Two Wolf Bills Earn Governor's Approval, Third Could Fall Prey to a Veto

Update: On May 16, Governor Jared Polis vetoed SB23-256; see his explanatory letter here. Now keep reading for our original story, published May 11:

The pack of wolf reintroduction bills that has been making its way through the Colorado Legislature over the past few months has officially passed — but one of the pieces of legislation could soon fall prey to a veto from Governor Jared Polis.

The bill, SB23-256 Management of Gray Wolves Introduction, requires a 10(j) designation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before wolves can be introduced pursuant to Proposition 114, which voters approved in 2020. Those designations allow potentially injurious or lethal management of animals on the federal endangered species list, where wolves are currently categorized.

“The Governor will review SB23-256 like he does all legislation that gets to his desk, but the administration was clear during the legislative process that the bill would delay the ongoing processes with the federal government for the state to be granted a 10(j) and safely reintroduce wolves on the voter-prescribed timeline,” a spokesperson for the governor’s office says in a statement. “He does not have concerns about the other wolf-related bills.”

Colorado Parks and Wildlife has been working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife on a 10(j), and the process is expected to finish by December 15 — giving CPW two weeks to follow its recently finalized wolf reintroduction plan and get paws on the ground by December 31.

Agricultural organizations have encouraged the governor to sign SB23-256, despite the state already moving in the direction of a 10(j) designation.

“We think it's very important Governor Polis sign it,” says Greg Peterson who is a member of the Gunnison County Stockgrowers Association. “It's a great piece of legislation.”

Peterson says the bill is insurance that ranchers will be able to access all the tools they need to keep their livestock safe, pointing out that without a 10(j) in place, much of the CPW plan for wolf-livestock mitigation won’t be able to be carried out. Plus, ranchers worry that if there is no 10(j), CPW would have to share authority over the wolves with U.S. Fish and Wildlife — leaving ranchers reliant on a federal agency for help.

“We really have a good relationship with CPW,” Peterson notes. “I don't know how you get [in contact with U.S. Fish and Wildlife]. … Nobody knows them.”

Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director for the environmental organization WildEarth Guardians, says the original text of SB23-256 would have been much worse, possibly delaying reintroduction for years. But even the amended version isn’t necessary, because both CPW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife are already working to ensure that ranchers' fears will not be realized.

“Our viewpoint is it still should be vetoed,” Larris says. “It creates potential for delay, and it will subjugate the will of the voters to this political process.”

The bill specifies that a 10(j) can’t just be finished: it must go into effect before reintroduction, which Larris says could be thirty to sixty days after it is published in the Federal Register.

“When things get published in the Federal Register, there is a time period before they go into effect,” she says. “I don't know for certain if that's a statutory requirement or if that's just an option, but it wouldn't likely be that it gets published today and it's in effect today. I’ve never seen that happen.”

The bill, as passed, could also delay reintroduction because in U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s National Environmental Policy Act review the agency considered not implementing a 10(j) and leaving wolves federally protected in Colorado. The agency described that option as its “least preferred” choice in its draft of the 10(j) plan. But from a legal standpoint, Larris believes it may need to be revisited — since under the proposed bill, it wouldn't be a possibility at all.

“If I was a lawyer for the Fish and Wildlife Service, I may say, ‘Let's go back and look at this again and take another glance at the impact of this new law before finalizing the rules,’” she says; that could lead to more delays.

For ranchers, Peterson says the bill is not about delaying reintroduction: it’s about security should the 10(j) be delayed.

“It's a bureaucratic process with the federal government,” he says. “It could get stalled, and I don't think that it should be forced to happen on December 31 regardless of whether or not that process is finished.”

Despite the general consensus that CPW must reintroduce wolves by the end of the year, those worried about reintroduction have insisted that the 2023 deadline isn’t specifically for rolling out the wolves; it’s also for engaging in the planning process, which CPW has done.

“That's an interpretation of the people," Peterson says. "If they really wanted to have a successful reintroduction, I don't think it makes sense to push this forward and create even more tension and adversity with landowners and CPW."

Another item that could have created tension between the state and federal processes is Congresswoman Lauren Boebert’s Trust the Science Act, which aims to remove wolves from the federal Endangered Species Act.

“I will never stop advocating for rural Colorado, and I will keep working to protect farmers, ranchers and their livestock from wolf attacks,” Boebert said in a statement when the bill passed the House Committee on Natural Resources on April 28.

As SB23-256 was originally written, it would have prevented the reintroduction of wolves had they not been on the endangered species list — since a 10(j) is only possible if wolves are federally endangered.

But, as Larris explains, the bill was amended to only apply to “federally endangered gray wolves," thus solving the potential problem.

Whether or not SB23-256 runs into issues with the governor, the other two bills won't.

In addition to SB23-256, the Gunnison County Stockgrowers Association also supports SB23-255, aka the Wolf Depredation Compensation Fund. That bill — which Peterson points out had bipartisan support, just as the other two wolf bills did — gives permanent funding to ranchers who lose livestock to wolves.

“It’s a good start,” Peterson says. “It doesn't necessarily address some of the indirect costs."

Ranchers are glad the state is funding compensation, according to Peterson, but they also believe it should fund preventative expenses like hiring range riders or implementing other deterrents against wolves. There aren't enough people to do that work and it’s costly, Peterson says, creating a double bind for those ranchers. The third bill could help, though.

HB23-1265, the Born to Be Wild Special License Plate bill, provides funding for preventative measures when people buy a new license plate in support of wolves.

“It sets Colorado up to succeed in a space that other states have failed because it provides a significant, long-term funding mechanism for reducing conflict,” says Rob Edward, strategic advisor for the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project.

Funds from the bill could be used to pay for range riders and buy tools like foxlights, which are battery-powered lights that flash continuously and keep wolves away from livestock. But Peterson worries that the license plates won’t be enough.

“I don't think that this license plate bill really alleviates that concern,” he says. “It may make [advocates] feel good but as a funding source I think it'll be shorter term.”

Edward pushes back on this, though — noting that the Born to Be Wild license plate website still gets sign-ups over a year after it was first created, and that those sign-ups have picked up since the bill headed to the governor's desk. The hope is that with the money being collected from the license plate, the depredation fund won’t be required as much.

Whether or not ranchers will start needing the money from either of the two funding bills by the end of the year is in Polis’s paws now.