Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ranchers press Plumas County supervisors over wolves and coyotes; board refers coyote rules to wildlife committee
Summary
Ranchers and residents told the Plumas County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 11 that wolves and coyotes are damaging livestock and local wildlife; the board voted to add an urgency item and refer proposed coyote‑take rule changes to its wildlife resources committee for further analysis and comment to the California Fish and Game Commission.
Ranchers and other residents urged Plumas County officials on Feb. 11 to press state wildlife agencies for changes after what they described as escalating wolf and coyote impacts on livestock, hunting and public safety. The board of supervisors approved an urgency agenda item and agreed to refer the county’s comments on proposed coyote‑take regulations to its wildlife resources committee.
The most detailed testimony came from Rick Roberti of the Sierra Cattlemen’s Association, who described livestock losses and warned that wolves now commonly appear on ranch properties. “We’re losing animals; there’s been a huge economic impact,” Roberti said, adding that ranchers have seen wolves approaching homes and harassing horses.
Board members and members of the public discussed limited county authority over species listed under state law and emphasized coordinated action. Several speakers urged the county to work with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and neighboring counties to push for legislative or regulatory relief. One commenter suggested formally petitioning the commission or asking the governor’s appointees to reconsider current rules.
The board also took up an urgent, written request prepared by the county agriculture commissioner asking that the California Fish and Game Commission re‑refer proposed coyote take regulations to the county’s wildlife resources committee for additional review and comment. The chair made the motion to add the item as urgent; the board approved the agenda addition and then, later, voted to send the referral and make the letter publicly available.
County officials repeatedly noted the limits of local authority to change endangered‑species listings and emphasized advocacy as the main available tool. County staff and some supervisors suggested collaring and monitoring efforts to better identify problem animals and asked state Fish and Wildlife staff for more active engagement.
The board did not adopt any new hunting or control rules at the meeting. Instead, supervisors directed staff to provide the committee with the prepared letter and pursue coordinated advocacy and data‑sharing with other counties and state agencies. The wildlife resources committee will review the technical and policy aspects before the board considers further formal action.
The immediate next step is for the wildlife resources committee to meet, review the county’s prepared comment letter and determine whether additional recommendations will be forwarded to the Fish and Game Commission.
