Shocking Study: Single Wolf Can Cause Six-Figure Harm to Ranching Operations

F

Foxpro.223

Well-known member
A groundbreaking study from the University of California Davis has revealed the staggering economic toll a single gray wolf can inflict on cattle operations.

Published Monday, the research quantifies the financial damage caused by wolves in California.

Researchers found that one gray wolf can cause between $69,000 and $162,000 in losses.
The study utilized advanced methods like motion-activated game cameras, GPS collars, wolf scat analysis, and cattle tail hair samples. These tools provided a clearer picture of wolf-cattle interactions.

“There’s not really any research in the state on the economic consequences of an apex predator interacting with livestock,” researcher Tina Saitone said.
This study now fills a critical gap in understanding these impacts.

Wolves, once thought to be extinct in California, have been expanding since 2011. By late 2024, seven wolf packs were documented, with evidence of wolves in four additional locations, per UC Davis.
Ranchers have long feared the return of wolves.

“There’s a lot of nervous ranchers,” Ken Tate, another lead researcher, reacted.
“This is such a sensitive issue for ranchers and landowners that it took pretty much every bit of my 30 years of network building to get us access to land and cattle for this study,” Tate added.

Saitone noted the scarcity of prior research, stating, “There’s a very limited amount of work on this topic.” This made their findings all the more significant for policymakers and ranchers.

The economic climate for farmers is already harsh with rising costs and market pressures. The damage a single wolf can inflict — potentially six figures — is staggering in this context.
“It is clear the scale of conflict between wolves and cattle is substantial, expanding and costly to ranchers in terms of animal welfare, animal performance and ranch profitability,” Saitone said. The stakes are high for those dependent on livestock.

Wolves often rely on cattle as a food source.
“This is not surprising given that cattle appear to be a major component of wolf diet and the calories drive their conservation success,” Saitone noted.

This research focused on California, but the implications extend to other wolf-populated regions. Ranchers nationwide face similar challenges as wolf conservation efforts expand.
The study doesn’t advocate for or against wolves but underscores the economic realities. Farmers are caught between conservation goals and their livelihoods.

For ranchers, the financial losses are tangible. A single wolf can disrupt entire operations, affecting not just profits but also animal welfare.

The data provided a starting point for mitigation strategies.

As The Hill noted, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife had already implemented one such strategy, launching a pilot program to compensate ranchers for losses, paying out $3.1 million in initial funding to affected ranchers.
Policymakers will likely take note of this study. Balancing wolf conservation with the needs of rural economies is a growing challenge.

The UC Davis study marks a step forward in understanding wolf impacts. It highlights the need for informed, practical solutions to very pricey problems.

As wolf populations continue to rise, the economic stakes for farmers will remain high. This research is a wake-up call for all stakeholders involved.
Click to expand...
www.westernjournal.com

Single Wolf Can Cause Over $150,000 in Losses to Ranching Operations: Study

Who knew that a single gray wolf, an apex predator, could actually cause this much damage for farming operations?
www.westernjournal.com www.westernjournal.com
 
Did I read that right that what I’m assuming is California’s Dept of Wildlife won’t or isn’t able to release any tracking data on the Alpha they collared? Things that make you go hmmmm…
It’s almost like they don’t like the data they recorded and don’t want to release it. Guess it wouldn’t fit their narrative that they “need” wolves.
 
There's no question that a single wolf, let alone multiple wolves, can cause a lot of monetary damage to a ranch. Not only by killing cattle, both calves and grown cows, but also in stressing cows to the point that they either don't breed or slough their calves. Either way, it's a loss!

And don't think that a single wolf can't kill a grown cow. There was a case in Idaho a couple of years ago, and one just up the mountain from our place where I actually was witness to the dead cow with the missing tongue, where the cow was bawling, mouth open wide, as she was trying to protect her calf, and the wolf tore her tongue out and she bled to death.
 
I often wonder if it's possible for the DNR of any state to leave well enough alone. :unsure: Quite often they listen to the almighty dollar and political influence....rather than sound reason and accountability. :rolleyes:

They keep bringing back predators that were there 50 or 100 years ago, while not realizing there was a reason for their removal and/or extinction. We have the DNA technology to bring back nearly anything. So, why not bring back the sabre-toothed tiger? :sneaky: If there was a good population of sabre-toothed tigers, the hunters would be happy to have a worthy predator to hunt and the "tree huggin' bunny lover" types would have a reason to not leave their house without a good rifle. :cool:
 
Last edited:
bowhunter57 said:
I often wonder if it's possible for the DNR of any state to leave well enough alone. :unsure: Quite often they listen to the almighty dollar and political influence....rather than sound reason and accountability. :rolleyes:

They keep bringing back predators that were there 50 or 100 years ago, while not realizing there was a reason for their removal and/or extinction. We have the DNA technology to bring back nearly anything. So, why not bring back the sabre-toothed tiger? :sneaky: If there was a good population of sabre-toothed tigers, the hunters would be happy to have a worthy predator to hunt and the "tree huggin' bunny lover" types would have a reason to not leave their house without a good rifle. :cool:
Click to expand...


We should never kill an animal to the point of extinction just for our wants/needs. God gave us power to rule over the beast, not wipe them off the face of the Earth. He gave us brains that are capable of thinking, making, designing, inventing, etc. If you don't want the wolves to eat your cattle, don't graze your cattle where the wolves live or use that powerful God given brain to come up with better fencing solutions. It can be done, but to us money is more important than killing off a predator.

The only thing that this shouldn't apply to is fire ants. They should burn in hell.
 
@DoubleLungRage
So where do we draw the line? Fire Ants only? :unsure: What about mosquitoes?

In Africa, the Hippopotamus kills more humans than Cape Buffalo, Lions and Crocodiles put together. :oops:

If a rancher has an established livestock ranch and then the DNR of that state decides to "introduce" grey wolves back into the environment, where does "the line" get drawn? Does it become the fault of the state, the wolves or the rancher? (This is a rhetorical question, because there's no end to the debate.) ;)

Near the Arctic Circle, the home range of the Polar Bear, the human residents there leave their vehicle doors unlocked. If you see a Polar Bear, you're best life saving act is to get inside a vehicle....the nearest vehicle. There have been no incidents of a Polar Bear breaking into a car to get a human. :) This is the best solution to coexisting with the Polar Bears, that they have.
 
The gray wolves weren't wiped off the face of the earth, but they were pretty much eradicated from the lower 48. What made USFWS or any state DNR think that an apex predator needed to be re-introduced into area that was free of them? There will always be those who want to save the Bambi's of the world. So, I'll give you a real life play by play here in NC.
It was claimed that a species called the Red Wolf once roamed the southeastern states. The Red wolf became the poster child of the Endangered Species Act way back in the late 60's or very early 70's. The claim was that a surviving remnant was still located along the coastal Texas and Louisiana border area. A professional trapper was hired to catch these Red Wolves to save them from encroachment by coyotes interbreeding with them.

About 400 of these red wolves were trapped, and the "Professionals" set about deciding which ones were "true" red wolves. So, they culled them down to 14 animals which became the "founders" of all current red wolves and euthanized the remainder. This was all done by the "Experts" selecting those which they believed matched the Phenotype of what a red wolf should look like. DNA analysis was not available at that time. They now set about to breed a surviving population of red wolves to save the endangered "poster child". This was in the early 80's, and low and behold the first litters produced what were obvious hybrids which also had to be euthanized.

Not to be denied this "poster child", they continued breeding from the "founders" until they got what they proclaimed as pure-bred red wolves. We're now at about 1986 and USFWS comes up with the bright idea to introduce the "red wolves" into northeast NC in the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and later a couple of adjacent refuges and a bombing range were added to the red wolf territory encompassing parts of 5 counties. The red wolves were supposed to have tracking collars and a device which allowed the USFWS to inject them remotely and knock them out for recovery or removal if they strayed off the Refuges. Well, apparently these super wolves couldn't read and didn't stay on the refuges very well. Then they found out the knock-out collars didn't work, but neglected to let the public know.

So here we are many millions of dollars later, and USFWS is still trying to have red wolves in these 5 counties. This location was selected because in the late 80's there were no coyotes in eastern NC, so interbreeding was not supposed to be a problem which was supposedly the whole reason for removing them in Texas and Louisiana. Well, low and behold once DNA analysis became available guess what it showed. The "founders" were 75% coyote and 24% gray wolf with a little domestic dog thrown in. Not to be deterred from a money-making situation, USFWS barrels on trying to save a red wolf that doesn't exist. The NGO's which support this nonsense make big money off the Bambi types and as soon as the F and W employees are able to retire they get lucrative jobs with the NGO's.

One final footnote, since the coyote has now overrun all 100 NC counties, one of the "bright Phd's" came up with the idea of sterilizing the coyotes so they couldn't breed with the fake wolves. Neither coyotes or fake wolves stay in one place and the whole foolishness of this process is typical of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. So no, I don't put much trust in re-introducing wolves anywhere.
 
Back
Top