ߣÏÈÉú

Colorado ranchers and lawmakers have questioned how Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials are making decisions about wolves since the animals were reintroduced to the state starting in December.

Concerns have peaked in recent months, however, as wildlife officials have gone outside of recommendations in the Wolf Restoration and Management Plan, and have raised questions about whether Gov. Jared Polis is calling the shots on wolves.

 Sen. Dylan Roberts — who represents Senate District 8, which has been the epicenter of Colorado’s reintroduction efforts â€” asked Parks and Wildlife Director Jeff Davis how decisions were being made during a Sept. 18 Senate Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee hearing.

---

---

“Is this something that the public can trust is being managed exclusively by the experts and the biologists and the scientists and you all, as the appointed heads of the department, can the public trust that you all have the ultimate decision-making authority on this?” Roberts said. “Or are there other people who are weighing in here?”

Davis said the agency is trying to balance concerns, ideas and advice “from everyone” and aligning it with its technical expertise and plans to make decisions, but acknowledged that wildlife officials are not only trying to manage the wolves but also the complex “social change and conflicts” at play in the restoration efforts.

---

---

“So I do feel very confident that as we move forward, we will get back on track with all the components of the plan itself and all those tools will be utilized by (Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s) experts and (Parks and Wildlife’s) leadership in making those decisions moving forward,” Davis said.

Davis also discussed the agency’s relationship with the governor’s office.

“As the executive of our state, we have a responsibility as part of that administration to make sure that the governor’s office and the governor himself is aware of what’s going on and what decisions and recommendations we’re moving forward with,” Davis said.

Roberts asked Davis whether the agency has had any conflict between recommendations made by staff, experts and the management plan and requests made by the governor’s office.

Ultimately, Parks and Wildlife is the only entity with “full clarity of all the facts and the biological considerations that we’re trying to navigate,” Davis said.

“There’s a lot of people that can armchair quarterback and pontificate … and those folks have very distinguished careers, so I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, but we’re the entity with the expertise here in Colorado and all of the facts of any particular situation that we’re trying to navigate going forward,” Davis said.

In an interview with Vail Daily after the hearing, Roberts said he wanted to get Davis on the record about some of the concerns ranchers have raised with him and in light of recent comments made by Colorado’s First Gentleman Marlon Reis.  

The concerns have included decisions that are contrary to the Wolf Restoration and Management Plan adopted by Parks and Wildlife in May 2023 to provide a framework for the reintroduction efforts.

Specifically, Roberts pointed to the wolves brought to Colorado from Oregon that “came from known-depredating packs” as well as the August decision to remove the Copper Creek Pack from Grand County after they were responsible for a slew of livestock killings in the region.

While Roberts said he is “very grateful” action was taken to remove the wolves, he is worried it sets a dangerous precedent.

“The capture and relocation of wolves is actually explicitly in the wolf management plan as something that Colorado should not do, and that is not proper mitigation of conflict,” Roberts said.

When Parks and Wildlife announced the decision, Davis acknowledged that it ran counter to the plan, calling it a “unique case” that would not set a precedent for how wildlife officials will resolve livestock-wolf conflict moving forward.

Following the agency’s capture and relocation of this pack, Reis on Facebook, criticizing Parks and Wildlife for not speaking more openly about wolf reintroduction.

“I’m sure (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) had its reasons for not openly celebrating the reintroduction, but its media silence created an information vacuum in which extreme anti-wolf sentiment was permitted to dominate the airwaves,” Reis stated. “When you don’t tell your side of the story, you allow your detractors to tell theirs without any accountability to the truth.”

Reis goes on to state that his hope is the agency will “defend its work, celebrate its successes, not give in to cynicism, and do everything possible to ensure animals don’t suffer because of people who still believe in fairy tales.”

Roberts said the post raised concerns for him and was part of why he questioned Davis last week.

“This is not a messaging exercise. This is not supposed to be a PR campaign. This is supposed to be based on the management plan. This is supposed to be based on science and biology, and it’s supposed to have input from the local impacted communities,” Roberts said. “And if the first gentleman is criticizing that, that could put (Parks and Wildlife’s) authority to make decisions in question.”

Reis deleted his social media accounts briefly in August after getting into a few back-and-forth debates with ranchers over wolves and water. 

In the interview, Roberts acknowledged the significant stress that Davis and the agency’s staff are under due to the “rushed nature” of the wolf reintroduction. However, he hopes the agency is maintaining its ability to make independent decisions.

“It’s an agency that has traditionally been given independence to make decisions that are based on science and biology and are not inflamed by passion and certainly not by animal rights groups or activists,” he said. “I think in some regards they have, but there are obviously some areas where decision-making is not their own.”

Ranchers speak out, requesting a management change

These questions mirror similar concerns raised by producers Don Gittleson and Conway Farrell who sent a letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife representatives, Scott Becker and Matt Hogan on Aug. 28. The letter asks the federal agency to take over management of the wolf reintroduction due to management concerns.

“We believe that due to the Governor’s and his spouse’s relationship with wolf advocacy groups and their own feelings, he is not allowing Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) leaders to make adequate and reasonable decisions in regards to the management of wolves,” the letter reads.

Gittleson later told Vail Daily that the letter was written not to question Parks and Wildlife’s ability to manage the predators, but rather how decisions are being made.

“The whole reason for that letter is to have (Fish and Wildlife Service) step in, to have somebody in between the governor and the director that can run interference,” Gittleson said. “Let’s let them do their job. They’re not going to do everything I want, I don’t expect that, but what’s going on is a calamity, and I think (Parks and Wildlife) know better.”

In addition to the decisions to bring in depredating packs, and then relocate them against the management plan, Gittleson and Farrell’s letter believes that the agency has also failed in “building trust, maintaining relationships, setting expectations, emphasizing transparent and meaningful outreach with stakeholders and the public,” as required by the plan.

The lack of transparency has trickled down to the agency’s wildlife managers and employees on the ground and has created a really big problem and has eroded trust between the agency and ranchers, Gittleson said.

“Currently ranchers tend to know more about what is going on where wolves are involved than the (Parks and Wildlife) officers in their own jurisdiction,” the letter states. “When the (Parks and Wildlife) officer is asked by a rancher about something they already know and the officer says he doesn’t know, that creates a trust issue.”

Gittleson said many of these decisions are the result of pressure from the governor and the first gentleman.

“Get rid of two people, he’ll make better decisions,” Gittleson said of Davis. “The director takes a lot of heat. I don’t think he’s a bad person, but his hands are tied.”

How are decisions being made?

In a statement, the governor’s office stated moving management from Parks and Wildlife to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service would not make sense.

“We respectfully disagree that a Washington D.C.-based federal bureaucracy thousands of miles from Colorado with very limited resources in the state would somehow be better equipped to manage on-the-ground efforts and voter-approved wolf reintroduction efforts, and would only put more government barriers in place,” read the statement. 

Roberts also said that the legality and logistics of this type of switch would be “complicated or next to impossible.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been engaged with Colorado Parks and Wildlife on wolf reintroduction. In addition to helping create the plan, the federal agency for the state and has a memorandum of agreement with Parks and Wildlife.

The governor’s office also shared how Polis and Parks and Wildlife work together.

“The Governor appoints the board of Colorado Parks and Wildlife and of course, the Governor works closely with leadership at the Department of Natural Resources and Colorado Parks and Wildlife leadership, just as he does with every cabinet member and as Coloradans expect him to,” the spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.

While the governor accepts applications, interviews and makes appointments to the agency’s commission, the Senate must approve all appointees. In May, two of the three governor appointments due to concerns about their experience. 

Gary ߣÏÈÉúba, who withdrew prior to the final vote, had been part of the group leading the wolf reintroduction ballot initiative. Jessica Beaulieu, who was ultimately appointed to the commission, drew concerns from lawmakers and hunting and recreation organizations over a lack of connection to the state’s parks and wildlife and connections to animal activist initiatives.

Roberts was part of these hearings and expressed concerns both during the hearings and after over how these appointments could affect the agency’s direction.

“I think there’s a concern that the commission is being filled with people who are more interested in changing the direction of the agency rather than preserving the statutory vision of (Parks and Wildlife),” Roberts said to Vail Daily this week.

The statement provided by the governor’s office adds that Polis is “committed to upholding the will of Colorado voters and the successful implementation of the unanimously adopted Wolf Management Plan,” even though he did not take a support position for the ballot initiative.

In an email, Travis Duncan, a Parks and Wildlife spokesperson, wrote that Polis receives regular updates on all of the agency’s wildlife efforts, not just wolves. He added that “Davis believes it is a part of good governance to keep the Governor apprised of the agency’s work.”

When asked how decisions have been made around wolves, Duncan wrote that the agency follows the plan, using it as “a guide to help aid and guide decision making.”

“The (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) Director works closely with the (Parks and Wildlife) Executive Management Team members, the Wolf Conservation Program Manager and in coordination with staff to stay in alignment with the plan when making wildlife management decisions involving gray wolves,” Duncan stated.

Where does Colorado go from here?

Even with concerns and tensions high in Colorado’s wolf reintroduction efforts, some solutions could move the state forward more positively.

“I haven’t lost confidence in (Colorado Parks and Wildlife), but, you know, I want to make sure they have the independent decision-making authority to do the right thing and not be influenced by other factors,” Roberts said.

Gittleson said the agency needs to increase transparency and communication as well as learn from its mistakes, particularly around depredating wolves and wolves that are habituated to humans and livestock.

Roberts added that there needs to be a better process for investigating depredations and paying ranchers, more funding for conflict avoidance and mitigation, more willingness to quickly remove problem wolves, and improving the process for sourcing wolves.

Duncan listed several ways the agency is making moves to improve relations. This includes increasing training and education around non-lethal techniques, assessing site vulnerability where wolves are (or will be) and starting conversations earlier before more wolves arrive in Colorado this winter.

Elliott Wenzler contributed reporting from the state Capitol in Denver.