Wolf Reintroductions Are Cruel to Ranchers

The misanthropic elitism of
radical environmentalists went
on display in a Bay-area report

Just because wolves “used to” live in California, should they be brought back? What is the thinking behind this view, and why are its supporters so callous toward human beings who are suffering the consequences of what do-gooders in government impose on them?

Wolf attacks on California cattle more than double despite state ‘strike team’ (Sacramento Bee, 18 Sept 2025). Read this and weep—or get angry. Reporter Sharon Bernstein at the Sacramento Bee asked why wolf attacks on cattle have more than doubled in California despite efforts by the state to provide some relief with so-called “strike teams” (officials tasked to protect livestock from the predators using “nonlethal means”). It’s not working, because attacks have more than doubled. But does the government care? Do they try to protect the livelihoods of ranchers who are just trying to help their fellow omnivores (i.e., us) eat? Some excerpts:

The ongoing predation, sometimes killing several calves in a single night, is costing ranchers tens of thousands of dollars and leading to so much stress and discomfort that local officials recently held a training session on how to help residents deal with trauma from repeated wildlife attacks.

Put Yourself in Their Boots

Imagine starting a legal, licensed business, and after years of hard work to succeed, having the government suddenly authorize gangs to do smash-and-grab raids on your store, at any hour of the day or night. They send too few cops to protect you, but as consolation, they will provide counselors to help you deal with the pain of facing a drastic loss of income from damage that the government caused. What’s the difference?

Ranchers work outdoors and their stock need large areas of land for grazing. Most ranchers are close to nature and love the open range where their cattle feed peacefully. But who sent in the wolves? Answer: Government do-gooders under the influence of radical environmentalists who imagine a more pristine time when dangerous predators roamed what is now human ranch land.

“I watched them kill one,” said Paul Roen, a rancher who serves as a Sierra County supervisor. “Tore it to pieces in 30 seconds.”

A photo of Roen almost in tears over this daily carnage. Every night he is up late to watch for them, and gets up early to hear reports of where they have been sighted. Trying to chase them away doesn’t work, because they’ll only run so far and then they’ll turn around and watch, waiting for another chance to strike.

“It has affected my state of mind dramatically — it’s all I do now,” he said. “My wife made me go to the heart doctor yesterday so I don’t die.”

Paul Roen is not alone. A map in the article shows red pins over a large area where the wolf packs have struck ranches. The wolves are not killing to survive; often they will kill multiple cattle and leave them for dead without eating them. The calves whine and bawl when the wolves are coming. Where is the compassion for those animals? Are they less valuable just because they are domesticated? (Think of your pet dog or cat facing a natural predator.)

Instead, government agents and environmentalists insist that non-lethal methods must be used on the wolves: drones and radio collars to detect their whereabouts, rubber bullets, and guard dogs (as if a domestic dog is any match for a wolf). Ranchers are forbidden from shooting them. A group of ranchers is going to Washington asking for changes in that law so that they can protect their property.

The Environmental Justification

Wolves used to be plentiful in California, but the last one was killed in 1924 in the northern part of the state, says Bernstein, because they were killing cattle. So why bring them back now? In theory, a healthy ecosystem needs the wolves. That value is given more importance than human life and business.

Now, protected by both the federal and state endangered species acts, wolves are making a comeback. In 2011, Californians celebrated when a wolf known as OR7 crossed into California from Oregon, tracking his movements via web cams and avidly following news stories about him.

Environmentalists and others hailed the wolves’ return, which has reached as far south as the Sequoia National Forest in Tulare County, as a great achievement in conservation and protection. While acknowledging that the animals can prey on livestock and cause stress and financial loss, they caution against moving to allow ranchers to harm or kill them.

National Parks like Yellowstone have seen successful wolf reintroductions, to the delight of naive tourists who gasp with delight when seeing one in their binoculars or camera viewfinders. Trouble is, these apex predators don’t stay in the park. Ranchers outside the park boundaries have suffered similar losses. The wolves have more rights than the human beings trying to enjoy the life, liberty and property that America’s founders described as unalienable God-given rights.

Instead of settling in wilderness areas, a portion of the state’s population of at least 50 wolves have fully habituated themselves to living near ranches and farms, where calves in particular are easy targets.

Watch the Short Reel about this article. Click to view it now.

Ranchers’ work is hard, but it is not selfish. Any valid business investment serves many other people in a free market economy. Cattle can’t be kept in corrals; they need space to graze, and wolves are not stopped by corrals anyway.

The State only has 6 to 10 strike team members working at a time, trying to help the ranchers protect some 20,000 cows and calves. But the strike teams are not allowed to kill them; they can only try to “harass” them and shoo them away. The wolves come back when nobody is looking.

In an embedded video, rancher Paul Roen shows the expensive night-vision binoculars he’s had to buy, saying “Everybody’s extremely frustrated, because this continues to go on on a daily basis… It gets really old coming out here, picking up dead animals every day.” Unlike when they die of sickness or age, the cows and their calves bawl and cry a lot, he says; they can’t figure out what happened.

Update 23 Sept 2025: Colorado’s wolves are expanding westward, again showing that reintroduced wildlife do not stay put. Source: Phys.org. “Colorado Parks and Wildlife plans to release up to 15 more wolves this winter to continue the state’s voter-mandated wolf reintroduction program, which began releasing animals captured outside the state in late 2023.” No word in this article about the consequences to ranchers.

Update 30 Sept 2025: Wolves in Greece are increasing. A child was attacked on a beach, but was scared off, then followed the child and her mother home. Hunters have are calling for the right to hunt the wolves, which are encroaching on populated areas and posing risks to humans and livestock. Sightings of wolves attacking livestock and pet dogs are occurring almost every day. The article does not state that wolves were reintroduced into the area, but only they have been granted “protected status,” preventing hunters from taking them out. Bears are also on the increase. A large brown bear attacked and injured a man in his garden. (Phys.org, 30 Sept 2025). These large predators appear to have more rights than humans.

We appreciate Sharon Bernstein making the effort to get the ranchers’ point of view, because most articles ignore it. They wax eloquent about the wolves, while assuming the radical environmentalists’ perspective on nature. We realize these are complex issues, but let’s use this story to learn a couple of lessons.

First, consider the logical inconsistency of the radical environmentalists who push these predator reintroductions. Most all of them, at least those making the most racket in the media, are leftist-progressives and Darwinian evolutionists. We know that there are conservatives and Christians who support some reintroductions, but does it make any sense for a Darwinian? The Stuff Happens Law is amoral. If anything, it should favor whatever species is the “fittest” (meaning, whoever survives, because survival is often a measure of fitness, and vice versa). If humans, at the top of the fitness chain, killed off the last wolves and grizzly bears in California, who can fault them? Was that evil? Evil is an undefined word in Darwinism.

It’s also inconsistent because the same people strongly oppose other kinds of reintroductions. For example, the State of Hawaii works extremely hard to keep snakes out of the islands, knowing that those predators would kill off many species of birds. (Strange, they seem to have little concern for the birds and bats killed by windmills.) But in “evolutionary logic” (a sophoxymoronic phrase), they shouldn’t care what happens, because the Stuff Happens Law has no moral standard. That’s true for any “invasive species” that brings economic or ecosystem catastrophe. Why worry? Stuff happens. Get used to it. Species have invaded other territories for millions of years in Deep Time, they would agree, and natural extinctions, they add, killed off most species on earth repeatedly millions of Darwin Years ago.

And where to stop? If wolves were here 150 years ago, why stop there? Why not the larger dire wolves, whose fossils are found in the tar pits in Los Angeles? Why not reintroduce tyrannosaurs, if that technology ever became viable? Will humans have to die from wolf attacks before the government reconsiders the wisdom of reintroductions? If humans are part of nature, why not let them exercise their particular skill at tool use and use guns to shoot the wolves? These are some of the contradictions and inconsistencies apparent in the Darwinian environmentalist mindset. (See article by hunter and physician J.Y. Jones about how hunters provide valuable ecosystem services.)

Secondly, their slip is showing—radical environmentalists of the Darwinian stripe who express moral concern are revealing the image of God that still resides in their hearts, twisted or perverted though it may be. They make value judgments about good and bad. They value the wolves who used to inhabit California more than the human ranchers who exist there now trying to serve their fellow man with valuable products and food sources that cattle provide. From a Darwinian/materialist perspective, on what basis can they judge the morality of anything? 

In a recent video for Logos Research Associates, Dr Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Institute shared a Christian viewpoint on environmentalism. His 30 principles based on the Genesis Mandate would surely send the Sierra Club into the hills screaming, but if we have learned anything in recent days, it’s that we need to talk to and listen respectfully to those with whom we disagree, like Charlie Kirk tried to do. So we encourage our readers to watch the presentation. You may not agree with all his points, and we would not presume that it would answer everyone’s questions, but is there anything he says that does make you stop and think? If so, how would his viewpoint address this issue of the wolf reintroductions into California? That’s your homework assignment for tonight.