Oregon

Wolves Are Not Going Away: Ranchers Push for Practical Management Tools

Thu, 04 Dec 2025 15:08:47 GMT

Ranchers repeatedly stress they are not advocating extermination of the wolves, but workable management solutions.

“We’re trying to be conservationists,” says Luke Morgan, Lightning Bolt Cattle Co. general manager. “Wolves are here to stay. We’ve got to have some tools to make it more holistic for people, wolves and the rest of the animals.”

Morgan manages 2,500 mother cows on multiple locations in Oregon and Washington utilizing both public and private lands. He says the split listing of wolves in Oregon is frustrating: “A line down the middle … federally listed on one side and not on the other … makes zero sense.”

Read more about the challenges rancher are facing with wolves:
Nightly Battles and Big Losses: Ranchers Demand Reform as Wolves Continue to Wreak Havoc

Rick Roberti, California Cattlemen’s Association president and a cattle rancher in Sierra Valley, adds: “We don’t want to get rid of all the wolves. We just want them managed in a way we don’t suffer so many losses — for them to return to their natural habitat.”

Cattle producer Amy Anderson Fitzpatrick says her family has been dealing with wolves since 2011. Her family raises cattle in southern Oregon during the grazing season (May to December), then move the herd to winter in Northern California. The base ranch, called Rancheria Ranch, is in the mountains of Oregon and is a mix of owned land and permitted grazing.

Fitzpatrick explains state and federal laws severely limit ranchers’ ability to defend their livestock; only nonlethal hazing is allowed, and requests to remove or euthanize problematic wolves have been denied.

Here are two requests from the producers dealing with wolves:

1. Coexistence management tools.

This would allow flexible, rapid deployment of nonlethal and, when needed, targeted lethal tools to address habituated wolves near people and livestock.

“They have zero fear of humans,” Morgan says. “If we could instill a little fear, push them back into wilderness areas and keep them more of a wild animal.”

He suggests seasonal, expedited permits and field-response teams during calving; prioritize high-risk allotments and pastures.

Fitzpatrick adds: “Our wolves are not scared of us, because why should they be?”

2. Notification and data transparency for risk management.

Roberti requests for more notification and data sharing regarding wolves. He says with collared wolves, agencies can tell ranchers when wolves enter their property, but he says: “We’ve been getting the reports after the kill.”

He would also like to know how many wolves there are and would like to see a deer survey done.

“If there’s not enough prey, you’re pretty much saying they’re going to eat cattle,” Roberti says.

Fitzpatrick expresses frustration with public perception and how the pro-wolf sentiment on social media downplays or ignores ranchers’ struggles with the predators.

Despite the ongoing hardships, Fitzpatrick says her family remains committed to ranching while calling for a level playing field that would allow effective protection of their livelihood.

Paul Roen, a Sierra County rancher, adds unified, more flexible regulations and continued collaboration between local, state and federal agencies is needed. He advocates for policy reform, increased documentation and knowledge-sharing to better equip rural communities to manage the realities of coexisting with wolves.

Roberti summarizes that sensible management policies will allow both wolves and ranchers to coexist, but he stresses that unless balance is restored and ranchers’ voices are heard, both the rural way of life and broader ecosystem could face severe consequences.

Your Next Read: Nightly Battles and Big Losses: Ranchers Demand Reform as Wolves Continue to Wreak Havoc

Nightly Battles and Big Losses: Ranchers Demand Reform as Wolves Continue to Wreak Havoc

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 18:42:52 GMT

It’s hard to fathom: 92 confirmed or probable kills of cattle by three wolves during one season (April to October 2025) in the Sierra Valley. For ranchers, it’s more than economical loss — the emotional toll of dealing with wolves targeting their livestock and livelihoods is real.

Reintroduction and management of wolves in Sierra County, Calif., has led to significant challenges. The community, led by officials such as Paul Roen, has been actively pushing for updated management protocols, enhanced deterrence measures and better support from state and federal agencies to address the escalating wolf-livestock conflict.

Roen, a Sierra County supervisor (similar to a county commissioner) and rancher, explains it’s more than a livestock issue; it is a human safety issue.

“These wolves were not bothered by humans whatsoever. I mean, they were not acting like wild animals at all,” he says in reference to the wolves killing cattle earlier this year.

Rick Roberti, California Cattlemen’s Association president and a cattle rancher in Sierra Valley, adds: “For every confirmed kill you find, there’s probably four to six others. The wolves had gotten so used to eating cattle they didn’t hardly even look at a deer if they could find one.”

Roen and Roberti both stress the wolves have no fear of humans, with frequent sightings near homes and barns.

The severity of the attacks led Roen and other local officials to declare a state of emergency, drawing statewide and media attention. Despite the efforts of ranchers and local authorities — including constant night patrols, protective measures and deployment of technology like drones — wolf predation persisted. The community also engaged with state and federal resources, including a Strike Force sent by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to document the losses and explore possible intervention .

The program, designed to prevent livestock attacks on ranching properties in the heavily impacted Sierra Valley, deployed more than 18,000 staff hours across 114 days, engaging in 95 hazing events that helped to prevent an even greater loss in cattle deaths.

Eighteen Sierra Valley ranches enrolled in the program. CDFW staff also assisted ranches in evaluating the use of wolf-deterring fladry and ensuring livestock carcasses are correctly disposed to avoid attracting scavenging wolves. Additionally, the program helped facilitate depredation investigations, enabling ranchers to access compensation through CDFW’s Wolf-Livestock Compensation Program .

Following the unprecedented level of livestock attacks across the Sierra Valley, CDFW, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), took the step of lethally removing four gray wolves from the Beyem Seyo pack.

“This action follows months of intensive non-lethal management efforts to reduce livestock loss and is grounded in the best available science and understanding of wolf biology,” according to the press release.

Roen says progress dealing with the wolf issue came with federal involvement and local law enforcement support. He says when the sheriff got involved , people woke up in Sacramento.

Read more about how sheriff departments from seven California counties united to oppose environmental polices they believe threaten ranchers and farmers.

Not Just California

The gray wolf is on the federal endangered species list except in the Northern Rocky Mountain region of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Oregon, Washington and north-central Utah. In Minnesota, the gray wolf is considered threatened. Because of these protections, killing a wolf in the states where it’s protected is illegal, even if it’s seen killing livestock.

Luke Morgan, Lightning Bolt Cattle Company general manager, has been dealing with wolves since 2011 when they first came to Oregon. Morgan manages 2,500 mother cows on multiple locations in Oregon and Washington using both public and private lands.

A pack of wolves that live on one of the Lightning Bolt ranches in western Oregon have been causing havoc the past couple years. According to Morgan, the wolves killed more than 25 head of livestock from mid-October to mid-November.

He says the wolves prey the weak-minded: “Whatever can’t take the pressure … the ones that will break and run.”

(CDFW)

Cattle producer Amy Anderson Fitzpatrick says her family has also been dealing with wolves since 2011. They raise cattle in southern Oregon during the grazing season (May to December), then move the herd to winter in Northern California. The base ranch, called Rancheria Ranch, is in the mountains of Oregon and is a mix of owned land and permitted grazing. The operation includes commercial cow herd plus some yearlings.

Since 2019, Fitzpatrick says at least 24 cattle deaths have been attributed to wolves, though actual losses are likely higher due to unconfirmed cases in the rugged terrain.

“I have learned far more about wolves and their behavior than I could ever imagine. Wolves kill for food, yes, but they also kill to hone their skills, teach their young and for fun. We have witnessed wolves literally bumping livestock bedded down to get them up and running to chase them,” Fitzpatrick says. “We’ve been dealing with it for about 14 years. … The earlier pack, the Rogue Pack, would hit Fort Klamath hard in the summer months when there was an abundance of yearling cattle, then in the fall they’d come over the hill to Rancheria and hit us. Now we deal with what is known as this Grouse Ridge Pack, which seems to just like to hang out at the ranch and hit our permit country in the summertime.”

Fitzpatrick says they previously anticipated up to five losses per year from cattle turned out on the range as a cost of doing business. With the increase in wolf population, the ranch tallied between 35 and 40 mostly weaned calves during the 2024 season.

The Rogue Pack would kill livestock as sport and not consume the animals. However, the current, larger pack tends to consume more carcasses, further complicating verification.

In Wisconsin over the past 12 months, wolf attacks on livestock have increased. According to the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR), there have been 62 livestock depredation incidents in 2025 — 45 killed and 17 confirmed harassments — all of which are either livestock or pets. That’s nearly double the number of incidents reported just three years ago.

According to the Wisconsin Farm Bureau : “Wisconsin’s wolf population has rebounded from extinction to an undeniable conservation success. But lately, it feels more like a horror story than a success story.”

Read more about how ranchers say they are willing to deal with wolves if they will return to their natural habitat:
Wolves Are Not Going Away: Ranchers Push for Practical Management Tools

(Paul Roen)

Financial Loss is Real

Herd-level effects beyond death loss include lower conception rates, 50 lb. to 75 lb. weaning weight declines and cow herd fear. Wolves have changed cattle behavior significantly.

Fitzpatrick says the presence of wolves has caused observable stress and aggression in the cattle, leading to behavioral changes, abortions and decreased weaning weights.

“Wolves actively harass resting cattle, preventing them from relaxing or thriving,” she says.

Morgan says herd experience more vulnerability during calving season. He points out calves and protective dams are high-risk with wolf attacks leading to increasing accidental calf deaths and stress-related herd disruptions.

Research by Tina Saitone, a University of California-Davis professor and cooperative Extension specialist in livestock and rangeland economics, found one wolf can cause up to $162,000 in annual financial loss .

Compensation is Available But Falls Short

Compensation frameworks exist but often lack speed and scope and require confirmations that are often unfeasible. Morgan says there’s not even close to enough funds in the pool to cover all the losses.

“There is money appropriated in California, but we’re just having a hard time getting it,” Roberti adds. “Most have been waiting since April.”

All four producers say depredations are significantly undercounted compared with real losses due to terrain, investigation lags and evidence requirements. A shared frustration is the fact if an animal is nearly completely consumed, the investigators can’t find the evidence it was a wolf attack and thus, it does not count as a wolf depredation.

Emotional Toll is Substantial

For cattle producers impacted by wolves, it’s more than the financial toll; it’s the human factor, the stress incurred.

“Financial-wise, it’s huge. It’s astronomical, if you really dig into it, but the mental capacity it takes from us and the people who work for us is huge,” Morgan says. “The emotional toll we have to go through just watching and observing cattle, and we spend every day we possibly can trying to keep these animals alive.

“There’s nothing pretty about the way [wolves] kill animals,” he continues. “For us to go out and find them or have to deal with that, it’s huge emotionally.”

Fitzpatrick explains the losses due to wolves have deeply affected her dad.

“My dad is 81 years old, and I have never seen him so depressed,” she explains. “He’s not the same; he’s lost the fight. It’s like we’ve lost. How do you put a price tag on that?”

Dealing with wolves it is a safety issue as well, Roberti adds. As producers stay up all night checking on and protecting their cattle. Fitzpatrick agrees, summarizing the stressful steps she takes to check cattle, noting she now avoids certain tasks due to the increased risks to herself and her dogs.

Documenting the events in Sierra County, Roen says he hopes their experiences can be used as a road map for others. He plans to share plans, forms and training materials with ranchers facing similar threats.

“We created different plans and trainings we will allow everybody to plagiarize,” he says.

Your Next Read:
Wolves Are Not Going Away: Ranchers Push for Practical Management Tools

The Cost of Coexistence With Wolves

States Sue EPA Over Clean Water Rule Delay

Tue, 17 Nov 2020 05:19:48 GMT

(Bloomberg) -- Ten states and a coalition of environmental groups sued the Trump administration for suspending a 2015 rule that was billed as a long-overdue update to the definition of lakes, rivers and wetlands designed to improve protection under the Clean Water Act of 1972.

The attorneys general from 10 states and the District of Columbia accused the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of violating federal law by delaying the Obama administration’s “Clean Water Rule” for another two years. The move was part of President Donald Trump’s promise to slash regulations.

“The Trump Administration’s suspension of the Clean Water Rule is clearly illegal, threatening New York’s decades-long efforts to ensure our residents have access to safe, healthy water,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is leading the coalition, said after filing suit Tuesday in Manhattan federal court.

The agencies allegedly acted without considering scientific evidence developed in support of the rule. The EPA, led by longtime agency critic Scott Pruitt, has often questioned scientific consensus on environmental matters, including the human causes of climate change.

Attorneys general from states including Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana had sued the Obama administration to stop the rule, saying it wrongly applied to lands far from traditionally “navigable waters.” The Supreme Court in January overturned rulings in those cases that barred the rule from taking effect. By then, however, the EPA had already pushed back the rule’s “applicability date” by two years under directives from Trump.

“These lawsuits are over an embattled regulation that’s been put on hold by the courts to prevent it from taking effect,” EPA spokeswoman Molly Block said. “Our delay rule will keep in place that status quo.”

Schneiderman was joined by attorneys general, all Democrats, from California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

©2018 Bloomberg L.P.

Oregon Organic Farm Submits Weed Control Plan Ahead of Court

Tue, 17 Nov 2020 03:41:14 GMT

An Oregon organic farm has submitted a weed management plan before the issue heads to county court.

The plan announced Wednesday by Azure Farms outlines actions to control noxious weeds. Neighboring farmers say the farm’s weeds are spreading to their ground, the Capital Press reported .

Azure’s plan includes looking at heavy fertilization and deep cultivation methods, spot use of Born, citrus pulp mulch, covering weeds with landscaping fabric, salt, mowing before seeds form and spraying calcium, manganese and Born before cultivation to control weeds.

Sherman County Court received 40,000 emails on the issue, Oregon officials said. The weeds coming from the 2,000-acre (8.1-sq. kilometer) organic operation in Moro put surrounding wheat farms at risks, the Oregon Wheat Growers League has said.

The county court had considered putting the farm on quarantine if it did not contain the weeds and spraying the weeds with herbicide and billing the farm for the work, if necessary.

County Commissioner Tom McCoy confirmed via email that he has gone over the plan with county weed control Supervisor Rod Asher.

“He is researching some of the measures, but believes the plan may be workable if Azure is really willing to implement it. So far, their follow-through has not been good,” McCoy wrote.

The league has called for a “prompt and rigorous review” of Azure’s plan.

“From our members on the ground, it’s become clear that even a casual observation of Azure’s property makes it clear that their noxious weed problem is severe and has been worsening for many years,” said CEO Blake Rowe and growers Bryan Cranston and Chris Moore in a prepared statement.”

Oregon: Jackson County Holds Off Enforcement of GMO Ban

Sun, 15 Nov 2020 21:26:22 GMT

Jackson County, Ore., won’t be enforcing the ban on genetically modified crops approved by voters last May until a lawsuit filed by alfalfa farmers is resolved.

The Mail Tribune reports an agreement to that effect has been filed in federal court in Medford, where farmers growing GMO alfalfa are challenging the ban, and demanding compensation if it is enforced.

The ban was to go into effect in June.

The ballot measure was put up by organic farmers fearful that genetically modified sugar beets grown for seed by the Swiss biotech giant Syngenta would contaminate genetically related organic crops, such as chard and beets.

It was not clear whether Syngenta has pulled up stakes. A spokesman for Syngenta did not return calls for comment about its status in Jackson County. And OSU Extension Service administrator Phil Van Buskirk says he is not aware of anyone now growing GMO sugar beets in Jackson County.

The alfalfa farmers argue in their lawsuit that the ban violates Oregon’s Right to Farm Act, and if they are forced to pull out their GMO alfalfa, the county should compensate them for the loss of $4.2 million.

The county has countered that the Legislature recognized the validity of the ban when it gave Jackson County an exception to a statewide prohibition on GMO laws. The county has also argued that the farmers assumed the risk of a potential ban when they planted alfalfa genetically modified to withstand weed killer.