The Hidden Costs of Wolf Conservation

‘Pay for presence’ aims to compensate ranchers for predator-related losses, but Western states might not be able to afford it

By Alix Soliman, High Country News

Hugh Venables / Cattle grazing

Every summer, rancher Richard Egan grazes about 400 cattle on private and Forest Service land in northeastern California. Since 2017, the rolling grasslands and pine forest have also been home to the Lassen Pack, which has produced nine litters of pups. In 2023, the state paid Egan $5,550 to compensate him for the loss of a cow and calf to the wolves, but he says there are other, less tangible costs of operating in their territory: The stress of living with predators, for example, can cause cows to put on less weight or give birth to fewer calves.

Two years ago, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife tested the “pay for presence” concept, which attempts to tally — and at least partially cover — these hidden costs. While most Western states offer compensation only after official inspections of slain cows determine wolves are responsible, the “P4P” approach pays ranchers simply for sharing the landscape with wolves. Supporters argue that it’s a fairer way to distribute the costs of wolf recovery.

Through the pilot P4P program, Egan received about $30,000, an amount he says was “in the realm” of the actual cost of living with wolves. “Pay for presence, on my landscape, is by far the most important because it’s just impossible to locate and find the direct kills,” he said, adding that searching an expansive rangeland like his is “fool’s play.”

Before the program ran out of cash last March, it awarded 27 grants totaling nearly $1 million to livestock producers in wolf zones. Though its future is uncertain, the concept of pay for presence has survived — and continues to evolve.

DATA ON THE INTANGIBLE EFFECTS of wolves on livestock is scarce: Lacking any California-based studies, the wildlife department used research from other states to set compensation amounts for the pilot program. Tina Saitone, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis, who served on a stakeholder advisory committee while the P4P pilot was being developed, is now studying the financial impact of wolf presence on California ranchers.

One of the eight herds in Saitone’s study belongs to Egan. Saitone’s team deployed about 120 game cameras across 850,000 acres to track wolves, then fitted more than 100 cows with GPS collars. She and her colleagues are comparing the results from ranches outside wolf zones, looking at variables like conception rates and cow and calf weights. They estimate stress levels by measuring the amount of cortisol, a hormone, in the animals’ hair samples.

Saitone will wrap up her fieldwork next year, but her observations have convinced her that the mere presence of wolves negatively affects cattle. While they cannot yet “quantify the dollar values,” she said, ranchers are losing money “in real life on the ground.”

FOR NOW, CALIFORNIA has resumed compensating ranchers only for confirmed livestock deaths. Some in Washington, however, are developing a different version of paying for presence.

The state’s Wolf Advisory Group, which includes livestock producers and wolf advocates, has proposed that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife pay ranchers based on a tiered risk assessment rather than just for confirmed losses. Ranchers who raise cattle in wolf territory but have not lost livestock would be in Tier 1; those with confirmed losses within the past three years would be in Tier 2; and those currently losing animals would be in Tier 3. Unlike participants in the California pilot, Washington ranchers would have to use non-lethal predator deterrents — fencing, guard dogs, or other measures — to qualify for initial payment.

“Very few people would actually fall in that higher expense, Tier 3, because not everybody who runs cattle is losing cattle to wolves,” said Amy Porter, director of conservation at Wolf Haven International and a member of the Wolf Advisory Group.

Pay for presence, said Porter, is one way wolf advocates can “contribute to absorbing” the costs of wolf recovery — though she doesn’t think it’s a complete solution.

Washington’s current budget for compensating ranchers is $50,000 per year. Based on the Wolf Advisory Group’s estimates, the state’s pay-for-presence program could cost as much as $5.5 million in the first year, if every eligible rancher applied. (New data on the cost of running cattle in wolf territory could change that estimate.)

“The Department does not have an adequate budget appropriation, staff capacity, or technical expertise needed to support and administer a P4P program,” Subhadeep Bhattacharjee, the wildlife department’s wolf and grizzly bear policy lead, wrote in an email to High Country News. Francisco Santiago-Ávila, science and advocacy director for Washington Wildlife First, said the program is unlikely to be sustainable, given the state’s large wolf population and “delicate budget situation.” Taxpayer dollars, he said, are better spent on non-lethal deterrents.

SOME RANCHERS IN WASHINGTON and elsewhere think that state officials should track more wolves so that they can more consistently notify ranchers when the animals are near cattle.

In Washington, 17 of the 43 state-managed packs include wolves with GPS collars, and ranchers can enter into agreements with the state to see wolf locations in their area. Since 2022, however, at least 20 Washington wolves have been illegally killed. Some fear that sharing wolf locations increases the danger of poaching.

“It’s probably not going to convince a rancher who lost cows or lambs to a wolf that it’s an all-positive step in terms of policy.”

California Department of Fish and Wildlife staffers often notify ranchers when wolves are nearby, usually via text, but only four of the state’s seven packs currently include collared animals. Axel Hunnicutt, the state’s gray wolf coordinator, said that because packs can split up and travel widely, notifications may not help — though the department plans to release an online tool that allows the public to see approximate wolf locations. “The reality is that wolves are not going away,” he said. “We can just keep paying people out forever, but ideally, we get to a place where perhaps we can decrease conflict in certain areas.” One possibility, he said, is to make non-lethal deterrents a prerequisite for payments, as the Washington proposal does. The effectiveness of deterrents, however, varies widely with their type and location.

Dan Macon, a livestock and natural resources advisor at the University of California’s Central Sierra Cooperative Extension, was an early supporter of the P4P concept, believing it would promote peaceful rancher-wolf coexistence. Though it can help spread the cost of wolf recovery, “it’s probably not going to convince a rancher who lost cows or lambs to a wolf” that compensation will solve the problem, he said.

Macon raises sheep, and that has made him realize that no compensation program can cover all costs. The genetic potential of animals bred over generations can’t be easily replaced, nor can the emotional impact of losing animals be easily measured. “I look at the flock of sheep that I’ve created over the last 20 years — it’s almost a body of work,” he said. “There’s this deep sense of connection with decisions we’ve made over the course of a lifetime.”

This story is part of High Country News’ Conservation Beyond Boundaries project, which is supported by the BAND Foundation.