Can Colorado’s ag producers, wolves find a way to coexist?
Elliott Wenzler/The Aspen Times
As Colorado’s reintroduced wolves continue to explore the state, officials are grappling with how to balance supporting and managing wolves with maintaining the health of its agricultural industry.
“This is not biologically complex. This is socially and politically complex for us to do,” said Jeff Davis, director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife, at the Thursday, Aug. 22, commissioner meeting. “Wolves come with historical context and conflict. I would just say, the more we’re able to really listen to understand one another and the more we’re able to increase cooperation with one another — at least (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) and (Colorado Department of Agriculture) — I think we’ll all be better off in the long run.”
Since reintroducing the first 10 gray wolves in Colorado in December 2023, the state wildlife agency has confirmed one wolf death and one coupling, resulting in at least three wolf pups.
Yet the agency has been dealing with mounting tensions between the wolves and the region’s livestock and agricultural producers. Now, around nine months into its efforts, the agency is grappling with how to minimize conflict and depredation, which Parks and Wildlife defines as “physical trauma resulting in injury or death.”
Where are wolf depredations occurring?
There have been 15 confirmed depredation events since reintroduction began. The first occurred April 2, 2024, and the most recent happened on July 28 according to the agency’s data platform on confirmed livestock killings. This last incident is part of a continuing investigation, the report states. The majority of these are calves and cattle, with two incidents involving sheep.
Before its reintroduction efforts, the agency confirmed 13 gray wolf depredation events between December 2021 and November 2023.
Reid Dewalt, deputy director of policy for Parks and Wildlife, told the commission on Friday that the “main issues in depredation” are with the adult pair in the Copper Creek Pack.
“We continue to work with that situation for solutions and opportunities for improvements,” he said. “We have had a few other depredations from the other wolves but nothing to the level that we’ve seen in Middle Park.”
As decided by the state legislature, the agency has $350,000 budgeted for compensation of producers, he said.
How can the state reduce conflict between wolves and producers?
The state ballot initiative that started the reintroduction efforts required that the plan to release wolves be “designed to resolve conflicts with persons engaged in ranching and farming” as well as use the best science available to restore and manage the wolves. The law also stipulates that the commission cannot impose any land, water, or resource-use restrictions on private landowners during its efforts.
The nature and timeline of the ballot initiative have put Parks and Wildlife in an exceedingly challenging position, according to Commissioner Marie Haskett.
“The wolf reintroduction was rushed, and many unintended consequences are now being seen,” she said, later adding that one of the consequences is that “(Parks and Wildlife) does not have the staff or the resources to fulfill the ballot initiative.”
So, as depredation events continue and tensions rise, the state’s wildlife and agriculture agencies are working with communities to determine how to minimize conflict. Part of this has included adding staff on the ground.
Dewalt reported that the agency has hired five “predator damage conflict specialists” who are currently being deployed in Northwest, Southwest, and Northeast Colorado.
“The majority of their focus will be on wolves, but we’ve already seen that there’s a lot of opportunity to work with bears and lions, as well,” he said.
This team is currently in Oregon and Idaho — with Adam Baca, Parks and Wildlife’s wolf conflict coordinator, and six district wildlife managers — to learn from those states and deepen Colorado’s knowledge of depredation, management, and depredation deterrents, he said.
Dallas May, chair of the commission, requested that the agency also create a “rapid response team.”
“I think we need a minimum of three individuals who are specialists in not only biology but human dimensions and sociology,” May said. “So, the next time (depredation) happens, which it will, that team can go to the producers, go to the area, and begin a different process that works to resolve these conflicts.”
Davis confirmed that the agency is currently identifying what such a team could look like.
Lethal versus nonlethal management
Friday’s discussion was a continuation of dialogue between the agency and community around what types of management are needed to reduce depredation and maintain the wolf populations.
Dewalt noted that the agency has created an ad hoc group to help build relationships between wolf advocates, Parks and Wildlife, and the agriculture community. This group is expected to have recommendations in October on “alternatives to address chronic depredation and determining when an agency-directed control action or issuance of a depredation permit should be considered,” as well as ideas for decreasing tensions and addressing conflict, he said.
Friday’s discussion included a presentation on nonlethal coexistence with wolves as one option in this discussion. The presentation was given by Delia Malone, president of Colorado Wild; Dallas Gudgel, the wildlife and tribal policy director of the International Wildlife Coexistence Network; and Dr. Adrian Treves, director of the carnivore existence lab at the University of Wisconsin Madison.
“We are here to ask that you consider requiring pro-active use of effective, nonlethal coexistence methods before there is any issuing of any wolf kill permits; require that nonlethal coexistence methods, design, and installation are based on the best available science for that method,” Malone said.
The presentation argued that nonlethal methods — which include fencing and fladry, noise and light devices, guardian dogs hazing tools, low-stress livestock human presence, and range riders and livestock management — are the most effective way to prevent, reduce, and minimize conflict between producers and wolves.
In the slew of public comments that followed the presentation, producers and wildlife advocates both spoke on the need for timely decision-making to better manage conflicts. Of the items discussed, there was consensus around the desire for there to be fewer depredations and for there to be additional resources allocated by the state to achieve that goal.
Additionally, community members expressed a desire for a range-riding program funded by the state, for site assessments to be conducted up front, for a carcass disposal program, for there to be appropriate non-lethal methods before lethal options are considered, and for increased education efforts and dialogue. Commenters also discussed topics of lethal methods in chronic depredation, non-lethal removal, and more.
All of these options will help with “behavior management,” Davis said.
“It’s not necessarily population management, especially at this phase of the game,” he added.
While Parks and Wildlife and the commission have yet to make any new decisions on these items, Wayne East with the Colorado Department of Agriculture said it will take lead on carcass disposal, range riding, and low-stress livestock handling.
Learning from the mistakes and moving on
Several commissioners and community members noted that the state could’ve and should’ve been more pro-active in getting ahead of coexistence efforts.
“We have forced these wolves into a situation that they can’t get out of. We forced the producers into a situation they can’t get out of. So let’s learn from this. Let’s help get past this situation,” May said.
Haskett called Colorado’s effort “a forced reintroduction,” urging all community members to have “empathy for the work of others” because the state is still in the early stages of reintroduction.
Success will require giving ranchers and the agency time to learn, she said.
“Give ranchers time to learn. It is a change to the practices they have done for years. You forced a big change that affects them and not you,” Haskett said. “(Parks and Wildlife) is trying and needs more resources, and I commend our staff for what they’re doing in this landscape without the ample resources to do this ballot initiative.”
Haskett concluded by saying that the current situation is “a great example of why wildlife management should be left to the professional biologist and not the ballot.”
Regardless of how Colorado got to this point, the commissioners and community members articulated a desire to find solutions in the future.
“The unfortunate facts surrounding continued predation and the calls for killing wolves that are being made demonstrate that an explicit requirement … is needed to provide clarity … about what expectations are for avoiding and reducing conflicts, using tools and resources that are being provided and funded, and how that interacts with killing permits,” said Alli Henderson, Southern Rockies director of the Center for Biological Diversity.
Tim Ritschard, president of the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association, said that “no one from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Department of Ag, and livestock producers across Colorado were ready for what has happened since the introduction of wolves.”
“We hope we can solve some issues we are dealing with now before more wolves are on the ground,” he said.
