Colorado’s wolf reintroduction effort will continue as planned. At its Wednesday meeting, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission officially voted to deny a citizen petition requesting a pause of the initiative. 

The vote — which received support from 10 of the 11 commissioners — followed the recommendation of Parks and Wildlife staff, who claimed the petition’s seven requests were deemed unnecessary following recent action from the agency. 

“We’re not denying the conditions. We’re not denying the concerns. Our recommendation to you all for denial is based on addressing those conditions,” said Jeff Davis, the agency’s director, of its recommendation. “We’re doing our due diligence to put really what we understand to be effective programs in place to address those conditions and more.” 

---

---

Davis added that the agency’s work is committed to finding success in the wolf program. 

“Successful is a sustainable wolf population and we need to keep our ranchers ranching,” he said. “Our mission will not be possible without our ranchers.”

---

---

What the petition asked, and what Parks and Wildlife has done

The petition to pause wolf releases was submitted by a group of 26 organizations representing the agriculture and ranching community in September. The petition requested that the agency define, fund and fully implement several programs and items meant to reduce conflict between livestock and wolves. 

The petition received support from Colorado Counties, an organization representing all counties in the state except for Denver County, and others in the lead-up to Wednesday’s vote. 

Ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, the four livestock producers who participated in Parks and Wildlife’s AdHoc wolf working group (convened last year to address top challenges) sent a letter to the commission supporting the ask. In the letter, these four producers urged commissioners to hold a rulemaking hearing.

“If coexistence with wolves is going to succeed in Colorado, stakeholders who are directly impacted by wolves must have their concerns addressed in a proper public process,” the letter reads. 

On Wednesday, the commission heard an hour-long presentation from Parks and Wildlife and Department of Agriculture staff about the expanded conflict mitigation program and the current status of wolves ahead of its vote on the petition. The update touched upon all seven of the petition’s requests. 

This included updates on a range riding program with the state Department of Agriculture this year, standardizing and growing its site assessment program, its recent definition of chronic depredation and lethal management rules, releasing best practices for carcass management and more. 

“We are in the position to offer Colorado livestock producers an even more robust program that includes the tools, support and resources needed to minimize wolf-livestock conflict,” said Reid DeWalt, Parks and Wildlife’s deputy director of policy, adding that this includes leveraging partnerships with other state and federal agencies and nonprofits.

The agency also held that bringing in more wolves would help the program succeed and give it more management flexibility. 

“Individual wolves are known to travel large distances in a single day, making management and local landowner-producer communication challenging,” DeWalt said. “With that, additional wolves will create the environment for more efficient management of wolf-livestock conflict.”

When asked directly at the meeting end whether more time would help staff, DeWalt said “sure,” but added that staff is committed to showing up, working on it and achieving the final goal of having a sustainable population of wolves. 

Are Parks and Wildlife’s efforts enough? 

On Wednesday, ranchers maintained these efforts were still not enough against what they were dealing with. 

“This request is rooted in a critical reality,” said Erin Karney-Spaur, representing the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, of the petition. “We are not adequately prepared to ensure the success of this initiative and rushing forward without proper preparation puts the program, livestock producers, and rural communities at significant risk.”

Karney-Spaur was among those who spoke during for nearly five hours of public comment and discussion by ranchers, wildlife advocates, Parks and Wildlife staff and commissioners regarding the petition on Wednesday. Several commissioners called for respect and decorum between the differing opinions as the meeting went on, especially relating to negative comments made toward ranchers. 

Other commenters asking for the pause expressed concerns about the chronic depredation definition, that the carcass management guidance is insufficient, the timeline of the state’s range riding program, the impact of wolves on livestock behavior and more. 

“Although it’s a great start, these programs are yet to be fully funded, implemented or proven,” said Renee Deal, a Western Slope producer. “A temporary pause in wolf reintroductions gives you the time necessary to get all the programs concretely in place and will allow us to do the best we can do to ensure effective conflict minimization for the overall success of the program.”

The calls to pause included financial concerns about the state’s compensation program for livestock losses from wolves. Ahead of the 2024 deadline in December, Grand County ranchers submitted claims totaling over $582,000 in livestock losses — well above the $350,000 budgeted for the state’s wolf depredation and compensation fund. 

Wildlife advocates, standing behind Parks and Wildlife’s recommendation to continue wolf efforts, reiterated that bringing more wolves is necessary for the success of the voter initiative and spoke to the predators’ ecological benefits. 

“Halting reintroductions will likely result in yet another extinction event in our state,” said Joanna E Lambert, a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder researching wolves and coyotes at Yellowstone National Park. “Decades of peer-reviewed science have demonstrated that such small populations are highly vulnerable to extinction due to unpredictable events such as disease and wildfire, low genetic diversity, and limited reproductive opportunities.”

Asking the commission to deny the petition, commenters pointed to the work that Parks and Wildlife and other groups have done to support conflict minimization. Some of these claimed negative intent by ranchers, one claiming fear-mongering and many citing recent news that a reintroduced wolf died after being shot (the second to be found with a gunshot wound). Several also claimed that the petition represented the will of a small vocal majority and urged the commission to continue following the desire of voters. 

“This petition to push for a delay is just another attempt by the anti-wolf lobbyists to stop Prop 114 and undermine democracy,” said David Hand. “The sky is not falling. Wolves are far from the primary threat to Colorado’s livestock industry.”

For the majority of commissioners, it was primarily staff’s work on conflict minimization programs so far that bolstered their vote to deny the petition. Some also cited the biological reasons to continue with wolf releases.

“We can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. We have to keep this going,” said Dallas May, chairman of the commission. 

In her lone dissent, Marie Haskett echoed many of the ranchers’ concerns and said a pause would “let everyone catch up” and finish wolf reintroduction “the right way” after being rushed thus far.  
Parks and Wildlife is currently preparing for its second round of wolf releases. Starting this month, it is planning to bring up to 15 additional wolves from British Columbia to northwest Colorado. Sites in Eagle, Pitkin and Garfield counties are being considered for releases.