CDFW ignores rancher’s California Public Records Act request

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife allegedly has not responded to a California Public Records Act request from Lassen County rancher Richard Egan as required by state law.

Egan requested and was denied a seat at the table at a Feb. 26 meeting where compensation for ranchers who suffered attacks by wolves would be discussed. Then he sought information abou the meeting.

Many parties had been invited to attend the meeting, including The California Farm Bureau (Steven Fenaroli), Cattlemen’s Association (Kirk Wilbur), California Woolgrowers Association (Phil Esnoz), Western Landowners Alliance (Avery Shawler), RCRC (Staci Heaton), UC Cooperative Extension (Tina Saitone, Tracy Schohr), UC Berkely (Arthur Middleton, Kaggie Orrick), Defenders of Wildlife (Pam Flick), California Wolf Foundation (Susan Dewar), Center For Biological Diversity (Amaroq Weiss), Working Circle (Karin Vardarman), USDA-WS (Jeff Flores), NRCS (Alan Bower) and FWS (Adam Johnson), but not a single rancher, raising concern from Egan.

On Feb. 17 Egan wrote Chad Dibble, deputy director of the Wildlife and Fisheries Division at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

“I am a Lassen County rancher who grazes (cattle) in many counties of the state, most of which are directly impacted by wolves,” Egan wrote. “I have had numerous confirmed depredations on my cattle dating back to the original Lassen Pack, and continue to have uncompensated losses, increasing each year. I have participated in the pilot programs administered by your department, and can tell you first hand that if your department had availed itself of producer input prior to implementing those programs, they would have had far more success, resulted in more benefit to producers and much less wasted taxpayer funds.

“I recently learned of your agency’s plan to hold a ‘stakeholder’ meeting regarding gray wolf impact compensation, as well as other wolf program issues. I was disappointed to learn that it is being held as private meeting limited to special interest activist groups, and a few select academic researchers. I am very concerned that the limited input will result in continuation of the ‘non-lethal’ narrative that failed so miserably in Sierra Valley last year.  I am writing to request attendance at the meeting, as I believe as an affected producer, I could provide an important perspective on the issues. I also understand that the California Cattlemen’s Association President has requested attendance, I encourage you to allow that as well. The California Farm Bureau could also provide valuable input to your effort.

“We may disagree on the value of including the radical activist groups in your policy development, but I agree that unbiased academics can provide valuable input, and perhaps we could also agree that inclusion of genuinely affected parties could be beneficial. I would appreciate the ability to attend, and look forward to a timely response as I understand you have scheduled meeting for next week.”

Dibble responded, “We value your input and at this time encourage you to reach out to your respective representative(s) from these parties as we continue to develop this process. Should you have additional concerns or questions, feel free to reach out to me directly.”

Egan wrote Dibble again Feb. 19 still seeking to participate in the meeting.

“You have somehow found room for a long list of radical activists and academics, yet not one affected party,” Egan wrote. “Limiting input in this fashion, with no practitioners, is exactly what led to your department squandering millions of dollars of taxpayer funds in a miserable failure in Sierra Valley last year, while abandoning the entire rest of the state. I believe it will lead to similar results in the future.

“Please advise if you will accept my attendance at what, in my opinion, should be a public, rather than private meeting.”

Three days after the meeting, Egan submitted a California Public Records Act request.

“As you are aware, without response from Mr. Dibble, I and every other livestock producer in the state of California was denied the opportunity to atttend and/or participate in your recent private meeting regarding wolf compensation, and other issues,” Egan wrote. “I believe that meeting occurred Monday Feb. 23, 2026. I continue to object to that exclusion, and encourage you to reevaluate your position for future meetings.  I am interested in the discussion that occurred, and the discussions that led to your determination of a private meeting.”

Egan requested, “All communication (including but not limited to email, text messages, voice messages) involving your department discussing the composition of the meeting group, as well as allowed and prohibited participants.

“All documents and material provided at, developed from, or prepared subsequent to the meeting relative to the topic. I believe these documents may include, but not be limited to agendas, rosters of attendees, minutes, recordings and discussion materials provided by participants.

“I appreciate your timely response to this request as required by the California Public Records Act.”

Dibble responded, “Your request for records has been received and we are processing it consistent with the Public Records Act. Our PRA requests are tracked through an electronic tool called GovQA. You should be receiving an email response through that system in the next couple of days.”

This morning, Lassen News received this email from Egan to Dibble — “As you are aware, I made a request for information on Feb. 26, 2026 regarding your agency’s secret wolf meeting and other issues. I have not received any of the requested information nor substantive response. I am, however, aware (through California Cattlemen Executive Kirk Wilbur) that your agency has disclosed and distributed some of the information requested to other parties. I find this selective disclosure to be, not surprising, but very troublesome. As you must be aware this type of discrimination is clearly prohibited by the California Public Records Act, and other state laws.

“Please comply immediately by providing the requested information.”