors unanimously passed it after some discussion. No position has been funded yet, but the classification of it opens opportunities for funding.
The state appears to be taking interest in this topic. Earlier this month, the California legislature passed a budget bill that includes $5 million in funding to support ranchers dealing with conflicts with wolves. Half of that funding is meant to compensate livestock owners if their animals are killed by gray wolves, and the other half is designated for activities related to wolf management including wolf attack investigations, collaring wolves or assessing wolf activity.
Harmon said the funding included in this section of the budget bill may be able to help pay for the county’s wildlife liaison position.
Another wolf-related bill, the California Wildlife Coexistence Act, was passed by the legislature and is awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. The bill gives the livestock compensation program a firm legal foundation, according to Sen. Megan Dahle, who supported the bill. She said in a recent press release that the bill also sets guidelines for wolf-livestock coexistence that have been successful in other states where wolves are established.
“What ranchers really need is for wolves to be delisted and to be allowed depredation permits when wolves attack livestock,” Dahle said. “I look forward to that happening, but realistically it will take time. For now, that means we need a consistently funded compensation program and other support for ranchers.”
Dahle’s wishes could become a reality. On Sept. 4, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that directs federal departments to determine whether to remove Endangered Species Act protections from gray and Mexican wolves. If that happens, the wolves would be delisted or downlisted, which means ranchers could potentially be allowed to use lethal force to combat predation.
Removing protections from wolves would likely face pushback from environmental and wildlife advocacy groups. Collette Adkins is the Carnivore Conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, and she said in a press release that removing Endangered Species Act protections from wolves would be a “disaster,” adding that the animals are still recovering in population after being nearly eradicated in the 20th century.
She said Trump’s executive order will likely lead to a court decision that reinstates the protections for wolves “while doing nothing to help ranchers,” and that she’s looking forward to challenging delisting attempts in court.
“Smart ranchers coexist with wolves by using commonsense measures like guard dogs and fencing to protect livestock,” she said. “Trump should be funding these tools, not wasting taxpayer money trying to kill or illegally strip wolves of livesaving protections.”
While Harmon supports the president’s efforts to delist or downlist gray wolves, he emphasized that he doesn’t see himself as a “wolf-killer.” But he still sees the threat of gray wolves as a significant problem that needs solving.
“Can they live in places like this valley right here and commingle?” he asked. “No, it’s not functional. There’s places for them, but not right down here in the ranches.”
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (23)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Paid ‘supply captains,’ not volunteer rovers, will support Shasta’s poll workers this Election Day
The change means long-term volunteers who’ve provided support to poll workers in the past won’t play the same pivotal role this time. But Shasta’s election staffers said the new approach will still get the job done.
Shasta supervisors set 30-day deadline to take deeper look at mobile home rent stabilization ordinance
Tehama County Supervisor Greg Jones appeared before the Shasta board yesterday, sharing a presentation that outlined an approach to mobile home rent stabilization that is soon to be implemented in Tehama.
Tensions high as Shasta supervisors discuss possible cancellation of Flock camera contract
During a no-vote discussion today, county board members asked Shasta Sheriff Michael Johnson to bring forward a presentation next month addressing concerns over Flock cameras. If they don’t like what they hear, supervisors said, they could cancel the rest of the five-year contract.
Well, “Little Red Riding Hood’ wolf hysteria is alive an well in Shasta County. I for one celebrate their return to Northern California. Truth is, they were here long before humans were. Wolves are an apex predator that keep ecosystems healthy. Just lookd what they did for Yellowstone. Yes, they will take a cow that wanders into their territory. However, some of their feeding is on already deceased cows. Far more cows die from weather and disease than from wolf predation. In one aspect Ranchers are already compensated for their loses by dirt cheap grazing rights on public lands. I agree with Esteban. Ranchers would be better off working on ways to live with wolves. They are a necessary part of our wilderness.
Attached is a link to an excellent, non-partisan video on the wolf dilemma interested people should read to be better informed.
https://youtu.be/VLBktL1DrBc?is=WY65u_umQJfaZMaR
The issue is much more significant in our neighboring counties to the north and northwest. Funding an independent, Shasta County answer is not the solution. This should be a common-sense solution handled regionally with all the stakeholders (ranching/envitmronmental/governing) having a voice in the decision-making process- with the loudest voices belonging to those most directly involved and affected.
I propose that we get rid of the wolf problem by using the bats.
.
I will introduce thousands of bats into Shasta county who will take care of and destroy the wolf menace.
California pays full steer price at sales value to the rancher for a wolf kill steer. “But it’s our way of life (to kill wolves) and raise cattle.” If three calves killed equals full price for three steer and you buy three more calves your profit increased. I thought this was a business?
I don’t hear Idaho, Wyoming, Texas, Oregon nor Colorado crying.
They only pay for “confirmed” wolf kills, which is fewer than half of likely wolf kills.
Wolves also cause a great deal of stress on the herd, raising cortisol levels which lowers fertility and increases complications.
Offer compensation, which is being done, tax write offs if dogs are chosen to protect animals. Cattle are raised for slaughter so there is value eventually.
Wolves were part of the balance of nature before they nearly became extinct.
Berkeley? Like all wild animals wolves are not urban animals.
Wolves were not introduced into California. They migrated from Oregon. The current numbers are between 70-90 and are being tracked. Livestock killed in California jumped from 32 in 2023, 60 in 2024 to 196 last year. Aberration? So far this year it’s tracking less. I don’t know if they were young, weak, sick or healthy.
The last person killed in the US was in Alaska in 2010 while jogging. About half the wolves in the US are in Alaska. One is too many.
JH – wouldn’t protective guardian dogs, anti-predator fencing etc already be tax deductible as a business expense? We geeks are curious.
So many cattle ranchers in Montana and Wyoming use guard dogs- Great Pyrenees or Anatolian Shepards. Are they used around here at all?
We’re way too busy crying ‘bout it while we collect the State compensation funds. Our way or the interstate highway…
Yes, but they add quite a bit of cost to a ranching operation, especially in feed and the labor it takes to feed them when they’re posted in remote locales.
Perhaps the largest hidden cost is that fewer than 50% of puppies will actually turn out to be good livestock guardians and, unfortunately, these breeds generally do not make good pets and have difficulty being “rehomed.” It takes about 2 years for a puppy to be ready for primetime and they generally retire around age 8. You also want at least 2 dogs to effectively deter predatory packs.
All of that means you’re looking to pay about $6,000/year to feed 4 LGDs (themselves purchased at ~$500/pop), only 2 of which will be good guardians. So there goes the profit from your first 10 head of cattle…
I spoke with former supervisor Mary Rickert, she said they don’t use dogs because it costs to much.
As usual, the Center for Biological Diversity says we should learn to co-exist with wolves in our backyard. A pack needs to be relocated to Tilden Park in Berkeley so they can show us how it’s done.
Tilden Park already has plenty of wolves, as coyotes are the smallest and most numerous of our native wolves. They are so closely related to the other wolves that they produce fertile hybrids. They also produce fertile hybrids with domestic dogs, which were domesticated via selective breeding from wolves over the past 14,000 years or so.
.
Coyotes are known to eat domestic cats, small dogs, and chickens in urban and suburban settings. Bay Area people are already coexisting with wolves. Nobody is suggesting that all the coyotes need to be slaughtered.
You have to admit that larger predators in Blue Cities are generally euthanized or relocated while the state tells Red Cities to learn to live with them. Examples:
.
CDFW ignores mountain lion in Susanville, saying it posed no harm:
https://elkodaily.com/news/state-regional/nevada/article_e43df1a2-3983-53d1-9bdb-82889e5a727c.html
.
CDFW continues to ignore mountain lions in Susanville despite numerous livestock & pet kills: https://www.lassennews.com/mountain-lion-sightings-spark-public-safety-concerns-in-the-gold-run-area
.
Susanville homeowner kills lion attacking his dog:
https://www.lassennews.com/mountain-lion-shot-and-killed-in-susanville
.
CDFW relocates mountain lion from Atherton before it does any harm: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/mountain-lion-san-francisco-21317850.php
.
CDFW relocates mountain lion in San Francisco before it does any harm:
https://sfstandard.com/2026/09/18/mountain-lion-spotted-outer-sunset/
Cherry-picked examples.
.
There are many examples of the State of California doing its best to protect mountain lions living in the LA Basin and other blue areas of the state, including the recent construction of wildlife crossings over 10-lane freeways. https://www.sfgate.com/la/article/101-wildlife-crossing-18887310.php
.
There are also examples of CDFW relocating mountain lions and bears from red cities, including those in Shasta and Siskiyou counties. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS3PP8AoWPQ
It isn’t that relocation/euthanasia never happens in Red Cities, but it is far less likely. Notice that your example occurred only after sustained livestock losses.
Atherton is equally rural with <7,000 population, 1 acre minimum lot sizes, and bordering the Thornewood Open Space Preserve, but the mere sighting of a cougar by some Silicon Valley mega donor merits an immediate CDFW response…
San Francisco is also a wildland-urban interface, but a cougar, wolf, or bear is considered completely unacceptable. And don't get me started on how SF is rated a "low" risk of wildfire (or, worse, how a certain section of Redding's Country Heights neighborhood has been reclassified "low" fire risk around the house of a registered Democrat calfire bigwig)…
Livestock
Domesticated Species: Cattle and sheep are domesticated livestock, not wild or native wildlife.
Ecological Context: livestock SHOULD BE classified as “invasive species” in the technical ecological sense (which refers to non-native wild organisms that aggressively spread and harm ecosystems), they are non-native managed agricultural animals.
Recent studies show they make up a major portion of the diet for some northern California wolf packs due to overlapping grazing ranges and declining native deer populations.
Except cattle and sheep don’t aggressively spread, so they cannot be considered invasive.
In fact, there seems to be no limit to the ways cattle and sheep will try to accidentally kill themselves and half of a rancher’s job is preventing that from happening.
There is absolutely 100% no reason to re-introduce gray wolves into California or grizzly bears! This is a thought process and decision-making by complete utter imbeciles! You know who you are! Gutless people from cities who don’t have to contend with it. 30 Ott six baby.
Gray wolves weren’t reintroduced to California, notwithstanding ignorant, evidence-free conspiracy theories. They’re here as a result of well-documented range expansion from Oregon and beyond. Appreciation of biodiversity does not indicate a person is an imbecile—lack of such does.
.
My wife and I both hail from ranching families in the Rocky Mountains, and we both spent much of our youths in ranching country. Unfortunately, neither of us were in the ranch inheritance lineages. Our ranching kin have been living with wolves for many years. They adapted. Many of California’s ranchers possess a unique sense of victim mentality married to unearned entitlement.
.
California’s ranchers will have to learn to live with wolves—like ranchers in the Cascades and the Rockies all the way up through Canada and into Alaska, and across Asia and Europe—or risk being charged and convicted as felons if they take your stupid advice which costs you nothing.
Wolves were not reintroduced in California. They migrated to California from Oregon. ” Gutless people from cities ” had absolutely nothing to do with it. Further the assembly appropriations committee killed the grizzly reintroduction bill. Yeah. And you know who sits on that committee? Yeah more ” Gutless people from cities”.
But ya know rage on bro
I’m Batman, baby.
Gray wolves were not introduced in CA. They migrated here from Yellowstone.