California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California
Part I
December 2016Charlton H. Bonham, Director

Cover photograph by Gary Kramer
This document should be cited as:
Kovacs, K. E., K.E. Converse, M.C. Stopher, J.H. Hobbs, M.L. Sommer, P.J. Figura, D.A. Applebee, D.L.
Clifford, and D.J. Michaels. Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California. 2016. California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA 329 pp.

The preparers want to acknowledge Department of Fish and Wildlife staff who contributed to the preparationof this document. They include Steve Torres, Angela Donlan, and Kirsten Macintyre. Further, we appreciate
the agencies and staff from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Wildlife,and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their generous support in our efforts to prepare this document.
We are also indebted to our facilitation experts at Kearns and West, specifically Sam Magill.

Table of Contents – PART IINTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................2
Plan Development .......................................................................................................................................2
Plan Goals.....................................................................................................................................................4
Summary of Historical Distribution and Abundance of Wolves in California ......................................5
Legal Status ..................................................................................................................................................6
Federal Law ..............................................................................................................................................6
California Law ...........................................................................................................................................9KEY ISSUES FOR WOLF CONSERVATION ...........................................................................................13
Wolf-Livestock Interactions ......................................................................................................................13
Wolf-Ungulate Interactions .......................................................................................................................14
Wolf Predation on Native Ungulates in California .............................................................................14
Ungulate Population Thresholds .........................................................................................................15
Habitat Restoration and Improvement ................................................................................................15
Wolf Interactions with Other Wildlife Species ........................................................................................16
Wolves and Human Safety .......................................................................................................................17
Research Needs on Key Issues ..............................................................................................................17
STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE PLAN GOALS .............................................................................................18
IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................................................................21
Rationale for the Three Phase Strategy .................................................................................................23
Management Limitations...........................................................................................................................25
Legal Considerations.............................................................................................................................25
Scientific information .............................................................................................................................25
Funding ....................................................................................................................................................26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The presence of wolves where they occur in the northern hemisphere is a testament to theiradaptability, a sign of nature’s wonder by some, and often a source of controversy. Recent
expansion of gray wolf populations to Washington and Oregon (and now dispersing wolves to
California) have been accompanied by public debate regarding this species’ role in the contiguousUnited States where the species previously existed, and the consequences of the species’ return
to a much different landscape nearly 100 years after extirpation.
With this background and in anticipation of this species’ return to the state, the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) began a planning process for gray wolves’ conservationand management. This planning effort addresses important concerns that arrive with the presenceof wolves, including conflicts with livestock and the maintenance of adequate prey sources forwolves, other predators, and public use. Lastly, given the controversy associated with this species,
it was very important that the planning process produce a source of clear, objective information,
based on a thorough consideration of the available science most relevant for wolves in California
CDFW established a Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) to provide recommendations for thisplanning process. Members were composed of diverse organizations/interest groups with large
constituencies in California covering agricultural, conservation, environmental, and hunting
interests. CDFW provided an administrative draft Plan to members of the SWG in early December
2014. An administrative draft of this document was also reviewed by a panel of peer reviewers withexpertise and experience in resource management in California, and expertise in wolf, wild
ungulate, and livestock biology/management. Recommendations and comments from these
entities were carefully reviewed and considered, resulting in a Draft Conservation Plan for Gray
Wolves in California (hereafter Plan) which was released for public review in December 2015. Prior
to completing and adopting this final Plan, CDFW reviewed and considered additional comments
and recommendations received during public review. The Plan consists of two parts; Part I
contains brief summaries of the development of the Plan, key issues, goals, objectives, andstrategies to achieve Plan goals. Part II contains detailed background on all other aspects of wolf
conservation. These two parts include the information, although formatted and organized in adifferent manner, from earlier drafts.
This Plan deals with many of the issues raised by the general public, the SWG, and the mission
and authority of CDFW. In sum, this Plan covers key issues and potential actions CDFW believes
important to the understanding and future conservation of wolves.
Lastly, the Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California is designed in an anticipatory fashion todescribe many possible options the Department and others may use and adapt as we learn andunderstand how wolves will inhabit and use the wild landscapes in California. Until CDFW knows
more specifically about wolves in California, it would be speculative to identify exactly whichconservation and management measures will be most beneficial.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 1INTRODUCTION
Plan Development
The gray wolf historically inhabited California and there exist some accounts of theiroccurrence during the 1800s. In 1924, the last known wolf in California was killed in
Lassen County. CDFW began to prepare for the possibility of gray wolves coming into
California early in 2011 by monitoring the news of their recent expansion in Oregon andWashington and increased numbers throughout the west. It appeared reasonable toanticipate that wolves would eventually come into California given the species ability todisperse. Since 1924, no other wolves were confirmed in California until December 28,
2011 when a wolf entered California from Oregon. This dispersing male wolf waspreviously radio-collared (identified as OR7) by the Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife (ODFW) with a global positioning system (GPS) device, which allowed satellite
tracking of his locations.
The presence of a wolf in California generated a high level of public interest with major
stakeholders (representing agricultural, conservation, environmental, and hunting
interests) calling for CDFW to be prepared and have a plan in place for wolf conservationand management. CDFW initiated work by securing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) Section 6 grant to fund the development of a gray wolf plan and beganorganizing major stakeholders into a planning effort that contributed significantly to thisdocument. The two parts of this document are the result of that effort.
Subsequent to OR7 returning to Oregon and establishing a wolf pack (now known as theRogue Pack), and subsequent to plan development, remote camera images (between
August 2014 and May 2015) of what appeared to be wolves were recorded in northern
California. However, confirming DNA evidence was not available at that time. In lateAugust 2015, additional trail camera images documented five wolf pups and two adults in
Siskiyou County. DNA material found near the site confirmed at least six individual wolves;
two adults and four pups of the group1. CDFW designated this group of wolves as the“Shasta Pack” on August 20, 2015.
In November 2016, a pair of wolves (male and female) was confirmed though DNA
evidence in Lassen County. The male of this pair is the offspring of the Rogue Pack, while
the origin of the female is currently unknown.
The Plan development process began after reviewing similar planning efforts in otherwestern states. The Oregon and Washington wolf conservation and management plans
were considered most relevant to the California effort and were developed more recently
than those in other western states. CDFW met with stakeholders in early 2012 tocommence development of a plan to conserve and manage wolves. After contacting a1

Subsequent analysis of DNA material collected in 2016 confirmed the identification of a fifth pup.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 2

broad range of interested organizations, the following stakeholder organizations wereinvited to participate in developing the plan:




















Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers from Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, andTehama counties
California Cattlemen’s Association
California Deer Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Houndsmen for Conservation
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California Wolf Center
California Wool Growers Association
Center for Biological Diversity
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Species Coalition
Humane Society of the United States
Mule Deer Foundation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Sierra ClubThe Nature Conservancy
The Wildlife Society
University of California Cooperative Extension

A formal Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) was established by CDFW and the firstmeeting was held on February 5, 2013 (Part II). Initially the SWG discussed ground rules
and planning and operating principles for the effort to develop the Plan. CDFW establishedsideboards for the planning effort, and proposed goals for the Plan, which were, and havebeen, subsequently modified through dialogue with SWG members. Sideboards included:1.

As populations of gray wolves continue to expand within the Pacific Northwest, thepotential for additional gray wolves to enter California will increase. This planning
effort will include a number of alternatives that address gray wolves within the Stateand because of this potential the option of planning for a future with no wolves in
California is not an alternative in this Plan.

2.

The CDFW will not reintroduce wolves from another State or country into California,
or introduce wolves in any way (e.g., from a captive bred California population).

3.

As a result of human influences and the subsequent changes in the California
landscape, there is not sufficient habitat for wolves to be restored to their entire

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 3

historical range.2 Consequently, the option of planning for a future with wolves
distributed throughout the species historical range or abundance in California is not
an alternative in this Plan.

Plan Goals
The following goals were developed through the SWG process:If, and when, wolves establish in California, seek to conserve biologicallysustainable populations of wolves in the State.

Manage the distribution of wolves within the State where there is adequate habitat,
consistent with the sideboards identified above.

Manage native ungulate populations in the State to provide abundant prey forwolves and other predators, intrinsic enjoyment by the public, and hunting
opportunities for hunters.

Manage wolf-livestock conflicts to minimize livestock losses.

Communicate to the public that natural dispersal of wolves into and throughCalifornia is reasonably foreseeable given the expanding populations in the PacificNorthwest. Inform the public with science-based information on gray wolves and theconservation and management needs for wolves in California, as well as the effectsof having wolves in the State.

As part of the Plan development process, the full SWG met on 12 occasions. The SWG
also formed the following five subgroups:







Operating principles (met one time)
Conservation objectives (met nine times)
Wolf-livestock interactions (met 13 times)(Conservation objectives and Wolf-livestock interactions subgroups met jointly twotimes in addition to above totals)
Wolf-ungulate interactions (met six times)
Funding (met one time)

CDFW asked these subgroups to explore the available information in these subject areas
and assist in developing recommendations for inclusion in the Plan to address the issues.
Although CDFW was clear that it is responsible for the content of the final Plan, the SWG
2While some references have been compiled on what may have been historical range for wolves in
California, they are based on scant verifiable information.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 4was provided with opportunities to make substantive contributions for CDFW to consider.
In particular, CDFW assured the SWG that any recommendations on conservation
objectives or management strategies that attained consensus by the full SWG would
receive priority consideration by CDFW. Consensus was defined to mean that all parties
supported, or could live with, the particular objective or strategy. The complete Operating
Principles for the SWG are located in Part II.
Throughout Plan development, the subgroups engaged in joint fact-finding, reviewed draftsof management strategies, and assisted development of the Plan. Subgroups and the full
SWG reviewed multiple versions of most Plan content and contributed to its development.
CDFW provided the first comprehensive draft to the full SWG in early December 2014.
Subsequently, an administrative draft was reviewed by a panel of peer reviewers andrevised accordingly. The Draft Plan was then made available for public review from
December 2, 2015 through February 15, 2016. A summary of submitted public comments
is contained in Part II, Appendix H. These comments and recommendations wereconsidered and resulted in the finalization of the Plan.
Available information on historical distribution, abundance, and ecology of wolves in
California is limited and the California landscape is much different than it was when wolves
historically inhabited the state. Given the limited availability of California-specific data
regarding the consequences of wolves becoming established in the state, this Plan reliesin part, on information from other locations, while recognizing there may be uncertain or
limited application to current and future conditions in California. Therefore, the information
included in this Plan should be viewed as preliminary and subject to revision as more data
specific to California are obtained. In developing this Plan, CDFW amassed a large volumeof the existing literature on wolves, background on ecological/biological and humaninteractions with wolves, and the relevant information to California’s wolf history. Becauseof its volume, CDFW restructured the Plan to this final format to more efficiently identify
conservation actions (Part I) and separate them from supporting information (Part II).

Summary of Historical Distribution and Abundance of Wolves in California
The available information on wolves in California is largely anecdotal and indicates thatwolves occurred in the state; however an accurate representation of their historical
distribution and abundance cannot be determined. Some of the anecdotal observations
were ambiguous as to whether the observer was reporting a wolf or a coyote, and physicalspecimens were few in number. Most California native peoples had a word for wolf in their
vocabularies, as well as for coyote and dog, and some incorporated wolves into theirstories and rituals. This information is consistent with the acknowledgement that wolves
occurred in the state. Additional discussion on this topic can be found in Part II.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 5Legal Status
Federal Law

Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or regional populations of subspecies in
the contiguous United States and Mexico under the U.S. List of Endangered Fish andWildlife of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In the Great Lakes region C. l.
lycaon was listed in 1967, in the northern Rocky Mountains C. l. irremotus was added to
the List in 1973, and in the southwest the Mexican gray wolf subspecies C. l. baileyi wasadded in 1976. In 1978 subspecies listing was removed, and the gray wolf was listed as anendangered population at the species level throughout its range in the contiguous UnitedStates and Mexico, except Minnesota where it was listed as threatened. Between 2003
and 2009, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published several rules in
an attempt to revise the 1978 listing for C. lupus in the contiguous United States and
Mexico to reflect the biological recovery of gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains
and western Great Lakes regions, while continuing to recognize the endangered status of
wolves in the southwestern U.S. and Mexico (except for the nonessential experimental
population in Arizona and New Mexico).
In 2013, the USFWS concluded a five-year review of the C. lupus listed entity, which
included an evaluation of the status of gray wolves currently occupying portions of the
Pacific Northwest, including Washington and Oregon, and the southwest, including
Arizona. In 2013, USFWS published the results of their review in the Federal Register,
titled “Removing the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, andMaintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf by Listing it as Endangered.” Their proposed
rule included removing the current C. lupus listed entity because, based on their review, it
was not a “species” as defined by ESA. Instead, their conclusion was that wolves
occupying the historical range of the gray wolf subspecies, C. l. nubilis (“plains” wolf), arewidespread and exist as large, stable populations. For the subspecies C. l. occidentalis(northern timber wolf), USFWS concluded that threats that historically led to severe range
contractions will not lead to further contractions, and the subspecies’ range is now stableor expanding. As a consequence those subspecies are not in danger of extinction
throughout their ranges, and therefore do not meet the definition of an endangered
species. The 2013 proposed rule further concluded that the Mexican wolf subspecies, C. l.
baileyi, based on the best scientific information available, is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range and therefore warrants listing as endangered under ESA. At thetime of this writing, USFWS has concluded their review of the 1.6 million comments theyreceived in response to their proposed rule but have yet to issue a decision.
Under ESA it is unlawful to “take” any listed wildlife unless authorized by regulation or
permit (50 CFR 17.21). The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, capture, collect or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harass isfurther defined as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihoodof injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 6

behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering”(50 CFR 17.3).
Northern Rocky Mountains
The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan was completed in 1980 and revised in
1987. In that document, “northern Rocky Mountain wolf” refers to gray wolves occurring in
the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the contiguous United States, rather than to a
specific subspecies. Therefore Washington, Oregon, and California were not included inthat plan. The primary objective of the plan was “[t]o remove the Northern Rocky Mountainwolf from the endangered and threatened species list by securing and maintaining aminimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves3 in each of three recovery areas for a minimum of
three successive years.” A population of this size would be comprised of approximately
300 animals. The three recovery areas specified were the Greater Yellowstone Area,
central Idaho, and northwestern Montana. The plan recommended natural recovery innorthwest Montana, and central Idaho. Further, it recommended the use of ESA’s section
10(j) authority to establish a nonessential experimental population of wolves in
Yellowstone National Park. For northwest Montana and central Idaho it established athreshold for “satisfactory progress” of two breeding pairs within five years of plan
approval. If not met, the plan states that “other conservation strategies will be identified
and implemented”.
In 1994, NRM recovery goals were modified within The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves toYellowstone National Park and Central Idaho Environmental Impact Statement. This
document represented a proposal to establish an experimental population rule that would
allow management of wolves by government agencies and the public to minimize conflicts
on public lands, effects on livestock, and impacts on native ungulate populations. The Final
Rule for the reintroduction was published in November 1994, and in 1995-1996, 66 wolves
were captured in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada; of these, 35 were released into
central Idaho and 31 were released into Yellowstone National Park. These populations
expanded during the ensuing years such that by 2002, recovery goals in the NRM werefirst met. In 2011 the USFWS published a Final Rule that identified the NRM Distinct
Population Segment4 (NRM DPS) and removed gray wolves in the DPS from theendangered species list except in Wyoming. That Rule was overturned in court; however
Congress, using a rider to a Defense and Budget bill, instructed the USFWS to re-issue it.
Wyoming wolves were removed from the list in 2012, but a court decision in 2014
reinstated the endangered species status. In addition to the growing wolf populations in
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, wolves were expanding their range into eastern
Washington and Oregon. These populations were included in the 2011 delisting of the3

For the 1987 plan, a breeding pair was defined as “Two wolves of the opposite sex and adequate age,capable of producing offspring”.
4

A DPS (Distinct Population Segment) is a discrete subgroup that is the smallest division of a species
permitted for protection under the federal ESA. The NRM DPS is a DPS of the gray wolf that occurs
throughout the states of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, the eastern one-third of the states of Washington andOregon, and a small part of north-central Utah.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 7

NRM DPS. As a result, wolves in the western two-thirds of Oregon and Washington (aswell as throughout California) continue to remain federally endangered pending the
USFWS’s decision on its 2013 Proposed Rule as discussed above.
Southwestern United States and Mexico
The Mexican wolf is believed to be the rarest and most genetically distinct subspecies ofgray wolf in North America. As previously mentioned, this population was added to theendangered species list in 1976. Between 1977 and 1982, the USFWS and the Mexican
Department of Wildlife initiated a bi-national captive breeding program, the purpose ofwhich was to provide animals for future reintroduction into the wild. This effort was deemednecessary due to the lack of a viable free-ranging source population for reintroduction as
was available for the other recovery areas in the U.S. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan
was approved by the USFWS in 1982 and is currently being revised. Recovery goals were
not established in the Recovery Plan due to the uncertainty of the captive breeding
program’s outcomes, and the potential that delisting the subspecies may never bepossible. The primary objective of the Recovery Plan is “To conserve and ensure thesurvival of Canis lupus baileyi by maintaining a captive breeding program and reestablishing a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican wolves in the
middle to high elevations of a 5,000-square mile area within the Mexican wolf’s historicrange.”
Through the 1980s the Mexican wolf captive breeding program proved to be increasingly
successful. Consequently, the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Reintroduction of
the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States wascompleted in 1996, and the USFWS published its Final Rule in 1998 establishing anonessential experimental population in Arizona and New Mexico. In 1998, 11 captivereared Mexican wolves were released into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. The
population has expanded slowly relative to the reintroduced population in the NRM. In
January 2015, the USFWS finalized their proposed rule to revise the Mexican Wolf
Experimental Population. The revised rule lists the Mexican wolf as an endangered
subspecies, rather than being listed under the full gray wolf species (C. lupus)
Federal Status in California
As a result of the sequence of actions described above, the current gray wolf listed entity
includes all or portions of 42 states. Wolves occurring in eastern Washington and Oregon
are considered to be within the delisted NRM DPS. However, the entirety of California is
included among the 42 states in which the gray wolf is still federally listed, and any wolves
dispersing into northern California from Oregon are protected as federally endangered
under ESA. Similarly, any wolves dispersing into Southern California from the Mexican
Wolf Experimental Population Area in Arizona are also protected as endangered under
ESA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 8On June 13, 2013, the USFWS proposed to remove the gray wolf from the federal list ofendangered and threatened species but to maintain endangered status for the Mexican
wolf by listing it as a subspecies (C.l. baileyi). This action may result in gray wolves in
California being removed from federal protection under the ESA. Neither the timeframe fora decision on this matter by the USFWS, nor the nature of the decision, is known at thistime.
CDFW has a cooperative agreement with the USFWS, under Section 6 of the ESA. This
provides CDFW authority to manage for the conservation of federally endangered or
threatened species, including wolves, within California. However, the agreement does not
authorize lethal take of endangered species. If the wolf is down-listed to threatened status,
CDFW may have greater latitude for management of the species. If wolves are removed
from the federal list of threatened and endangered species, management authority willrevert entirely to the state. There are no federally mandated population goals for gray wolf
recovery in California at this time.
California Law
The California Endangered Species Act

The Fish and Game Commission (Commission) listed the gray wolf as an endangered
species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) on June 4, 2014. (The
California Endangered Species Act, including related definitions and other relevant
statutory provisions are included in Appendix F in Part II for reference.)
Once a species is listed, CESA provides that,“No person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or
take, possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any
part or product thereof…, or attempt any of those acts, except asotherwise provided in this chapter…” (Fish and G. Code, § 2080.)

CESA further provides that it is “the policy of this state that all state agencies, boards, andcommissions shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall
utilize their authority in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter.” (Fish and G. Code, §2055.).
CESA does not provide for preparation of recovery strategies, other than for one aquatic
species hence this document is not a “recovery plan”. While this Plan does contain someof the same elements that federal recovery plans contain, for reasons explained in thissection and elsewhere in the Plan, CDFW does not believe existing information is yet
sufficient to articulate what a “conserved” condition for gray wolves means in California.
CDFW does not assume that wolves will inevitably occupy all habitats that appear suitable,
or eventually achieve a population status that will warrant delisting under CESA. The

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 9available scientific information is not yet sufficient to predict with confidence where wolves
will inhabit California, or how many wolves that habitat will support over the long-term.
Take under CESA

One specific implication of listing under CESA is that “take” of a wolf is prohibited, except
in a few limited circumstances (See e.g. Fish and G. Code, §§ 2081and 2835.). “Take,” asdefined in Fish and Game Code section 86, means to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill,or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” CDFW may issue a permit to authorize
take of listed species that would otherwise be prohibited if it is for a scientific, educationalor management purpose. (See Fish and G. Code § 2081(a).). CDFW may also issue apermit for take that is “incidental” to an otherwise lawful activity, where impacts areminimized and fully mitigated and adequate funding is ensured. (See Fish and G. Code §2081(b).) Similarly, CDFW may issue permits for take of species that are “conserved andmanaged” as part of large scale Natural Community Conservation Planning efforts
pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2835. In no event can CDFW issue a take permit
under these programs if the proposed activity will jeopardize the continued existence of thelisted species. (See Fish and G. Code § 2081(c)).
Other Fish and Game Commission Authority

The Legislature has delegated to the Commission a variety of powers within California
statutes that comprise the Fish and Game Code. The Commission has a wide range of
responsibilities and promulgates regulations that are included within Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations. Some of these responsibilities include for example; theregulation of fish and wildlife (designated as game, nongame, etc.), designation andregulation of protected lands/waters, regulations governing the seasons and methods ofharvest through sport hunting, sport and commercial fishing, regulations governing
restricted species, wild animal care, falconry and aquaculture registration.
Under Fish and Code section 4150, gray wolf by definition is considered a “nongame”
mammal;“All mammals occurring naturally in California which are not gamemammals, fully protected mammals, or fur-bearing mammals, arenongame mammals. Nongame mammals or parts thereof may not betaken or possessed except as provided in this code or in accordancewith regulations adopted by the commission.”

At the time OR7 arrived in California in December 2011, gray wolf was considered anongame mammal and could not be legally taken.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 10Department of Fish and Wildlife

The CDFW is charged with implementing and enforcing the regulations set by theCommission, as well as providing biological data and expertise to inform the Commission’s
decision making process.
As the designated State government entity with trustee responsibility for fish and wildlife
resources, CDFW has adopted a mission statement as follows:“The Mission of the Department of Fish and Wildlife is to
manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources,
and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecologicalvalues and for their use and enjoyment by the public.”
This broad direction for CDFW is further guided by particular statutes in the Fish andGame Code. CDFW’s two-pronged mission that requires management of resources forboth ecological values, as well as for use and enjoyment by the public, reflects legislative
guidance found in numerous places in the Fish and Game Code (See e.g., Fish and G.
Code, §§ 1801 and 1802.). Wolves present a challenge to CDFW, as trustee for all wildlife,to accomplish the various policy objectives in the Fish and Game Code. In particular, therelationship between wolves as predators and their ungulate prey will be controversial.
CDFW is charged with conserving wolves in California, and also managing for biologicallysustainable populations of other wildlife species, including ungulates such as elk and deer.
In particular, Fish and G. Code § 450 which reflects legislative policy to “encourage theconservation, restoration, maintenance, and utilization of California’s wild deer
populations.” including Commission policy consistent with this direction. Further,Commission policy for elk is stated to, “Maintain elk herds for scientific, educational anddiversified recreational uses.” In the context of this Plan, management related to wolves isregarded as managing the species habitat for conservation, and managing wolves andtheir prey (specifically deer and elk) to successfully conserve both.
CDFW recognizes there may be challenges in managing and sustaining, small populationsof elk in ranges where wolves may become resident. Further, there is a reasonable
concern over predictable depredation of domestic animals, primarily livestock, by wolves
as the population expands5.
The direction contained in the Fish and Game Code to manage for “biologically sustainable
populations” is a key consideration in developing this plan. CDFW anticipates that wolves
will become re-established in California. Wolves are highly mobile and capable ofemigrating from other western states, most likely from Oregon, and finding suitable habitat

5

In December 2015, the Shasta Pack was involved in a “probable” livestock depredation event.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 11where it exists in California. Colonizing animals have and will establish packs6 andreproduce. Although some pups may not survive their first year particularly from first time
breeders, subadult animals will disperse from their natal packs to search for mates andestablish new packs. At this time, CDFW cannot predict how large a wolf population
California will support. Although some wolves are now present, the future for these
individuals is unknown. CDFW can learn from the wolf re-establishment experiences inother western states and design a plan that adapts its wolf conservation over time; andrelies on the best available scientific information as it becomes available.
Future Review of Gray Wolf Status

Fish and Game Code section 2077 requires CDFW to “review species listed as anendangered species or as a threatened species every five years to determine if theconditions that led to the original listing are still present”. (While the FGC voted to list thegray wolf as state endangered in June 2014, the process for formal listing becomes
effective in January 2017.) Based on the above, this review is scheduled to occur in mid2022.
Under CESA, a species may be delisted as endangered or threatened if the Commission
determines that its continued existence is no longer threatened by any one or combinationof the following factors:







Present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat
Overexploitation
Predation
Competition
DiseaseOther natural occurrences or human related activities

Although other western states’ wolf plans proposed demographic criteria to trigger thecommencement of delisting from state or federal endangered species laws, CDFW is notproposing delisting criteria at this time. As previously stated, existing information is not
yet sufficient to articulate what a “conserved”, condition for gray wolves means in
California. Sufficient information to support development of delisting criteria may beavailable near the end of Phase 2, or in Phase 3, as described in later sections of the Plan(see Implementation, Part I, and Appendix G, Part II). At that time, relevant data on thepace of wolf establishment, population growth, distribution, and mortality will be available
and useful for determining whether the provisions of CESA remain necessary, or to project
the conditions under which they will remain necessary in the future. It is possible that
CESA’s protections may be necessary for quite a long time to maintain what may be asmall future population of wolves in California.
6

For purposes of this Plan, a wolf pack is defined as two or more wolves traveling together and using adefinable area. A breeding pair is defined as at least one adult female and at least one adult male and at
least two pups that survive until December 31.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 12CDFW’s mandate is to manage this species with the goal of bringing wolves to a point
where listing under CESA is no longer warranted. However, there is uncertainty about the
future distribution and abundance of wolves in California. The landscape has changed
significantly since wolves last inhabited this state. In 1920, shortly before wolves wereextirpated in California, the human population was 3.4 million. Currently the population isabout 38 million. Related human-generated development and activity has decreased
habitat suitability for most wildlife species, and this trend is likely to continue.

KEY ISSUES FOR WOLF CONSERVATION
A succesful conservation effort for wolves in California requires a focus on a number of key
conservation issues. The SWG meetings and CDFW’s plan development reflected thisreality. First and foremost, large landscapes of suitable and non-fragmented habitat
capable of supporting wolves and their primary prey are needed. This priority is notdissimilar from the habitat needs of hundreds of California wildlife species and is a basic
tenet in any species conservation plan. CDFW, other public agencies, and private
landowners will now need to consider potential effects on the gray wolf from proposed land
management activities. In addition to this fundamental conservation issue, the CDFW and
SWG identified four key issues that are considered most significant for the future of wolf
conservation: 1) wolf-livestock interactions; 2) wolf-ungulate interactions; 3) wolfinteractions with other wildlife; and, 4) wolves and human safety concerns. These four
issues are addressed below and conclude with a statement of future research needs.

Wolf-Livestock Interactions
Potential Effects of Wolves on Livestock and Herding/Guard Dogs

CDFW and the SWG thoroughly analyzed the potential impacts of wolves on livestock(Part II). Wolf interactions with livestock are considered to be most likely in the Cascade
Range and Modoc Plateau areas. Should wolves establish in the Klamath Mountains area,
they may be less likely to interact with and adversely affect livestock because the range is
generally steeper topography and more densely timbered than much of the Cascade
Range and the Modoc Plateau, and at the landscape level, the range is not as productive
for livestock. Consequently, beef cattle and sheep densities are higher in the Cascade
Range and Modoc Plateau than the Klamath Mountains (Part II).
Although livestock losses from wolves in California are expected to occur on large ranches
and public land grazing allotments, wolf-related losses may also occur on smaller parcels
in rural-residential areas. Many Californians reside in such areas, often located on deer
winter ranges and/or adjacent to public land or private forest and range lands. In addition
to cattle and sheep, livestock may include horses, goats, llamas, and donkeys, anddepredation by coyotes, mountain lions, and black bears is not uncommon.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 13

Wolves have killed domestic dogs used for livestock protection, particularly those guarding
sheep from predators in remote locations. Herding dogs face similar risks, although they
are often working with a herder, who may serve as a deterrent to wolves attacking dogs.
Success of livestock protection dogs has varied when employed for protection against
wolves. There is ongoing research to determine if some larger European dog breeds may
be more effective than more commonly used breeds in the western United States. Basedon information from the western states, wolf depredation on dogs is anticipated to be arare occurrence in California. Working dogs associated with livestock appear to be more
effective and less at risk from wolves when an adequate number of dogs per herd arepresent, and with the presence of trained herders. However, this higher vigilance would
result in increased costs to livestock producers. Working dogs and trained herders may be
more effective for protecting sheep flocks than protecting cattle.
Attempts to predict the effects of wolves on California livestock and dogs are compromisedby variations in site specific circumstances. For example, it is difficult to predict how often
wolves might interact with livestock, the livestock husbandry practices that may be used incertain areas, the ratio of detected vs. non-detected mortalities by area, and theeffectiveness of livestock protection measures employed by both livestock producers andwildlife managers.

Wolf-Ungulate Interactions
Wolf Predation on Native Ungulates in California

Under the larger umbrella of CDFW mission statement, the Wildlife Program has adopted
the following mission statement particularly for wildlife species designated as “big game”
by the Commission. This statement reads;“The mission of the Department’s Wildlife Programs is to plan andimplement management programs to maintain wildlife resources
and public uses of those resources. “To accomplish this mission, the legislature has created dedicated accounts for a variety ofhunted species, including those defined as big-game. Fish and G. Code § 3953 (BigGame Management Account) requires these funds to be solely expended to acquire lands,
complete projects, and implement programs to benefit antelope, elk, deer, wild pigs, bear,and sheep, and expand related public hunting opportunities and related public outreach.
By default, these efforts lend further support for wolf conservation through the activities by
CDFW to conserve, restore, and maintain ungulate populations.
The best available scientific information suggests that, generally, wolves preferentially preyon elk populations when present, and secondarily on deer. Because of this, and the small,but growing populations of elk in northern California, and depressed deer populations
since the 1970s, there is concern that wolves could significantly affect prey populations.
Significant effort, funding, and time has been expended to enhance and re-establish both
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 14

elk and deer populations in California in recent decades. These efforts have been fundedthrough sales of hunting licenses and tag fees, and cost-sharing with landowner and nongovernment organizations.
Prey selection by wolves in California will most likely consist of Roosevelt elk and blacktailed deer in the northwestern part of the state, and of Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer
in northeastern California (Part II). Predation on pronghorn antelope is not anticipated tobe significant and predation on bighorn sheep will not likely occur because of the distanceto most Sierra Nevada bighorn populations. An exception is a small herd of bighorn sheep
which was recently relocated by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to southern
Oregon in 2014.Some of these animals are using portions of northern Siskiyou County.
Non-native feral animals such as wild horses and burros could be preyed upon by wolves
in northeastern California. There is concern that wolf predation has the potential tosignificantly impact and possibly extirpate local populations of prey. CDFW assessed theavailable information regarding wolf predation rates on ungulates in the west to provide
some predictive measure of this interaction for California (Part II).
In California, elk distribution is patchy throughout their range, with large areas ofunoccupied suitable habitat. This includes the small groups or subpopulations of Rocky
Mountain and Roosevelt elk that have become established since the 1980s and have beenslowly increasing and expanding within their historical range. Tule elk, which occur further
south, could become vulnerable to predation due to their small scattered herds if wolves
were to move significantly further south and inhabit tule elk range.
Ungulate Population Thresholds

Compared to other western states, California has far fewer numbers of elk. Combined with
their patchy distribution and the long-term declining trend in the deer population, there isconcern about the anticipated impact from wolves due to possible elk population declines,
and resulting decreased prey availability for wolves. CDFW and the SWG identified an
initial set of thresholds which when met, will initiate a management response to the extent
that management actions are available (Part II). CDFW will monitor ungulate populations
that are considered most susceptible to impacts from wolf predation. If CDFW detects anegative impact on elk or deer numbers within a population unit, focused discussions ofcauses and feasible solutions to reduce the impact will be needed. Options will include
improving habitat conditions and managing specific causes of ungulate, especially elk,
mortality as previously discussed.
Habitat Restoration and Improvement

Successful conservation of the gray wolf in California will require conservation andmanagement of their prey, which in turn, are reliant on high quality early successional
habitats. Healthy and abundant prey populations are important for maintaining public use
and enjoyment opportunities. A challenge for California will be to maintain or improve
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 15

ungulate populations capable of supporting large carnivores by increasing habitat quality
on forest and rangelands that are private land or are administered as public land by federal
land management agencies.
Ungulate populations require adequate habitat to meet their year-round requirements.
Deer and elk are generally most abundant in early successional forests and oak
woodlands seasonally, but these habitat types have declined in many areas of California
due to fire suppression, reduced timber harvest (see Part II), land conversion to otherintensive agriculture and development, and other causes. CDFW’s deer and elk programs
continue to work with other public land agencies, private landowners, non-governmentalorganizations, and tribal governments to cooperatively manage habitats for the benefit andenhancement of ungulates. These efforts include management actions to maintain,
restore, and improve forage and water quantity and quality, enhance key habitats such as
mountain meadow and aspen communities, maintaining oak woodlands, and protecting
important wildlands through landowner agreements (e.g., Private Lands Management
Program (PLM)). The greatest landscape-scale opportunities to improve habitat andpopulations for ungulates, and consequently wolves, will occur on significant acreages oflands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (see Part
II).

Wolf Interactions with Other Wildlife Species
When wolves become established in California, their populations will potentially affectspecies other than their primary prey (elk and deer), or wolf populations may be affectedby competitors (e.g., mountain lions, coyotes or black bears). CDFW evaluatedinteractions of wolves with other wildlife (Part II) and determined it is desirable to improve
our understanding of the baseline conditions and relative abundances of other carnivores
that wolves are considered most likely to interact with or affect. These species aremountain lion, black bear, and coyote which are considered to be common or abundantspecies in California. While CDFW does not have population or density data on these
species (with the exception of black bear population estimates) there is not, at this time, ananticipated effect of wolves on any of them that will require a need for management
intervention.
Monitoring of wildlife communities (with an emphasis on areas with special status species)
is needed in areas occupied by wolf populations to determine potential direct and/or
indirect effects on species population trends, habitat conditions, and potential changes in
predator communities. CDFW will assess, on a case by case basis, effects on declining or
vulnerable species should wolves expand to areas of the state occupied by these species.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 16

Wolves and Human Safety
Wolves generally fear people and rarely pose a threat to human safety. Consequently,
attacks on humans by wolves are quite rare compared to other species. CDFW evaluatedhuman safety and human perception about wolves (Part II). Worldwide, conditions underwhich the majority of wolf attacks on humans (resulting in both injury and/or death) can besummarized as follows:







Wolves afflicted with disease (principally rabies) (Europe, Russia, and Asia);
Wolves suffering from starvation or other health-related conditions;
Human guarding of livestock (typically children) where conditions have deprived
wolves of wild prey (India);
Wolf defense of territory and den sites (with pups present) typically from domestic
dogs;
Wolf habituation7 to humans; and,
Wolves exhibiting defense behavior associated with food source, when cornered ortrapped.

Activities in California where humans are most likely to interact with wolves include
recreation (e.g., camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing) and forest andrangeland work (e.g., timber harvesting, fuel reductions, livestock grazing, and rural
agricultural activities). In some situations, wolves seasonally follow migrating ungulate
herds, which they rely on for food, but it is unknown yet whether wolves in California will
exhibit this behavior. Most interactions between wolves and the public will likely consist ofmemorable observations.

Research Needs on Key Issues
Research and monitoring efforts will rely on the ability to secure future funding. CDFW
anticipates that these activities will be conducted in collaboration with other state andfederal agencies, universities, and other scientists/investigators.
In terms of overall conservation of wolves, one key need is additional first-hand researchon habitat suitability in California. CDFW has applied existing habitat models for wolves inthe state, but the results are speculative in the absence of data on wolves in the state.
7

Habituation is defined by Geist (2007) as “animals’ decreased responsiveness to humans due to repeatedcontact” and suggests that habituation could lead to taming of wildlife often as a result of positive
reinforcement through food. The author cautions that this is often when unpredictable behavior from wildlife
may occur and compromise human safety.
Unregulated garbage dumps are well known to attract predators (food conditioning) and to result in increased
risk to negative human-wildlife interactions. Wildlife including wolves attracted to this alternate food source
may over time become habituated to human presence thereby bringing wolves and humans in closer
proximity than what would occur naturally (AMOC and IFT 2005).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 17

(Part II contains a more detailed discussion of potential habitat suitability). However, three
regions of California are most likely to provide habitat sufficient to support wolf populations:
1) the Klamath Mountains and portions of the Northern California Coast Ranges; 2) the
southern Cascades and portions of the Modoc Plateau and Warner Mountains; and 3) the
Sierra Nevada. These represent the geographic areas for which additional research on the
key issues will be relevant.
Wolf-livestock interactions. While research is ongoing in the west regarding the success ofexisting practices to reduce or eliminate wolf-livestock conflict, and on new technologies toavoid or reduce wolf depredation on livestock, further research on how the techniques canbe applied in California will be needed. Efforts for California will require funding and acoordinated approach among livestock producers, resource agencies, researchers, andnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) to design, deploy, and monitor future practices.
During and after the collection of monitoring information, collaboration will be needed tomake necessary changes to reduce wolf-livestock conflicts and share this information withaffected publics.
Wolf-ungulate interactions. Resource assessment for ungulates is a priority independent of
this Plan, but in relation to understanding wolf effects, will need to be expanded to include
information such as; deer and elk abundance and distribution, habitat use and selection,
fertility and birth rates, fawn:doe (deer) and calf:cow (elk) ratios, and predation and othermortality sources and rates. Understanding of wolf predation influence on deer and elk
population trends is needed.
Wolf interactions with other wildlife. Surveys and monitoring to assess distribution andabundance of existing predators in California will need to be gathered to determine what
effect wolves will have on the dynamics of these species and whether wolf predation ondeer and elk may be additive or compensatory in those areas predicted to overlap with
newly expanding wolf presence.
Wolves and human safety. Addressing human safety issues will require CDFW to develop
information/education products and literature to inform and provide recommendations to
the public to avoid encounters with wolves. Many are currently available on state (including
CDFW) and federal wildlife agency websites.

STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE PLAN GOALS
Currently, wolves in California are both federally and state-listed under the respective
endangered species acts. This legal status controls decisions about, and implementationof, management strategies. The presence of gray wolves in California is a recent event,and while much is known about gray wolves elsewhere in their range, there is limited
ecological information for this species in California. Therefore, implementation of any of thestrategies defined below must always reflect the legal status of wolves at any given future
moment in time, and be responsive to potential differences in how their effectiveness might
differ in this state.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 18

Within this section, CDFW identifies strategies and specific actions the Department may
implement as conservation and management actions for wolves in California. The following
actions are identified as preliminary priorities even though the Department may need toadjust and adapt the actions, the degree and/or timing of their implementation in the futurewhen we have more data related to the presence of wolves in California. In addition,
CDFW and partner organizations will be influenced by the availability of personnel, as wellas fiscal and legislative constraints.
Strategy 1 - Assess and monitor California’s wolf population
a. Identify field activities and data needs to determine key population parameters.
These activities are likely to include monitoring via trail cameras, or scat/haircollections for species identification and compilation of wolf genotypes which
identify individual wolves; and could include wolf capture and collaring with satellite
transmitters. Sufficient monitoring is needed to assess the status of wolves relative
to phasing actions identified in Appendix G, Part II.
b. Collect and compile reported wolf sightings in California. Determine where follow up
is necessary for verification.
Strategy 2 - Assess and address threats to wolf conservation
a. Identify specific diseases and the risk factors that pose a health threat to people,
wolf populations, or domestic animals.
b. Investigate wolf mortalities to determine important natural and anthropogenic
causes of death in California wolves.
c. Minimize wolf mortality from accidental killing.
d. Minimize disturbance at active wolf den and rendezvous sites.
Strategy 3 – Protect and manage habitats and manage native ungulate populations toprovide abundant prey for wolves and other predators, for their intrinsic value as well as
use and enjoyment by the publica. Monitor ungulate population parameters and identify thresholds at which someactions may be warranted. If ungulate populations fall below identified thresholds,
seek to reduce identified causes of mortality if feasible.
b. Increase habitat conditions on a landscape scale to support robust ungulate
populations.
c. Increase coordination and collaboration with large public land management
agencies (USFS, BLM) to implement habitat practices that protect, promote,enhance, and most importantly maintain early seral vegetation types.
d. Increase efforts to provide large landscapes of suitable and non-fragmented habitat
capable of supporting wolves and their primary prey.
e. Consider translocation of elk into former habitat to enhance their populations whereconflicts with private lands are minimal.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 19

Strategy 4 - Manage wolf-livestock conflicts to minimize livestock losses
a. Establish and formalize “co-existence” working relationships between affectedpublics and CDFW that fosters the sharing of information and working relationships,
beginning with the northern counties of Modoc, Siskiyou, and Lassen.
b. Provide non-lethal depredation assistance to livestock producers by encouraging
the deployment of non-lethal practices to prevent, reduce or eliminate conflicts
between wolves and livestock.
c. If data are available, provide timely information regarding wolf activity in the vicinityof livestock production.
d. Consider development of a state-managed livestock/wolf program, which could
provide compensation for depredation or investment for non-lethal practices. This
would require appropriate environmental review, statutory authority and funding to
implement.
Strategy 5 - Develop outreach with affected and interested publics
a. Inform all CDFW employees who may interact with the public, so they can provide
accurate and consistent information about wolf conservation and management, and
CDFW’s related activities.
b. Inform the public, the Executive Branch and its agencies, and the Legislature of thepresence of wolves in California, their historic place in and value to the ecosystem,and the likely consequences (both positive and negative) of their return.
c. Inform livestock producers and outdoor recreationists in particular to prevent or
reduce the likelihood of conflicts with wolves.
Strategy 6 - Manage wolf-human interactions to reduce human safety concerns, prevent
habituation of wolves, and decrease the risk of conflicts between domestic dogs andwolvesa. Provide recommendations to the public to avoid close encounters with wolves andprevent wolves from becoming habituated.
b. Provide recommendations to the public about appropriate actions to discourage wolf
presence if a close encounter occurs.
c. Develop informational materials where wolves and humans (and their dogs) may
interact to minimize conflicts.
Strategy 7 - Conduct scientifically-based surveys of California’s diverse public to gather
information about the public knowledge about wolves, understanding of conservation
issues, and attitudes about wolves and ungulatesa. Conduct follow up surveys to measure potential changes in public attitudes to adapt
efforts to better meets outreach needs.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 20

Strategy 8 – When evident, manage conflicts between wolves and state and federally
listed/candidate species
a. Monitor populations of wildlife species that are special status species in areas
where wolves have established to determine potential direct or indirect effects.
Strategy 9 - Coordinate and cooperate with public agencies, landowners, and nongovernment entities to help achieve wolf conservation goals and objectives
a. Seek opportunities (consultation, outreach) with various landowners to promote
habitat improvement for native ungulates.
b. Private landowners should be provided information on the general location of densites, the timing and duration of denning, and how to avoid disturbance of den andrendezvous sites.
c. Providing current information to land management agencies will also be important.
Similar to private landowners, protective measures will likely be site specific asfederal actions will vary by location and land use practices.
Strategy 10 - Report on and evaluate implementation of the Plan.
a. Prepare an annual update of the CDFW’s activities to accomplish the goals,
objectives and strategies of the Plan.
b. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2077, CDFW is scheduled to review thestatus of wolves in 2022 to determine if the conditions that led to the original listing
are still present.

IMPLEMENTATIONCDFW will implement actions, consistent with resources and authorities, in an approachthat anticipates wolf re-establishment and population growth in three phases (Part II
Appendix G). Each phase includes appropriate potential actions although many actions
will occur through all phases.
Phase 1 is now underway and will manage an initial wolf population consistent with statepolicy to conserve species listed as endangered under CESA, and while recognizing thatany wolves in California are currently federally listed as endangered. Phase 1 is expectedto account for the period of reestablishment of wolves as resident wildlife in California, firstas individual dispersing wolves and then through formation of the first packs. CDFW
defines an ending for Phase 1 when there are four breeding pairs (BP) for two successive
years confirmed in California. A BP is defined as at least 1 adult female and at least 1
adult male and at least two pups that survive until December 31. At a minimum, this means
at least 16 wolves. Based on information from Washington and Oregon, the estimatedCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 21

population at the conclusion of Phase 1 will likely be in the range of 90-110 wolves (Table
G.1, Part II Appendix G).
Phase 2 will begin after CDFW confirms four BPs for two successive years. CDFW defines
the conclusion of Phase 2 as that point when eight BPs are confirmed for two consecutive
years. This phase will likely correspond to the time when the California wolf population’s
growth is driven more by natural reproduction than by continued net immigration byOregon wolves. This phase is envisioned as a period of time when wolves range into andinhabit suitable areas of northern California, and perhaps portions of the central Sierra
Nevada. CDFW anticipates that additional relevant information will continue to become
available, physical and biological conditions in California will continue to change, legal
frameworks and authorities may change, and CDFW staff will have gained additional
experience with wolves. Such events present an opportunity to adapt the Plan toconditions as they then exist. Initially, the Plan envisions that additional latitude to manage
impacts of wolves on livestock or wolf predation on wild ungulate populations whose range
overlaps that of wolves may be warranted in Phase 2.
Phase 3 will begin after CDFW confirms that there are at least eight BPs for two
consecutive years. Based on data on wolf recolonization and recovery in Idaho, Montana
and Wyoming, the estimated population at the end of Phase 2 and beginning of Phase 3
will likely be in the range of 153-190 wolves (Table G.1, Part II Appendix G). This period
should provide suitable time to conduct a status review of the species to evaluate whether
state listing as endangered remains warranted, notwithstanding the existing requirement toreview the status of a CESA-listed species every five years. Any status review will then be
provided to the Commission for its consideration of the facts and whether they warrant
some discretionary action by the Commission. Phase 3 is envisioned as implementation of
long-term management strategies. Necessarily, this phase can only be framed in generalterms because forecasting the details of this future is impossible using currently available
information. For example, if wolves are then abundant they may be recommended fordelisting. CDFW will defer development of specifics for long-term management until the
middle of Phase 2 when better information about wolves and their distribution is available.
Phases 1 and 2 include measureable population thresholds to prompt subsequent
adaptive management actions. Until recently, the standard practice of other state wildlife
agencies and the USFWS has been to comprehensively monitor wolf packs, estimate
minimum population sizes as of December 31, and acknowledge that the actual population
size is larger than that estimate. As wolf populations have grown, the monitoring costs
increased and federal funding to support these efforts has declined. Consequently,
western states are turning to methods for estimating populations, rather than trying tocount every wolf.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 22

Rationale for the Three Phase Strategy
There is no empirically tested, scientifically based model for confidently determining rate,
distribution or ultimate population size for a species becoming established in unoccupied
habitat. Any projections or goals are necessarily developed by the interaction of scienceand public policy (e.g. CESA). Stakeholders will, and do, have widely disparate views onsuch questions.
The implementation strategy outlined previously is driven by observations of wolf
establishment, population growth and conservation in the Northern Rocky Mountains andPacific Northwest. Wolves make no distinction between habitats across state boundaries,
but humans manage wildlife differently from one political entity to another. Thus it is useful
to consider and compare data from each of these states as we look to a future of wolves in
California. The patterns for wolf population growth are remarkably similar from one state toanother though there are significant differences between the wolf establishment
experience between the Northern Rocky Mountains and Pacific Northwest.
In both regions, wolves have been reestablished after a long absence. This occurred
through active reintroduction in Idaho, Montana8 and Wyoming in 1995-96. That process
quickly established a cohort of animals which formed into packs and then began
reproducing. In Oregon and Washington, establishment was slower, driven my immigrationof dispersing wolves, mainly from Idaho. Population growth through incremental
immigration is inherently slow at first. This is true because a reestablishing wolf population
will initially be comprised of a small number of single dispersing animals. These animals
are often separated by great distances, vulnerable to injuries suffered while hunting, ordisease or being killed by humans. Stochastic (i.e. unpredictable random) events canmake large differences in small populations. Eventually there are enough wolves to form apack and then more packs with sufficient reproductive capacity to drive and accelerate
population growth. This describes, generally what has occurred in Oregon and Washington
and where those populations are at this point in time. Once multiple packs are
reproducing, subsequent annual population growth is often in the range of 20-30%/year.
Conceptually, this plan refers to the period of wolf establishment first by immigration andincipient natural reproduction as Phase 1. This Plan will remain in Phase 1 until there havebeen four confirmed breeding pairs for two successive years.
Table G.1. provides some comparative context for this metric, using available data from
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. In those states, minimum wolf
populations ranged from 40 to 71 animals/state in the first year with four breeding pairs. In
the second successive year with four breeding pairs the populations ranged from 53 to 114
animals/state. In each state the population increased between the two years. CDFW views
this as solid evidence that, for the five states with the most relevant conditions, wolves
were well established as a resident species once four breeding pairs were confirmed fortwo successive years.
8

In northwest Montana a small resident population of wolves was present when reintroduction was
implemented.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 23

Once these metrics were met, annual wolf population growth continued in almost every
instance over the following four years (Table G.1). Annual growth rates varied from -20.0%(Montana 1997) to 43% (Wyoming 1996). This plan defines Phase 2 as beginning whenfour breeding pairs are confirmed for two successive years until eight breeding pairs fortwo successive years. This later measure has now been achieved in four of the fivestates9. Western state wolf populations initially meeting that criterion varied in size from110-189 animals.
Phase 3 of this plan begins after eight breeding pairs are confirmed for two successive
years. Although other states have not structured their plans in the same way, it’s worth
observing that wolf populations in four of them (i.e. Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming)
are currently in the equivalent of Phase 3. Populations in Idaho and Montana areessentially stable, at over 750 and 500 animals, respectively, even with hunting, trapping
and lethal control actions. The Wyoming population grew by nearly 15% in 2015 after
hunting and trapping were discontinued due to federal relisting. The Oregon wolf
population continued an uninterrupted trend, since at least 2009, of positive growth,
including by 35.8% in 2015. The details of management practices for Phase 3 are lessdeveloped, than those proposed for Phases 1 and 2, first because Phase 3 is in the future,
likely at least ten years, and perhaps longer. Secondly, because some of the important
uncertainties regarding how suitable California will be for sustaining wolves will be better
understood after the collection of more actual data. Regardless, the narrative description
for Phase 3 can be thought of as the long-term management framework for a stable toincreasing wolf population.
It’s likely that California habitat can support at least four breeding pairs of wolves and
CDFW anticipates that the wolf population in California will eventually meet the criteria for
concluding Phase 1. In Oregon and Washington, it took only two additional years to
confirm eight breeding pairs. Given the relatively smaller elk populations in California, thisinterval will likely be longer in California, though perhaps only a few years more. CDFW
can look to data from Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to project that ifeight breeding pairs are confirmed for two successive years in California a population of
more (perhaps substantially more) than 100 animals will likely be resident.
Although the California plan is not structured like existing plans from other states, we havelearned from their experiences, borrowed and modified certain strategies and crafted aplan we believe will work in the California natural, legal and social landscape. This plan isorganized first, in Phase 1, to manage the early years of wolf reestablishment whenpopulation growth is slow(er) and data from the field is limited. Phase 2 will likely be aperiod with increased population growth rate and expansion of packs into suitable habitat
and a data-rich learning experience. Phase 3, when it arrives, will include a substantial
wolf population which continues to grow, though the rate of growth will likely decrease over
time.

9

Washington confirmed 8 breeding pairs for the first time in 2015.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 24

Management Limitations
Legal Considerations

Legal considerations relate to management ability. A primary challenge for CDFW indeveloping and implementing the Plan is that state and federal listing of wolves as anendangered species affects the state’s ability to manage the species with respect to any
possible use of lethal take for management. It is reasonably foreseeable that some formsof aversive conditioning and lethal take to protect human safety, to reduce livestock
depredation, or to mitigate risks of substantial effects on native ungulates, may become
warranted. However, while the wolf is state and federally listed as endangered these
possibilities are very limited. If the CESA and ESA legal status of wolves was to change,
CDFW may have increased authority to take wolves for management consistent with thisPlan.
Similarly, as described above, existing state laws for wildlife management, including
CESA, do not fully account for the challenges that wolves will likely present. Additional
statutory authority will likely be necessary to provide mechanisms for resolving depredation
by wolves on livestock. The occurrence of livestock depredation has already occurred andwill likely continue as a result of wolf reestablishment in California.
Wolf predation on native ungulates may present a limitation in CDFW’s ability to conserveand manage the ungulate populations by adding an additional cause of mortality. This is aparticular concern because California has significantly fewer elk than the other westernstates where wolves have become established. Elk are the preferred prey species in thosestates. Most of California’s elk populations are small, which creates the possibility of
localized extirpation of those populations thereby reducing abundance of native preyspecies. Resulting outcomes could include larger wolf territory sizes, lower wolf densities
and switching prey preference to deer or other large herbivores because elk will be
reduced in numbers.
Scientific information

Available historical information on wolf distribution, abundance, and ecological role for
California is largely non-existent. Although there is considerable scientific information
available for wolves worldwide, much of it has uncertain or limited application to current
and future conditions in California. Consequently, an initial limitation on how best to apply
conservation and management is the lack of information on how wolves will interact with
their habitats, prey, livestock, and other factors in California. Monitoring and appliedresearch are needed to fill this lack of information.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 25

Funding

Current resources available to CDFW for management of nongame wildlife such as wolves
are limited. Existing programs, staffing, funding, and resources are not well equipped totake on the new additional responsibilities for conserving and managing wolves without
sacrificing some other important threatened and endangered species work. In every otherwestern state where wolves have become reestablished, it has been necessary toaugment resources for the state wildlife agency to meet its responsibilities. This Plan
proposes programs that currently do not exist, both to monitor wolf and prey populations,and to mitigate impacts of wolf depredation on livestock. Successful implementation of theplan will require authorities, staff, financial resources and appropriate environmental review
to support those programs.
Within this Plan, CDFW presents strategies to implement conservation and management
actions for wolves in California. Successful implementation will require adequate funding
and staffing. Wildlife management policy activities, funding allocations, and decisions on
implementation of management actions will occur based on CDFW capacity inconsideration of other priorities. To fully implement the elements and strategies of thePlan, an appropriate program will need to be developed within CDFW coincident withstaffing and secured funding. Presently, it is rare for such a program on a nongame
species to exist in the absence of secured funding and positions.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 26

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I
December 2016

Page 27