Claims That Lassen County Wolf Pack Is “Killing for the Sake of Killing” Don’t Align With Science
Narratives Shape Policy: Bad Narratives Create Bad Outcomes.
In October 2025, California Department of Fish and Wildlife lethally removed four wolves from the Beyem Seyo Pack. Now the Harvey Pack is facing the same risk.
Photo from Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.
Women for Wolves is deeply concerned by recent media coverage and official statements portraying the Harvey wolf pack in Lassen County as a public safety threat and framing lethal intervention as the inevitable solution. These narratives risk distorting science, inflaming conflict, and pushing California toward outdated wildlife management approaches that have repeatedly failed across the American West. We cannot out-predator our way out of human–wildlife conflict.
Public statements asserting that wolves kill “for sport” or “for the sake of killing” are not supported by peer-reviewed science. Wolves are cursorial predators whose hunting behavior is shaped by opportunity, prey vulnerability, landscape features, and human land-use patterns, not malice or excess (Mech & Boitani, 2003; Mech, 2012).
Decades of research show that sensationalized narratives about predators directly influence policy, often leading to lethal management that increases, not reduces conflict by destabilizing pack structure and dispersing wolves into new areas (Treves et al., 2016; Brainerd et al., 2008). When fear-based framing dominates headlines, it narrows the policy imagination. Science-based tools are sidelined. Communities are pitted against wildlife. And wolves, who are simply trying to exist in human-altered landscapes become scapegoats for systemic failures in coexistence planning.
What the Science Actually Shows
Extensive studies across the U.S. and internationally demonstrate that non-lethal coexistence tools are much more effective when properly implemented, especially in areas where livestock are seasonally concentrated near residences:
• Electric fencing and fladry can reduce depredation by 60–90% when installed and maintained correctly (Davidson-Nelson & Gehring, 2010; Stone et al., 2017).
• Livestock guardian dogs significantly reduce wolf-livestock conflict by creating a constant human-associated deterrent (Gehring et al., 2010).
• Human presence, carcass management, night penning, and adaptive grazing strategies further lower risk during vulnerable periods (USFWS, 2023).
By contrast, lethal removal often leads to increased depredation the following year, particularly when breeding adults are killed and pack cohesion is disrupted (Wielgus & Peebles, 2014).
California Has a Choice and a Responsibility.
California’s Wolf Conservation Plan was designed to be science-based, precautionary, and forward-looking. Moving toward lethal management again (as with the Beyem Seyo Pack), while non-lethal tools remain under-resourced and inconsistently deployed, would abandon that vision.
We are calling on California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Natural Resources Agency to dare to be different:
• Make history as a state that rejects lethal control
• Fully fund and deploy coexistence tools before declaring failure
• Partner with diverse stakeholders
• Uphold California’s commitment to ethical, non-lethal wildlife management
California has an opportunity to model a future where conservation does not rely on eradication, and where coexistence is treated as essential infrastructure, not an afterthought.
Our Offer: Collaboration, Not Conflict
Women for Wolves is actively working with communities across California to reduce animosity on all sides of wolf recovery. We offer technical assistance, coexistence planning, education, relaying accurate information, and facilitation for landowners and agencies seeking durable solutions. We invite all stakeholders: ranchers, tribal groups, county officials, journalists, and policymakers to reach out; not to escalate conflict, but to solve it.
Women for Wolves is a California-based nonprofit working to promote science-based, collaborative, and compassionate wildlife conservation. The organization works at the intersection of research, policy, education, and community collaboration to protect wolves and reduce human–wildlife conflict through coexistence and public education.
Based in El Dorado County, California, Women for Wolves also operates a wolf-dog rescue and sanctuary, providing firsthand insight into behavior, ethics, and coexistence. The organization partners with scientists, Tribal leaders, landowners, and agencies to support solutions that keep both communities and wildlife safe.
Media & Program Inquiries:
-
Sources & References
• Brainerd, S. M., et al. (2008). The effects of breeder loss on wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management.
• Davidson-Nelson, S. J., & Gehring, T. M. (2010). Testing fladry as a nonlethal management tool. Wildlife Society Bulletin.
• Gehring, T. M., et al. (2010). Livestock protection dogs in the U.S. Human–Wildlife Interactions.
• Mech, L. D. (2012). Is science in danger of sanctifying the wolf? Biological Conservation.
• Mech, L. D., & Boitani, L. (2003). Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press.
• Stone, S. A., et al. (2017). Evaluating nonlethal methods to reduce wolf depredation. Wildlife Society Bulletin.
• Treves, A., et al. (2016). Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
• USFWS (2023). Gray Wolf Recovery and Conflict Reduction Guidance.
• Wielgus, R. B., & Peebles, K. A. (2014). Effects of wolf mortality on livestock depredations. PLOS ONE.