Moving Towards Compensation An Overview of the Changing Wolf Policy in California by Victoria Rodriguez for the California Cattlemen’s Foundation Since OR-7 first entered California from Oregon in 2011, wolf activity in California has steadily increased. California currently has four established breeding packs, at least three collared solitary wolves and an unknown number of uncollared wolves. As wolf populations have increased, so have the instances of wolf/livestock conflict as depredation rates continue to increase. California currently does not have an established depredation compensation plan to compensate ranchers for the direct and indirect losses that occur due to wolf presence. This article serves as an update on the types of compensation that are used in other states that have existing compensation plans, on the active development of a California compensation plan and on what ranchers can expect moving forward. This article is adapted in part from materials provided by the University of California Cooperative Extension.
Compensation as a Mitigation Tool
In an attempt to adequately compensate ranchers for the losses that they endure due to wolf presence and depredation, states have created compensation plans for direct losses that are confirmed wolf predations, or in some instances probable wolf predations, as well as for indirect losses such as decreased conception rates and lower weight gains due to wolf presence. Several western states have developed compensation programs to offset the impact of livestock killed by wolves (and other predators, in some cases). Depending on the program, direct compensation has been provided for both confirmed and probable wolf depredations. Direct compensation provides ranchers with a reimbursement that is a set rate, usually reflective of prices released by United State Department of Agriculture’s Ag Marketing Services. Examples of direct compensation programs include programs such as those in Washington and Montana. In addition to direct compensation, some models also provide compensation through a pay-for-presence program. Typically, pay-for-presence programs are designed to compensate livestock producers for indirect losses associated with wolves in exchange for giving up the ability to use lethal control except in extreme circumstances. Since lethal control is not an option in California due to gray wolves being fully protected under the California Endangered Species Act, such a program would focus
14 California Cattleman February 2022
more on acknowledging the indirect losses associated with stress due to proximity to known wolf activity including lower weight gains, lower conception rates and higher labor costs. An example of pay-for-presence programs includes programs such as the Mexican Gray Wolf program in New Mexico.
CDFW Funding for Compensation and Deterrence
California’s 2021-22 state budget included $3 million to develop a pilot program for compensating ranchers for depredations and indirect impacts associated with wolves. These funds must be spent by June 30, 2026. The state budget also includes an additional $7 million to help reduce wildlife conflict, which could fund on-ranch, nonlethal predator protection tools for wolves as well as other predators. The program and funds will be administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CDFW is currently creating an interim program that will retroactively compensate producers for confirmed direct losses that have occurred since Sept. 23, 2021 (when funding was authorized). There is no set timeline for this interim program to be released, though it is anticipated to be released soon. This interim program will be replaced with the program developed by the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) Work Group. RCRC is facilitating a work group that will develop mechanisms for a more comprehensive pilot compensation program. This work group includes representatives from producer organizations such as the California Cattlemen’s Association and California Cattlemen’s Foundation, individual ranchers, local elected officials, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) and CDFW, among others. ...CONTINUED ON PAGE 16
