ߣÏÈÉú

Around one year ago, gray wolves were released in Colorado, implementing the voter-approved mandate to reestablish the predators in the state after being eradicated over 80 years ago. 

Between Dec. 17 to 22, 2023, 10 wolves were captured in Oregon and released in Colorado’s Western Slope — eight in Grand County and two in Summit County.

While environmental advocates and Colorado Parks and Wildlife laud the reintroduction efforts as successful and remarkable from a biological perspective, the first year has been heavily scrutinized. Ranchers and legislators described it as disastrous, painful, frustrating, stressful and challenging. 

---

---

As wolves roamed, there have been questions about wolf management decisions and the state’s preparedness, increased stress on Parks and Wildlife employees, requests to pause reintroduction, spats on social media, livestock conflicts and more. 

Now, Colorado Parks and Wildlife is readying to bring up to 15 more wolves from Canada to Eagle, Pitkin or Garfield counties this winter — bringing with them new programs to address challenges. 

---

---

The wolves’ first year

The year has included the birth of five pups from one pack, three deaths, continued exploration, a contested capture-and-relocation operation and more. Biologically speaking, Jeff Davis, the Parks and Wildlife director, called this past year “pretty remarkable.” 

“We’re actually off to a good start,” said Michael Saul, the Rockies and Plains program director for conservation nonprofit Defenders of Wildlife. 

Despite the noise of what he called a few squeaky wheels and negative press coverage, Saul said “the program is on track and within the parameters of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s .”

Among the achievements is the state’s first pack from reintroduced wolves. The Copper Creek Pack’s adult wolves denned in April with the first wolf pups confirmed in June. 

Having five pups born was something that “everyone hoped for but didn’t quite dare expect” in the first year, Saul said. 

However, the pack was connected to multiple livestock deaths in Grand County, prompting intervention from Parks and Wildlife. After the agency denied a permit from local ranchers to attempt to kill the depredating wolf, the agency announced it would capture and relocate the pack. 

The decision drew concerns from ranchers, legislators and environmentalists as it went against the state’s wolf plan and created questions about the future. Parks and Wildlife has maintained that this was a unique situation that will not set a precedent, but that the decision was made to ensure the pups’ survival. 

Ultimately, the pack’s male died in captivity from injuries sustained in the wild. The adult female and four of the pups remain at a sanctuary but will be collared and released this winter in line with the release of the next wolves from Canada. 

In addition to the five wolves in captivity, Parks and Wildlife is tracking nine wild wolves, according to Matt Yamashita, an area wildlife manager in Eagle, Pitkin and Garfield counties. This includes the surviving seven wolves from last December’s releases, one pup from the Copper Creek pack and another wolf that made its way to Colorado naturally. 

In addition to the pack’s male, another male died in April following a mountain lion attack and a third male died in September after a fight with another wolf.   

Since January, Parks and Wildlife has released monthly maps that track the collared wolves’ movements across Colorado’s watersheds. While activity has centered in Grand, Routt, Jackson and Rio Blanco counties, milestones included wolves venturing to Rocky Mountain National Park and south of Interstate 70. Currently, the wolves are traveling alone or in pairs, going between 150 and 250 miles a week, according to Davis. 

As restoration efforts continue, advocates expect to see broader ecological and economic benefits. 

This could include increased biodiversity and reduced disease spread with well-distributed wolf populations as well as increased eco-tourism and reduced vehicle-deer collisions as ungulate behavior shifts, said Kaitie Schneider, Colorado wolf representative for Defenders of Wildlife based in Berthoud. 

“Wolves hold an intrinsic value to many Coloradans as it is a native species that was once extirpated by humans, and they see the restoration of wolves as part of the restoration of Colorado’s natural heritage,” Schneider said. 

‘More stress on top of stress:’ Ranchers reflect on first year 

The first year also brought challenges for those dealing with the wolves on the ground. 

“This is not biologically complex. This is socially and politically complex for us to do,” Davis said at an August . 

At the December budget hearing, Davis said that wolf restoration requires the agency to balance “two very extreme value systems, some with indirect benefits from it and other west slope folks in particular with very direct impacts.”

Sen. Dylan Roberts, who represents most of the Western Slope counties impacted by wolves, described the year as “painful.” 

“Generally, it has been a really difficult process that has had numerous unforced errors committed that have really harmed relationships and communities across the Western Slope and across the state,” Roberts said. “It’s been painful, really difficult and very time-consuming, especially for the folks on the ground who are living with it daily.”

Having wolves has been “more stress on top of stress,” said Tim Ritschard, a Grand County rancher and president of the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association.

“Producers stress already about keeping their cattle alive,” Ritschard said. “And now we’re having to deal with another predator out there that moves at a high rate of speed.”

Beyond seeing direct livestock deaths from wolves, there have been new financial burdens as ranchers add staff and protections, and deal with the stress it’s bringing to cattle — which leads to underweight calves and lower conception — he added. 

Caitlyn Taussig is a fourth-generation Grand County rancher who runs a small calf-cow operation north of Kremmling with her 76-year-old mom. While their operation hasn’t seen any direct impacts, Taussig described the anxiety and worry as “intense.” 

“We’re very busy people, and we have so much on our plates already,” Taussig said. “Ranchers and farmers have some of the highest suicide rates of any group of people, and this added stress and anxiety is multiplying those mental health problems. … To think about how many sleepless nights I’ve had when we haven’t even had direct conflict with wolves yet scares me for the future.”

While Colorado ranchers have always dealt with predators, the heightened politics surrounding wolves has brought a new complexity. Historically, when ranchers have had problems with predators like mountain lions and bears, Parks and Wildlife has stepped in and taken care of the problem, Ritschard said. 

“(Wolves are) so political right now that they’re not willing to remove them or do whatever if we’re starting to have issues like that,” he added.

Parks and Wildlife obtained a to permit the killing of wolves despite their protected status. It has yet to issue a lethal permit but is working to define chronic depredation, which could open the gates to future permits being approved. The definition is expected to be finalized by early 2025.

As ranchers speak out against the program, Ritschard said their comments are out of concern for losing a long-held way of life in Colorado. 

“Most of these producers have been multigeneration operations. We’re not abusers of the land. We’re stewards of the land. We take care of the land. We take care of our animals. We’re trying to create a product that the American people can enjoy,” Ritschard said. “We all feel threatened right now, and I think that’s why you’re seeing such a push from producers.”

It’s a fear many ranchers share. At an Eagle County wolf meeting in December, Jill Schlegel, whose family has run a beef operation and outfitting group in Burns since the 1900s, spoke of the threat wolves hold to the county’s few remaining ranchers. 

“As ranchers, this may be our last stand as we can’t afford or emotionally withstand wolves harassing our cattle or families,” she added. 

What — or who — is to blame for the challenges? 

Many stakeholders, including ranchers, believe that the reintroduction was doomed from the start after it was passed by Colorado voters. Taussig said this meant the reintroduction was “bound to be a powder keg.” 

“I don’t know anybody in (Parks and Wildlife) who was in favor of wolf reintroduction, but they couldn’t speak out, and now they’re the ones getting caught in the middle between the political pressure from above when they’re mandated to reintroduce wolves,” Taussig said. “And then they have to be face to face with ranchers who are frustrated, angry, feeling passionate, and they’re in pain about losing livestock.”

Others have pointed to management concerns and a lack of preparedness as reasons for the challenging first year. Proposition 114 required that the state release its first wolves by Dec. 31, 2023. While legislators attempted to delay the start, the bill was vetoed by Gov. Jared Polis. 

“I would say the first year was disastrous,” Ritschard said. “Nobody was ready for this.”

Ritschard added that it would’ve been helpful to have nonlethal programs fully funded and implemented before reintroduction — namely a range rider, which the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association now has thanks in part to a — as well as knowledge of what a wolf kill looks like. 

Roberts said that much of the support coming to ranchers now has been “reactionary.”

“It’s starting to lead to some more proactivity by (Parks and Wildlife), which is encouraging, but in general, there’s a sense that things were not ready to go last December when these wolves got released,” Roberts said. 

This rush forced both wolves and producers into situations they can’t get out of, Parks and Wildlife Commission Chairman Dallas May said in August — a sentiment echoed by other commissioners. 

“We got pushed into doing all this, and it’s not fair to anybody,” said Commissioner Marie Haskett at the November meeting. “We’re behind, livestock producers are behind, and we all need to find a way to catch up.” 

Wildlife advocates push back on this argument. Saul called it “absolute nonsense,” stating that “Colorado prepared hard.”

“If you set the expectation that every (ranching) operation in Colorado needs to be 100% wolf-proofed before you can put even a small handful of wolves on the ground, then of course — if that’s the metric — success is impossible,” Saul said. 

Alli Henderson, southern Rockies director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the reintroduction occurred after a multiyear process with multiple working groups and public engagement opportunities.  

“Nobody can reasonably say that they were caught off guard about the reintroduction of the species,” Henderson said. “What we’re seeing right now is the natural process of a new program and making sure that it’s going to be tailored to the needs we have as a state to make it successful.” 

Could Colorado put wolves on pause? 

These challenges have led to questions on whether the state should pause reintroduction efforts. In September, a group of 26 agriculture and livestock organizations submitted a petition to Parks and Wildlife, asking for a pause until more conflict-mitigation measures are funded and implemented. 

With the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association among the signatories, Ritschard presented to the Commission in November, but the commission is awaiting a staff recommendation before making any decisions. 

The petition made seven specific asks of Parks and Wildlife, including defining “chronic depredation,” implementing and funding nonlethal programs for things like range riding and carcass management, hiring additional staff, and improving communication with impacted ranchers and communities. 

According to Davis, the agency is working on or has finalized items to address all seven. 

Ritschard feels uncertain about the prospect of a pause, as he believes the reintroduction is being “pushed hard” by the governor’s office.

“It’s tough to say what’s actually going to happen, but we’ll keep fighting,” Ritschard said. “My gut feeling and my heart tells me every day that I hope we’re doing the right thing and we’re going to get this thing reversed.”

Roberts said the petition included “very specific and detailed and reasonable asks” and that “at a bare minimum, (Parks and Wildlife) should say to them, and to the entire state, that we will not introduce any more wolves until those seven items are not only begun but completed, they need to be in place and ready to go before any new paws are on the ground.”

The request to pause has also been , a nonprofit group representing all counties in the state except for Denver County, and is being broached by Colorado’s Joint Budget Committee. During hearings this fall, the committee is investigating whether pausing the controversial wolf program could help the state meet a tight budget.

While it hasn’t addressed the petition, the agency has repeatedly stated that having more wolves in Colorado will help with management. 

“​​I know it sounds counterintuitive, but as we get packs established with more pairs, then this becomes an easier thing to predict and therefore easier to deploy nonlethal programs and techniques that truly do a better job of avoiding and minimizing conflicts with livestock than we saw this last year,” Davis said at a December budget hearing.  

Henderson said a pause would push the state back to square one. 

“If we have further mortality events without giving these wolves that have already been reintroduced the opportunity to become part of the gene pool, we’re losing that genetic information, and then we’re also wasting a lot of fiscal resources that went into getting those wolves here in the state to restore the self-sustaining population,” Henderson added. 

Figuring it out 

As Parks and Wildlife prepares for the next year, it is working with other state, federal and nongovernmental organizations to adapt and address challenges. 

When asked what its biggest lesson has been, Travis Duncan, the agency’s spokesperson, said “(Parks and Wildlife) has been listening to the concerns and recommendations of stakeholders throughout the entire first year of gray wolf restoration” and is incorporating this feedback into future efforts to mitigate conflict and improve communication, education and training. 

So far, this has included increasing staffing capacity from both Parks and Wildlife and the Colorado Department of Agriculture to address conflicts and depredation, hosting educational conflict mitigation meetings with various federal and state partners across the Western Slope, offering free site assessments on ranching operations, creating grant programs to support nonlethal deterrents, setting best practice recommendations for carcass management and more. 

In a December , Parks and Wildlife and the Colorado Department of Agriculture shared additional initiatives they are preparing to launch for year two:

• A new guide to help minimize wolf-livestock conflicts, to be released this December, will set criteria for depredation response, including the chronic depredation definition, funding resources and more 
• A range rider program in early 2025, which will begin with training several Parks and Wildlife and Department of Agriculture staff members as deployable range riders and then accept applications for more riders and training 

Kate Greenberg, the Colorado commissioner of agriculture, said the biggest thing the department has learned is to “stay responsive and stay in touch.”

“It’s all about being responsive, keeping those communications open, keeping the relationships going and building this work together,” Greenberg said.

While the department’s wolf programs and resources are new, they reflect ongoing efforts to help the agriculture communities adapt to any new changes on the landscape, she added. 

“So much of this work — whether it’s this grant program, the site assessments that (Parks and Wildlife) has established — is all about what works on a specific piece of property, a specific operation in a specific community, or on a specific piece of rangeland,” Greenberg said. “That’s really key because there is no one-size-fits-all.”

In 2025, while legislators may seek solutions, they’re in a difficult position, according to Roberts. 

“We’re kind of in a middle ground as legislators because there are certainly bills that we could pass, you know, to pause the program, to stop the program legislatively, but we know the governor would never sign those bills,” Roberts said. “That leads us to try and do everything we can to ensure that (Parks and Wildlife) is making the right decisions and implementing the right programs and procedures.”

This doesn’t mean there will be no action. In addition to the questions raised by the Joint Budget Committee, Roberts is co-sponsoring a bill to block ranchers’ names from public records requests around compensation for wolf-related livestock deaths. And while he hopes Parks and Wildlife will address other compensation-related concerns, Roberts has another bill ready to reform the compensation standards if it doesn’t. 

Is there hope on the horizon? 

For advocates, these steps show things are moving in the right direction. 

“We’ve seen the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Agency and the Department of Agriculture being not only extremely responsive to concerns but really rolling up their sleeves and deploying resources and protocols — and all sorts of other types of support to make this successful,” Henderson said. “What’s going to be successful for the gray wolves is also going to be successful for the livestock industry.”

As part of the Colorado Defenders of Wildlife team, Schneider has been working on the ground with producers to minimize conflict by helping install nonlethal tools and help them access resources. The nonprofit contributed $40,000 in 2024 to these efforts, she said. 

Schneider said her experiences contradict many of the negative narratives out there. 

“On the ground, there is an overwhelming willingness to come together, get these concrete goals and find solutions that work for each person,” she said. “I think part of the problem is a lot of these really hard, uncomfortable conversations are happening on social media and in the public and to legislators and decision-makers when they should just be happening face to face.”

With continued investment and collaboration around solutions, the program will have the “time and space it needs to unfold,” Schneider added. 

“This responsibility does not just fall on (Parks and Wildlife),” she said. “We see this as a community approach to helping find a successful restoration of wolves.”

Others are having trouble finding hope in the future. 

“I’m a pretty optimistic guy, and I’m not feeling a lot of optimism around this right now,” Roberts said. 

While Parks and Wildlife and other agencies are working toward collaboration and coexistence, comments from the top keep setting things back, Roberts added.

“The fact that the last week that it’s the rancher’s fault that this program is going poorly and costing more is really not great and is antagonistic,” he said. “Some things are going better than they were six months ago or a year ago, but a lot more needs to be done before ranchers in my district feel comfortable with any of this.” 

According to Saul, what Colorado needs is time, more wolves and empathy to find success ahead. 

“It takes wolf advocates understanding the stress and uncertainty that producers face, but it also requires producers accepting in good faith that wolves are now, again, a part of Colorado’s ecosystem,” Saul said. “It will take some changes to get used to that.”