The last native gray wolf in California was killed in 1924. So, for almost a century, the Golden State went without this iconic species — until 2011. A male gray wolf started coming across from Oregon in 2011, becoming the first wild wolf in California in 87 years. Two more adults migrated from Oregon in 2015 and had five pups.
Slowly but surely, the wolf population in California grew to over 40, with a new pack being reported in 2024.
“These awe-inspiring animals continue to show us that California’s wild landscapes are great habitat for wolves and that they’ll find their way here,” said Amaroq Weiss, a senior wolf advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Wolves belong in our state, and we should do everything we can to ensure they thrive.”
“I feel so fortunate to bear witness to the return of these top-level carnivores to California,” said Weiss. “Not only are wolves essential to healthy, wild nature, they also have for thousands of years been integral to the human spirit and imagination and a symbol of our connection to the wild.”
Yet, despite all this, not everyone is happy.
Ranchers and wolves
Wolves were hunted to extinction in California because they posed a problem for ranchers. Land and farm owners didn’t want the hassle of a lone wolf or a pack causing problems for their herds. Granted, wolves are unlikely to come into your backyard and attack humans or livestock, but it’s a headache ranchers didn’t want want to have.
Now, they have to face it. In California, wolves are protected by the state’s Endangered Species Act, which amounts to a $100,000 fine or jail time.
“You can’t kill a wolf even if it kills your cattle because wolves are federally protected,” says William McDarment, a rancher on the Tule River Reservation in Tulare County, California, for The Guardian. “So, what do we do?”
The state has set up a fund to reimburse ranchers’ losses to wolves, and the project has been largely a success. The state invested $3 million over 3 years to compensate livestock owners for direct wolf-caused livestock losses, reimburse them for proactive nonlethal conflict-prevention measures used to deter conflicts with wolves and pay a formula-derived amount to those livestock owners grazing in known wolf territory. Nearly two-thirds of the fund went to non-lethal measures, which was regarded as a success.
“I’m pleased that most funds went to reimburse livestock owners for using non-lethal conflict-prevention measures that are good for both ranchers and wolves,” said Weiss. “Other states should take note. California’s use of these modern methods before conflicts arise is far more effective than Oregon’s or Idaho’s archaic and pointless practice of killing precious wolves.”
Good for the environment
We’re taught as kids that wolves are one of those animals that are good for the environment, keeping ecosystems in check. Indeed, if given other options, wolves don’t typically attack livestock.
When the US government reintroduced 41 wolves to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, ranchers were up in arms, especially in Montana and Wyoming. Over the next 8 years, the wolves killed 256 sheep and 41 cattle. But there are around 4 million beef cattle in Montana.
The more significant thing that happened is that wolves trimmed the population of wild herbivores like elk. These herbivores had been putting pressure on ecosystems of native aspen. The aspen came back, the beavers came back, as did several other species of birds, mammals, and insects. Within a couple of decades, the ecosystem became much healthier. Wolves triggered a cascade of changes that helped the local ecosystem thrive.
Yet, in states like Wyoming, you can still shoot a wolf on sight. Wolves, classified as predatory animals, can be harvested year-round without a license. You just need to report it to the department within 10 days. The way different US states treat their wolves appears to be based on politics rather than science.
A conservation success story or a headache?
Normally, the return of wolves to California would be considered a classic conservation success story. Wolves wandered in searching for mates and resources, found suitable habitats, settled in, and appeared to be doing fine. If the California population follows the same pattern as the Yellowstone one, we can expect significant ecosystem benefits to come soon enough.
But ranchers are not satisfied. Although Wolves cause less than 4% of US cattle deaths and California is offering full market value for cow kills, ranchers say most of the damage is not direct. Even the presence of wolves makes cows nervous and less likely to give birth, some ranchers say. Even for direct attacks, some ranchers claim they’re not getting enough compensation (the state claims they are).
Yet, even ranchers may not have the perfect picture of what’s happening to their livestock. In 2018, a northern California rancher found a wolf feeding on a calf. However, the autopsy report found that the calf died of pneumonia and the wolf wasn’t to blame. Regardless, the wolf was found shot multiple times with .22 caliber rounds. Heavy suspicion was on the rancher, but officials couldn’t prove that he pulled the trigger so he faced no consequences.
Can we coexist?
The story of the gray wolf in California is a complex one, filled with both hope and tension. A century ago, there was not enough space for both humans and wolves in California. Has that changed now?
For conservationists, the wolf’s return is nothing short of a triumph. It represents a significant step forward in the broader effort to restore ecological balance across North America. The reintroduction of wolves has been proven to yield positive effects on ecosystems, from controlling prey populations to fostering biodiversity. California’s forests, rivers, and grasslands could all benefit from the presence of wolves.
Ranchers, who face the economic realities of potential livestock losses, continue to express concern. They feel caught in a bind between protecting their livelihood and abiding by state and federal laws that protect wolves. While compensation funds and non-lethal deterrence measures have shown promise, they are not a panacea — and it’s not clear that such programs will be financed in the future.
Wolves are one of those species that serve as a powerful symbol. Now, we can add another layer to this symbolism. Do we see wolves as adversaries to be managed or as partners in maintaining a healthy ecosystem?
For conservationists, the answer is resoundingly the latter. The echo of this answer, however, requires a continuously funded program to compensate ranchers.
“I urge the department to prepare a follow-up report that identifies lessons learned and how the program can be improved,” said Weiss. “It could make sure, for instance, that the reimbursed nonlethal measures were appropriate for the particular ranching operation and that anyone compensated for direct losses didn’t get money for subsequent losses unless they started using nonlethal conflict prevention measures. This would tell us whether the program operated as effectively as it could and, if not, what changes are needed.”
For the gray wolves of California, the journey is far from over — and far from safe. But with each passing year, the howls ring through the forests just a bit louder. There is a sense that perhaps this time, the story will have a different ending.
