Agricultural Producers Petition CPW to Pause Wolf Introduction, Citing High Conflict Rate With Wildlife

Colorado Parks & Wildlife has narrowed down the location for the next release of wolves to Garfield County, Eagle County or Pitkin County.

After voters approved the reintroduction of the species in 2020, the commission placed wolves on the ground in this state for the first time in 2023; it has plans to add more in January 2025. But some people want CPW to delay additional wolf introduction until better resources are in place for managing wolf-livestock conflicts.

Agricultural groups and landowners were concerned by the 2020 approval of the reintroduction of wolves, with several groups even suing CPW to try to delay the program. As a result, Colorado lawmakers passed bills to guarantee historically high dollar amounts for compensation if wolves harm or kill livestock; proceeds from a special wolf-themed license plate help ranchers implement conflict prevention measures to protect their herds.

Those historic investments haven’t been enough to prevent problems, though, say those in favor of the petition.

“Colorado's wolf introduction program has not gone well,” Tim Ritschard, president of the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association, said at a November 14 CPW commission meeting. “There's been 24 confirmed depredations between three counties. There are more deaths and missing livestock that are suspected to be wolf-related. Montana has seventy times more wolves and has seen similar death counts.”

CPW has released ten wolves into the state; so far, there have been thirty depredation incidents.

Ritschard said that petitioners want a range rider program, better carcass management and site vulnerability assessments from CPW, as well as a rapid response team for depredations in place before any more wolves are brought to the state.

According to Ritschard, 26 organizations have signed the petition — including the Colorado Farm Bureau, the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and Colorado Counties Inc., which represents 63 counties in the state.

“The commission has authority to delay further introductions,” Ritschard noted during the meeting. “You are not required to introduce wolves at a certain pace. You were only required to introduce wolves by December 31, 2023. You have done that. Now your mandate is to adaptively manage wolves. This means that you should be willing to change your approach to address issues as they arise.”

The groups submitted the petition in September, and members say they are growing tired of waiting for action; they've asked the commissioners to conduct a rulemaking hearing on the proposal in December or January. The CPW process for citizen petitions dictates that CPW Director Jeff Davis issue a recommended decision, at which point the commission will review and study the issue before holding a rulemaking session to either adopt, alter or deny the petition.

CPW staff said they are still reviewing the petition and can’t give a definitive timeline on when the review will be done. In the meantime, agency staffers continue to examine how the wolf reintroduction program will move forward, exploring both new locations for putting paws on the ground and other measures to make things run more smoothly.

CPW Deputy Director Reid DeWalt said the agency is close to approving a formal definition of chronic depredation, which is required before wolves can officially be removed from an area. Many ranchers who spoke at the meeting said they believe a definition should have been established before any wolf releases took place.

CPW and the Colorado Department of Agriculture are also working on establishing a state range rider program that would provide people to actively monitor herds and deter wolves. The program would likely cost about $500,000, according to DeWalt, though revenue from the wolf license plates could cover that. Sales of the plate have brought in $544,000 as of November 1.

The CDA is working on hiring more people to conduct outreach and help agricultural communities deal with wolves; meanwhile, CPW is adding more wildlife damage specialists for its depredation response group.

Although the state is making moves, commenters at the meeting consistently said they believe that no more wolves should be brought into the state until such steps are completed.

And if the state releases more wolves before the commission replies to the petition, more lawsuits could come.

“We would interpret the release of wolves prior to taking action on the petition to be a denial of the petition,” commenter Callie Scritchfield said. “We believe that the denial would be considered final agency action, and it would open the door to a legal appeal.”

Many people testified in support of the petition, though others said that they stand behind the state's policy and want to see continued wolf releases.

Commissioner Murphy Robinson pushed strongly for a set date by which people could expect action from the commissioners reading the petition. However, Robinson said he had discovered that earlier petitions submitted to CPW are still waiting to be heard.

“Commissioners have been talking about how do we move expeditiously and all of these things, because it's affecting our public, but I also want to consider that there are so many other folks putting in so many other petitions that we have to look at,” Robinson said. “I also don't want to be in a position where they say, ‘You're picking what you believe is the most important.’”

CPW Commission Chair Dallas May said he has been asked to call a special meeting to consider the wolf-delay petition but that he is uncomfortable with proceeding without a recommendation from Davis. He does not think the agency is dragging its feet in order to avoid tackling the issue, he added.

“I believe the criticisms are mostly unfounded,” May said. “This is not a light subject. The Division staff is addressing the concerns, and it's their responsibility to present a written recommendation to this commission, which we do not have today. … I don't think with all of the responsibilities on staff, we can simply say to all of them, ‘We need you to stop today and work on this exclusively.’”

Without a staff response, May said he would have to vote no because he wouldn’t have the knowledge to know if the proposal is a good idea or not.

Other commissioners expressed their sympathy with the public's frustration. “These people are asking for an answer and we're not really giving them an answer,” Commissioner Marie Haskett said.

Davis reiterated that if the commission wanted staff to focus on this petition, they would do so — but he said that could come at a cost to other work being done to improve the program.

At the end of two days, the commission decided to continue waiting on a staff response.

“I more than appreciate the producers that have brought it and done thorough work with it, but I do not see how we can deter from the process that we have,” Commissioner Tai Jacober said. “Director Davis cannot give us an answer today — I think that's clear. So we don't have a time frame. I'm sorry for everybody that that's not there.”