CDFW to Evaluate Wolf-Livestock Compensation Pilot Program, Post Outstanding Depredation Investigations
Wolf [Image from CDFW]
As part of its evaluation of the Wolf-Livestock Compensation Pilot Program, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) today is posting outstanding wolf depredation reports dating back to August 2023.
The depredation reports confirm 16 wolf depredations totaling a loss of 18 livestock. With this posting, CDFW can now finalize review of existing program applications and eligibility of livestock producers to receive payments for direct losses.
The Wolf-Livestock Compensation Pilot Program is the first of its kind in California and has thus far provided support to livestock producers in compensating for direct loss of livestock due to confirmed wolf depredation; supported non-lethal deterrence techniques such as the use of range riders, electrified fencing and flags (turbo fladry), camera surveillance, motion lights and guardian dogs; and compensated livestock producers for the impact of wolf presence on livestock.
CDFW received $3 million in funding from the Budget Act of 2021 and began receiving applications in February 2022. As of January 12, 2024, CDFW had received a total of 102 applications. At that time, CDFW notified the public that the applications received were projected to exhaust the current fund.
The efforts to implement the pilot program have been important to wolf conservation and supporting livestock producers in the state. Once the program is complete and evaluated, CDFW will make a summary public on its Gray Wolf webpage.
###
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
So tax payers are spending millions of dollars to pay the state to monitor, and ranchers to feed livestock to, wolves.
Freaking brilliant….
No one is purposely feeding their livestock to wolves ya libby
You really don’t grasp the concept of functioning ecosystems with a mix of wildlife, do you?
You don’t either. Turned out that human hunters, if not barred from an ecology, do the work that wolves were reintroduced to do. But hunters do not have the romantic edge with current social groups that wolves do. In comparing places that allowed hunting versus those that didn’t, wolves made no change in the environment. Even though this study was determined to be optimistic , saying that in the long term wolves would probably help the ecology, there is no mention of the fact that domestic dogs have spread disease and pushed wild dog species to the edge of extinction around the world. Why will the reintroduced wolves not suffer the same fate?
“The popular idea that the return of wolves singlehandedly reduced elk herds and restored Yellowstone’s natural systems was “wishful thinking” backed by little comprehensive science, Hobbs and Cooper said.
That narrative also ignored other factors at play. Human hunting, not wolves, was the primary cause of declining elk populations in the first 10 years after reintroduction, they said. Also, mountain lions hunt elk more effectively than wolves, and their population boomed simultaneously.
“Claims of ecosystem restoration, resulting from a trophic cascade following the restoration of the gray wolf to Yellowstone, have been used to justify translocation of wolves to their unoccupied former range in many areas of the world,” the study states. “Careful scrutiny has revealed these claims to be exaggerated or false.””
https://www.greeleytribune.com/2024/02/09/wolves-impact-habitat-study-yellowstone-national-park-colorado-reintroduction/
Wolves and humans hunting are not really comparable as predator impacts for a number of reasons, at least not in modern times. Humans hunt during restricted periods of the year and generally target the largest and healthiest animals. Wolves hunt year round and in general, target smaller, less healthy animals when they can. That results in different impacts on prey populations.
Human hunting when in addition to wild predators can have substantial impacts that can cause significant swings in prey populations. One hypothesis about what led to the mega-fauna extinction event in North America at the end of the last glacial period was the newly expanding human population in NA caused both a prey species collapse and subsequent predator collapse.
But those humans, while hunting with primitive weapons, hunted year round. We don’t do that today because there are so many of us with more advanced hunting technology that we extirpated many species and caused a few outright extinctions. We did that in the 1800’s before the advent of modern wildlife laws.
Extirpating large predators so that there are more prey animals for humans to hunt has frequently backfired. One of the more famous examples was the Kaibab plateau deer population following wolf extirpation.
According to an empirical study, they are. In fact they may be better because people can be regulated. Wolves don’t read regulations.
What empirical study?
I’d like to chime in that you seem to have misinterpreted some of what the research paper cited by the Greeley Tribune was discussing.
The claim that hunters do the work of wolves isn’t exactly correct. The paper cited another research paper (Vucetich et al. 2005) that modeled the influence of various predation impacts on elk population and the model predicted that for human hunting was super-additive in that for every additional 1% of elk killed by hunting, the population declined by 4.7%. In any case, that isn’t particularly applicable to the study results which occurred in Yellowstone National Park where hunting is banned.
A different paper was cited (Ruth 2019) that showed the per capita kill rate by cougars was higher than for wolves but doesn’t include the metric that wolf population densities tend to be significantly higher than cougars. In northern Yellowstone there are about twice as many wolves as cougars. (45 cougars and 97 wolves)
But the real crux of the paper and the discussion was that despite declining elk populations following the recovery of the predator population riparian willow communities in areas without beavers had not recovered as expected. Where beavers still existed, they had. But in areas long devoid of beavers because of elk browsing, the system had fundamentally changed and simply removing the elk didn’t restore it. You had to add back in dams (or beavers) while simultaneously keeping other large herbivores (in this case bison) out of the system while it recovered. And wolves (nor cougars) do not seem to effectively target bison so they population has continued to expand even as the elk population declined.
And in they wrote this in the conclusion:
There are good reasons to restore apex predators to food webs (Phillips, 2020), but rapid ecosystem restoration cannot be assured among them (Allen et al., 2017; Brice et al., 2022; this study). The promotion of ecosystem restoration by restoring apex predators suggests there is a “quick fix” for losing them from food webs. We have shown that the ecosystem state that emerged following the loss of large carnivores from the food web resisted reversal after they were restored. It is clear that maintaining the ecosystem services of large carnivores by preventing their extirpation may be a more successful strategy than trying to restore those services after a long absence of apex predators from the food web.
Hope that helps.
However the study after the implementation of the theory about wolves says that was not the result. So no help after all.
It is stupid to pay ranchers for lost livestock. They should have to accept the loses as part of doing business.
Okay. Then that idea should apply across the board to lots of types of compensations because government keeps individuals from acting in their own behalf. For example no police or prisons should exist because theft is a loss people should just accept if they have stuff. No public water systems for those city dwellers choose to live in places without enough water. No equity, diversity or inclusion rules as people should just accept that getting less access is a part of being a minority. Or that universities should only be for those rich enough to afford it. It’s every man for himself.
Hello? Ranchers had solved their predator issues but government wants to prevent them acting to do that any more. And wants to introduce predators. If it wants to avoid an court order injection stopping it, government devised this way as the Constitution due to the Fifth Amendment- “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
And ranchers make their bucks grazing on public lands… guess they want competition to be regulated and compensated
Tax payers are losing billions to ranchers using public lands. Aye, whattya know
I can’t, for the life of me, understand why any intelligent person would deliberately introduce a menace that does millions of dollars in damage.
Reintroduced wolves have reduced the deer and elk population, allowing rivers and streams to repair themselves from overgrazing. Reduction of the deer population in areas where wolves have been reintroduced has seen a decline of as much as 30% in deer vs. auto collisions.
They’ve also reduced coyote populations by around 50% and coyotes typically cause greater livestock depredation problems that wolves do.
The reality is that adaptable coyotes are much more functional in places anywhere near humans. Although ranchers justifiably complain about wolves taking livestock, that is really not the problem.
The point that should be understood is that wolf sized pack hunting does not work as well as independent coyotes in concert with humans. Maybe that doesn’t satisfy the romanticism of those who love the symbolism of untouched wilderness but, as long as humans are allowed their hunting, wolves don’t really do much. And their size and pack nature makes wolves a lot more vulnerable. The solitarymountain lion survives better.
You mean cattle?
It’s because some biologists in the 90s had some big egos and wanted to make a name for themselves. They introduced the larger Canadian gray wolf into the area where smaller species of wolves historically roamed. Who would’ve thought the bigger, tougher, stronger wolf would’ve wrought so much damage? Hard to believe isn’t it? The whole program was basically an ongoing joke to the locals in Northwestern, Wyoming. That is until the wolves started eating their cattle, then the rule was shoot, shovel, and shut up.
You seem to be exaggerating the influence of minor size and genetic differences between subspecies. The key is the prey focus of the animals which is similar to the wolves that used to roam the area before they were trapped, poisoned, and shot out of existence because they interfered with people making a profit on public land.
Profit? Really? Like raising food for those who don’t supply their own? Just because this is a time of relative plenty doesn’t mean that this was true even a hundred years ago or will be in a decade.
Ranching is not a miracle profit. It is hard, dangerous varied work with uncertain returns. Most ranchers who are wealthy are so because they inherited land that others now want. Not because they are cattle barons in the wild west. Although I suppose there may be a few of those left.
You really haven’t read much about the history of the livestock industry as it developed on western lands, have you?
Inherited land stolen thru genocide. Yeah, brother, keep going with that argument
It’s just easier for bigger wolves to take down larger animals. I guess we’re just arguing semantics, though it really doesn’t matter since the genie’s out of the bottle. I will say that it’s a scary yet exciting feeling when it’s night time, 10 below zero, and you’re 15 miles or so from the nearest road, and suddenly you find yourself surrounded by howling wolves. You can’t see them in the dim light from the fire, but you know they’re really fucking close… Makes you feel pretty small when all you have on you is a 300 win mag with a four round capacity. Right up there with jumping a grizzly and her four cubs eating a dead elk.
Wolf and a size 12 boot
5 grizzlies eating a dead elk
SSS. Yep. Lived in SW Montana for a few years.
they don’t, mostly reactionary hype
The article states the Taxpayers have shelled out $3,000,000 dollars to fund a compensation program. That’s millions of dollars in damage right there.
that’s the government, not the wolves actual cost. they eat more mice and rabbits than anything else. them there are a expensive 18 cows to cost that much, don’t ya think @ $ 166,666.00 each? must be.
No, wolves do not “more mice and rabbits than anything else.” Coyotes, foxes maybe but wolves need larger prey too. Especially to get through winter. According to this- “Gray wolves hunt cooperatively in packs and are able to take down prey larger than they are including caribou, moose, deer and bison. Wolves will also occasionally catch smaller prey such as beaver, rabbit, and fish, and will sometimes eat berries. Gray wolves eat around three to four pounds of food per day.” Catching three to four pounds of rodents would need more energy than the calories gained and would be slow starvation..
https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/gray-wolf
Wolf packs are a nasty thing to have roaming the woods. Hope they don’t eat too many hikers.
Don’t worry Mr. C, they don’t.
Just like you constant worry that Antifa is lurking around every corner,
this concern of yours, too, is unfounded.
And like Antifa, I’d wager good money that Mr. C has never been anywhere close to wolves but is scared of them because someone told them to be.
I’ve dealt with those f—kers in Alaska. No sane person wants anything to do with them.
Likely neither have you.
Actually I have, in Wyoming, Montana, Minnesota, and Michigan. Well, wolves anyway, never really seen none of them Antifa.
I ‘m glad they ran away. Did you drive to the trailhead in your car? As to your virtue signaling (I guess) about a gun I’ll paraphrase Eddie Murphy (I think he said this?): “everybody love black people, till the cops show up”. Get it! Yes, call me a racist now and don’t forget to provide the scientific link to prove it!
It’s not virtue signaling to say I didn’t have a gun, it’s simply that I’m too fucking lazy to haul the extra weight around when it isn’t needed for hunting.
By TM’s own admission, you don’t even really need a gun.
Loud noises seemed to have worked just fine.
You missed the part about they probably never heard a air horn before, maybe never had seen a human perhaps. The wolves in Wyoming, etc. probably have! If the air horns get used enough and/or they recognize that it’s just an air horn. They don’t work. So a shotgun might save your life. Show some respect for animals like the wolves- they aren’t stupid! Get a life- it isn’t always about showing everyone that you think you are smarter than the average bear or wolf for that matter!
You seem to have missed the point about there having been only one confirmed fatality from wolves in the US in more than a quarter century.
I’m sorry, you got scared.
And I’m glad you’re OK.
But the reality is, you probably were never in very much danger.
Because there are so few wolves in the US in the last 25 years. That changes with more human contact.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks_in_North_America
It’s ok jebs… but of course you weren’t there. I was going to bring up Bear Spray but… I didn’t want you and the other two stooges on here to get even more excited about Antifa. Give it a break!
Yes,A blowhard would probably do it .
You might reconsider if you enter territory where you could be the one being hunted? Oh, that’s right- they always recognize you as a human and run away. You seem to be too fucking lazy about lotsa things!
Almost forgot, sorry about your issues with your mom!
Fatalities from wolves are almost non-existent in North America.
You are literally at far more at risk driving to your trailhead than you are hiking in the woods.
https://wolf.org/wolf-info/factsvsfiction/are-wolves-dangerous-to-humans/
Says the city boy who googled it…
Thanks Jebs, everyone faced with a situation that I described will be thanking their lucky stars and glad they weren’t in their car if they read yer reply.
Yes, I have been around wolves in the wild on multiple occasions. And without a gun. I never felt in danger because as soon as the wolf saw me and recognized me as a human, it fled. Wolf attacks on humans are exceedingly rare. As in you are more likely to be hit by lightning or win the PowerBall lottery than be attacked by a wolf.
Everyone is reassured by your stats and thinks of that immediately if they are up close to a wolf. Same for mountain lions, bears, and for some people -a mouse. I suspect if they didn’t run off you might change your tune or say something like “it was because they didn’t recognize me as a human.”
It’s okay to be scared of things you don’t really understand. Do what you need to feel safe as long as you aren’t knee-jerk killing things just for being scared. My mom was like that with snakes — hated the things and would kill or demand we kill any she saw, even the ones that posed zero danger. I could never convince her otherwise, and I suspect the same is true for many folks and wolves.
Well you missed the part where I didn’t use the shotgun. But… the air-horn like the small ones you can carry on a boat worked really good. With that said, they didn’t go very far away. The air horn worked because they may have never heard that before! Flares can also be effective. Maybe it was because you didn’t drive to a trailhead to get to where these wolves lived, “Pilgrim”. Thanks for the advice about knee-jerk killing things just for being scared! Be sure to reassure the people where you reintroduce them understand they have a better chance of winning power-ball so they can buy tickets.
Was particularly intrigued by this bit in the list of attacks- “A pack of wolves chased a research student near the Tiffany Springs Campground. She climbed thirty feet up a tree to evade the pack and contacted the Okanogan County Sheriff’s office through a satellite telephone. A state Department of Natural Resources helicopter arrived to come to her aid. Its noise warded off the wolves.”
I suspect your mom knew the limits of her children’s perspicacity quite well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks_in_North_America
One wolf? Lucky you. A pack maybe not much. Packs egg each other on.
When?
For all the people imagining that reintroducing wolves to their historic range will somehow endanger humans, no one has been able to provide any proof that they would pose any actual risk.
Well…. 27 million LA and SF voters can’t be wrong… can they ?
Maybe the plan is to reintroduce wolves to Marin County. Doubt it will happen cause the wolves will switch to eating their cats and designer dogs.
Back in the ’50’s, livestock death or damage was punishable by triple-damages. Now that government paperwork is involved, it should be at least quadruple-damages.
So the old saying “Keep the wolf away from the door” should actually be re-phrased.
Something that says “Open the door and invite him in…show him the barn with the livestock and point out where the kids sleep”. Sounds like everyone here is an expert on how to google wolves. Curious as to really how many commenters have seen a wolf while hiking in the wilds. Tunes might change.
Hope this program continues so the wolves can thrive. The fake menace all the oakies spout about wolves is just that, 99% fake. If our tax dollars can fund healthcare, lawyers, housing, food, phones, jobs, and translators for illegal aliens who have absolutely zero rights in any way, shape, or form to the golden goose called America, , we can certainly fund this program.
American wildlife like wolves are more important to our nation than taking care of Vlad the illegal who broke into our country from Ukraine. He has two legs and the resources from the NGOs whereby he can amble back to the country he came from and apply for legal citizenship the proper way. Wolves not so much since they were born here. Save the wolves.
After seeing the ghosts who were not supposed to exist in the volcanic mountains of Central Washington decades ago, the wolves are not what the “oakies shoot anything that moves” think they are. Continue this program for all taxpayers. It will be a positive for the southern tip of the PNW.
Next up is the reintroduction of the Grizzly. I have a sneaking suspicion that they already have. We the people need to put it to vote were they get turned loose at. I’m voting for Golden Gate Park.
Reintroducing grizzlies would be wonderful.
Thanks for suggesting it.
(I think you got a bit silly with the Golden Gate Park thing, though.)
I’m sure you’ll feel real good about living among brown bears – right up until the garbage man shows up on trash day with a riot shotgun slung over his shoulder, because that’s how they roll in brown bear country.
Why would you think I’d be scared of either bears or the trach collector?
I’ll admit bears are kind of annoying on garbage day.
Like giant chipmunks.