Researchers from the university collected scat from “wolf pack territories of the Lassen (2022 and 2023) and Harvey (2023) Packs in the Northeastern region of California),” according to the study. Samples were opportunistically collected from roadways and game/livestock trails between June and October of 2022 and 2023, then DNA sequenced and analyzed to determine what animals contributed to their contents.
The analysis resulted in the successful identification of 20 wolves, consuming a diet consisting of 86 percent cattle in 2022 and 55 percent cattle in 2023. The research notes the 2022 data included exclusively scat from the Lassen Pack while the 2023 data included scat from both packs. The combined average beef content of both packs’ diets was 72 percent for the duration of the study.
The data analysis notes the study was relatively small in nature but deserves replication on a larger scale to further determine motivations for wolves feeding on cattle in California. Researchers suggest the overall lack of a wild ungulate population coupled with modern landscape has changed turned wolves toward the more opportunistic prey of range cattle. The report further adds California’s range cattle have a low mortality rate (1 percent for cows, 2 percent for calves) that escalates when wolf packs are present, suggesting the scat analysis is likely instances of depredation rather than scavenging livestock carcasses.
In 2016, when the Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California Part I was published, there were five goals established by the Stakeholder Working Group. Two of those goals were to “manage native ungulate populations in the State to provide abundant prey for wolves …” and to “manage wolf-livestock conflicts to minimize livestock losses.” The UC Davis study notes a continually diminishing ungulate population throughout the state. According to the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Annual Report 2025, there were 198 confirmed or probable cattle losses due to depredation last year versus just 54 in 2024.
The current conservation plan does not allow for hunting, trapping, or “caught in the act” protections for domestic livestock because gray wolves are considered an endangered species in California by the state and federal government. There needs to be a change in how wolves are managed in the state to allow the ranching community a respite from the ongoing attacks to their herds.
Policy changes when it comes to gray wolf management can often be a difficult subject. There are several updates to the current conservation plan that could make the increasing gray wolf population in the state easier to manage moving forward.
First, CDFW should update the current conservation plan with flexible population benchmarks. Under the current plan, the estimated carrying capacity for gray wolves in Northern California is 371.2. Most recent population counts estimate 90 wolves populate the state with most living in the northern third of California. If the estimated carrying capacity for Northern California were to be achieved, the region would experience more than a 300 percent increase in wolf population.
While there is no certainty depredations would increase by the same percentage as the number of wolves, once estimated carrying capacity was reached for the region, it is safe to assume depredations would increase, too. Most of California’s wolves reside in the northern region, and almost all the recorded 2025 depredations occurred there as well, the two are likely correlated. However, what that increase would look like in terms of cattle losses remains ambiguous.
Second, the state should develop a protocol for downlisting and, eventually, delisting gray wolves from its endangered species list. When endangered species protections were initially developed, they were not designed to create a status in perpetuity. The protections for endangered species were created “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” The federal ESA does not explicitly indicate a listing of plants or animals should last indefinitely. Similarly, the goal of conservation is protection, preservation, and management, not to hold plants and animals in an untouchable hostage status.
Finally, stakeholders should be reconvened to discuss coexistence. In states with predators protected by the state and/or federal government, the “shoot, shovel, and shut up” method of management is sometimes employed as a last resort to keep children, pets, and livestock safe. When people feel they have no options to provide safety for their loved ones, they can occasionally step outside the letter of the law. Rather than allowing the current situation to escalate that far, state officials have an opportunity to bring stakeholders together now and create solutions that honor the desires of everyone to keep rural communities whole while respecting the wishes of conservationists.
If the history of wolf migrations has taught us anything, it is that once these predators arrive, they rarely leave by choice. The best way to create meaningful movement toward sustainable management of a growing predator population is to keep lines of communication open and allow for every effected party to have a say in how wolves are managed into the future. The scat doesn’t lie; wolves are eating cattle and now is the time to figure out how to mitigate those losses before they get worse.
Pam Lewison is a fourth-generation farmer, Pacific Research Institute fellow, and ag research director for Washington Policy Center.