Connect with us

Colorado

After 360 miles of whitewater and irrigation, the Arkansas River leaves Colorado as a trickle

Published

on

After 360 miles of whitewater and irrigation, the Arkansas River leaves Colorado as a trickle


The sky is wide open above these plains, where the autumn corn stalks are tall and dry, cattle prices and George Jones are on the radio, and a river meanders through it. 

Advertisement

In the last Colorado town before the Kansas state line, the Arkansas River is brown and slow, in some spots like a string of big mud puddles connected by sand bars. Ten miles into Kansas, it disappears, depleted this time of year by thirsty cities and farms along its 360-mile journey through Colorado.

By the time the Arkansas reaches the eastern edge of Colorado, far from its origin as a trickle of snowmelt on a 13,000-foot peak above Leadville, it is a different river. Slow flowing and serene, it’s no longer the wide rush of whitewater that descends from the Rocky Mountains and carves canyons.

This story first appeared in Colorado Sunday, a premium magazine newsletter for members. Experience the best in Colorado news at a slower pace, with thoughtful articles, unique adventures and a reading list that’s a perfect fit for a Sunday morning.

“You can walk across it and not get your ankles wet,” said Randy Holland, the town administrator of Holly, population 800. 

The river, and stories of lush fields where the wheat and corn came easy, drew people to Prowers County to settle and farm. Sandy-bottomed canals, dug by horses pulling slip scrapers more than 130 years ago, bring water from the Arkansas, giving farmers and ranchers a reason to plan for the next harvest. 

Advertisement

The canals are dry except when a gate upstream is opened and each farmer down the line takes their share. Now, though, the gate isn’t opened as often, the water doesn’t flow as far, and the farmers wonder how much longer the Arkansas will give them enough to continue.

The canals and ditches are a main conversation topic for the “coffee-ers,” the morning regulars at the diner. The ditches are a source of conflict — sometimes among neighbors, always among lawyers. Almost everyone here agrees that the cities upstream, and the politicians who live in them, don’t listen or don’t care when people on the Eastern Plains tell them the river is running dry. 

The Arkansas River, as it curves along the south end of town and runs parallel to a two-lane highway to Kansas, carries a resentment deeper than its waters.

“The further you get down the river,” Holland summed up, “the less you feel important.”

map visualization

“We use it to feed people”

Gary Melcher grows corn and alfalfa on the eight acres behind his house, across the street from the high school and Holly community pool. The gooseneck trailer he transformed into a barbecue truck to serve up brisket sandwiches with his special sauce is parked in the driveway, resting between festivals and county fairs. Restaurant-sized cans of baked beans and pickles wait on his kitchen counter.

Melcher grew up in Holly and has been farming since high school. Besides his small farming operation in town, he and his dad grow 460 acres of corn and wheat south of town, about 2 miles from Kansas. 

Advertisement

Water from the muddy Arkansas flows down a ditch near Melcher’s house, the last ditch in Colorado diverting water from the Arkansas, and he uses every drop he can to irrigate his fields. 

Some 20 years ago Melcher was in Denver to watch the Broncos play and, while sipping a beer in a bar, overheard city guys complaining about how much water is wasted on agriculture. It’s true, agriculture accounts for 89% of water consumed in Colorado, but what the Denver guys didn’t know is that plains farmers are so concerned about every raindrop that they use moisture probes to decide when and how to water, that the ditches are so regulated there is no room for waste.

A hand holds two halves of a freshly split ear of corn still attached to the plant, showing the yellow kernels and white core inside.
Gary Melcher shows off a soon-to-be-harvested ear of corn grown on his family’s farm south of Holly in September. The Melchers rely on water from the Ogallala Aquifer to irrigate this corn crop, but Gary also grows crops with water from the Arkansas River. (Mike Sweeney, Special to The Colorado Sun)

“They just thought we wasted water,” Melcher said. “That’s the sentiment that Denver has. And the problem with farmers is we just put our heads down to work, and so sometimes we’re our worst enemy because we do not tell our story good enough. People do not waste water out here.”

The river’s slow flow through Holly is the result of drought and climate change, but also manmade reservoirs and dams, and the sale of water to cities 200 miles to the northwest. Decades of water deals that allowed cities to purchase water from farmers in the Lower Arkansas Valley, and take those shares from cleaner waters upstream, have dried up farmland and made the water that does reach the far eastern edge of the state saltier and more polluted. 

It’s like the rest of Colorado forgot about Holly, Melcher thinks. 

“The Front Range communities taking water greatly affects every piece of our life,” he said. “When they’re basically watering lawns and developing parks and golf courses and all that, that’s when it really stings. They’re using a lot of water just for beautification, where we use it to feed people.” 

Advertisement

“What is a river?” is the question The Colorado Sun has asked throughout its multi-part series from Leadville to Holly. 

Along the Arkansas, people look at the same river and see it differently. 

Just below Leadville, not far from its headwaters on the Continental Divide, a portion of the rushing waters of the Arkansas are claimed for the faucets of Aurora and Colorado Springs. Colorado Springs uses detention ponds on Fountain Creek, a tributary of the Arkansas, to temporarily hold off storm water and prevent flooding. In Salida and Buena Vista, the river is a playground, where rafters float through Browns Canyon and surfers hit the man-made Pocket Wave. Cañon City used the river to reinvent itself as an outdoors hub with riverside mountain bike trails. And Pueblo, the city that has long relied on the Arkansas for industry and agriculture, built a Riverwalk that made the downtown cool. 

By the time it reaches Holly, the river is concentrated with salts and other minerals, plus pollutants picked up along the way from wastewater treatment and agricultural runoff. Decreased snowpack and upstream dams and diversions have taken away the river’s ability to flush itself clean. 

“That has changed the health of our system,” Melcher said. “We need the flow, the flush. That’s the biggest problem with being the end-user. If anybody above you affects their water flow, it decreases ours.”

Advertisement

In high school, Melcher tested the salt content of the water from the Arkansas that he was using to water his corn and wheat. It was saltier than the Great Salt Lake. “So as you were watering your crops, you were actually starving them from water as well,” he said. 

Two main canals bring water from the Arkansas to farms in Holly and the rest of Prowers County — the Buffalo and the Amity. 

A shallow creek bordered by dense green bushes and trees, with a concrete block and metal post visible in the foreground.
A narrow dirt path runs through tall, dense grass on both sides, with patches of green vegetation visible in the background.

The nearly dry Buffalo Canal and the totally dry Amity Canal, shown near the north end of Holly on Sept. 24. Water rights holders in the region have felt the squeeze of water demands by upstream users as well as water sales to cities along Colorado’s Front Range. (Mike Sweeney, Special to The Colorado Sun)

The Buffalo canal begins north of Grenada, about 20 miles west of Holly by road. A small, concrete dam across the river pools water until it rises high enough to open the gate and let it flow down the ditch. A flume tracks the flow to make sure the canal takes only what’s allowed. 

As water flows down the Buffalo, the first farmer in line opens their head gate and takes their share, a portion regulated by the “ditch rider,” work that decades ago was done on horseback but now by four-wheeler. Then that farmer closes their gate and the water flows down to the next farm. 

The Amity ditch takes water from the Arkansas between Las Animas and Lamar, just below the John Martin Reservoir. The water travels some 80 miles, bending around curves and under bridges. 

Advertisement

If the ditches dry up, Holly could, too. 

“Without water, I would say 25% to 40% of the economic stability of these small towns would be affected,” said Melcher, whose father and uncle moved from Texas to Prowers County to farm in the 1940s. “John Deere would have a hard time staying open. You would lose a lot of ag-support jobs here. Every life here in this area depends on the ag dollars — the grocery store, the gas station, the tire shop, the school.”

“Water is their 401(k)”

Water is worth more than land in the Lower Arkansas Valley. 

Nearly one-third of the farmland that was irrigated in the 1950s is dried up now because the water was sold to cities, according to the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. Farmers on the Eastern Plains can sell water rights for hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions even, and cities have been allowed to take those purchased shares upstream, many miles from Holly.

“You hear farmers say water is their 401(k),” said Peter Nichols, a Boulder attorney who represents the water district. “Fewer and fewer of their children want to stick around and farm and ranch. They get to a point where they can’t do it.”

Advertisement

The district was formed in 2002 by a 2-to-1 vote of people in five southeastern Colorado counties willing to tax themselves to stand up against cities fueling their “unchecked urban growth” with the valley’s water. There have been some successes, including the thwarting of a 2009 plan by Aurora to buy more water from the Lower Arkansas Valley and use the federal Frying Pan-Arkansas Project to exchange it upstream for use in Aurora.

Another battle erupted when a Louisiana investment group bought irrigation water on the Fort Lyon Canal with plans to sell it for use in 20 Front Range counties, Nichols said. That plan was blocked by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2005. 

There are more fights to come. In Holly, people are paying attention to what happens to the water owned by Tri-State Generation, which bought up 49% of the shares on the Amity Canal as the company made plans to run a power plant outside Holly. The plans died when the state moved away from coal. The talk of the town is what would happen if Tri-State ever tried to sell those shares to cities upriver.

Any proposed sale to someone outside the valley would surely end up in court. 

Road signs at the edge of Holly, Colorado indicate city limit, US Route 50, Colorado Route 89, and note that it is the hometown of Governor Roy Romer.
A metal grain elevator building labeled "COOP" stands near a tall water tower marked "HOLLY COLO" under a partly cloudy sky. Trees and railroad tracks are visible in the foreground.

Holly, Colorado, is at the junction of U.S. Highway 50 and State Highway 89, along the Arkansas River and only a few miles from Kansas. It’s small, with a population of about 800 people, and has a long agricultural history in the region. (Mike Sweeney, Special to The Colorado Sun)

“People who continue to farm and ranch in the Arkansas Valley say the big municipalities have swooped in when times were bad, taken the water rights, dried up a lot of land and damaged the economy in the process,” Nichols said. “They kind of feel like their water was stolen even though they followed Colorado law.”

Advertisement

The people who rely on a river of stillwater at the Colorado-Kansas border look at Turquoise Lake, with its blue-green glacier melt, and Pueblo Reservoir, with its 60 miles of shoreline, and wonder if they got their fair share. “Everybody’s suspicion is they are not getting the water they are entitled to,” Nichols said.

On paper, the Arkansas River around Holly should have just as much water today as it did decades ago, despite the water sales to cities. That’s because farmers are allowed to sell only the portion of water used on their crops, not the water that ended up back in the river after they irrigated their fields. If 40% of the water makes it back into the river, then the farmer can sell only 60% of their water. “That’s the way it’s supposed to work,” said Jack Goble, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District.

The quality of the water, though, that’s different.

“By the time the water gets to Holly, the water quality is much, much worse than even 100 or 50 miles upstream,” Goble said. Farmers in the valley have adopted the attitude that “wet water with salt in it is better than no water,” he said. 

The salt leaches into the river from layers of sediment that 80 million years ago was covered by an ocean. That shale layer is full of sodium, magnesium and calcium, plus heavy metals including selenium, uranium and arsenic, that are absorbed by the river, Goble said. 

Advertisement

Colorado Springs buys water from the Fort Lyon Canal, around Las Animas, but through a water exchange, the city actually takes the water from the Pueblo Reservoir, which is cleaner and far less salty, Goble said. Colorado Springs uses the water, sends it through its treatment plant, into Fountain Creek and back to the Arkansas — returning the water at a lower quality than the city received it.

“It’s a compounding effect,” Goble said. “That’s what these folks are concerned about and should be.”

Even worse, he said, Aurora bought 95% of the water in the Rocky Ford Ditch, but takes the water way up by Buena Vista, where it’s near pristine. When Aurora is finished with it, the water flows into the South Platte, “gone forever” from the Arkansas River basin, Goble said. 

“It’s getting to where the cities are our enemies”

Jerome Seufer’s family came from Kansas to Prowers County after reading a newspaper ad in 1899 that said the land was better than anywhere else. The farmland was along the Amity Canal, the ad boasted, and connected to the “Greatest Reservoir System In the WORLD.” 

That system expanded with the John Martin Dam and Reservoir, built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1940s with a pause for World War II. The reservoir in nearby Bent County is a popular state park for boating and fishing, but the bigger point was to prevent flooding after gully washers, and to store water for farms in Colorado and Kansas. The two states signed the Arkansas River Compact in 1948 — not that it put an end to fighting over the water. 

Advertisement

Seufer’s grandfather, who remembered the days when water was so abundant he could irrigate all winter, was no fan of the reservoir. “All they did was build a bank of water that the Front Range can sell on paper,’” Seufer recalled him saying, often. 

“For my grandpa, the river ran so much water all the time that it was swept clean from a rain,” Seufer said. “They’d have to go check and see if they could cross it with their wagons and horses back in the day. Now, I mean, even if you had to cross it with a wagon, you could go probably about any time.

A man wearing a plaid shirt, cap, and sunglasses stands outdoors on a grassy path under a partly cloudy sky.
Holly resident Jerome Seufer has farmed in the region all his life. He relies on long-held water rights to Arkansas River water to irrigate crops, but decreased snowpack, upstream usage and water sales to cities have impacted his farming operation. (Mike Sweeney, Special to The Colorado Sun)

“And so as years go on, it’s just getting less and less all the time. It used to just free flow all the way through. It’s getting to where the cities are our enemies.”

Seufer’s farm is the last on the Amity Canal. It’s up to the Colorado Division of Water Resources to determine when the gate that fills the Amity is lifted and how long it stays open, depending on snowpack and rain. Each farmer along the canal might get hours or three days, depending on their share. 

The gate used to open for the first time in April, but lately, it’s May or even June, said Seufer, who is a board member of the Amity Canal. It used to run 10 or 12 times a season, but not anymore. “We are averaging four to five runs of water, if we’re lucky, during the growing season.”

In 20 years, the price per share for water dues on the canal has climbed to about $55, up from about $5. The size of a share fluctuates depending on how much water is available, but traditionally is around one acre-foot — enough water to cover one acre of ground with one foot of water, or about the amount used by two suburban households per year. That means farms pay close to $9,000 per year in canal dues to irrigate each quarter section of land, or about 160 acres. They could sell the rights for far more, though. 

Advertisement

“I don’t know what our future is,” Seufer. “We talk to our lawyers all the time. Because we cannot keep paying more and more on our water rights to farm. We’ve got to figure this out in the next 10 years, or we won’t be able to continue.

Government subsidies that farmers receive for growing food, and that support the whole town, are decreasing as production decreases, he said. “It’s getting tougher. I hate to say it,” Seufer said. “But I don’t know if we’ve got enough to hold it here, unless somebody above at the state intervenes.” 

Prowers County people look to Crowley County, just to the west, as a cautionary tale. Most of the farms sold their water shares of the Arkansas to cities upstream, decimating local agriculture. “It left all these people with no water,” Seufer said. “It looks terrible.” 

The number of farms is dwindling in Prowers County, too. Seufer can tell by the number of people who come to Amity Canal annual meetings. “When I was little, you’d go to the annual meeting and there would be 80 to 100 farmers that showed up,” he said. “Now there isn’t 15.” 

Holly’s relationship with the river has been passed down for generations

At the Lower Valley Water Conservancy District, Goble is pushing farmers who want to sell their water rights to lease them instead. That way the money keeps coming back to the communities. 

Advertisement

Goble, who lives in Bent County, wonders when people who don’t live in farming areas will understand the broader consequences of dried-up farmland. 

“I’m worried that it won’t be until there is not adequate food in the grocery stores, or at least not at an affordable price,” he said. “Maybe our citizens will finally wake up at that point and go, ‘Why did we dry up all this land?’ Once the water leaves, it’s never coming back.” 

The people of Holly know this already, because their relationship with the river has been passed down for generations. 

Over the decades, Holly has been flooded by the Arkansas, smacked with dust storms and partially flattened by a tornado. In 1965, the town was evacuated when the river roared through and spilled over its banks, leaving much of Holly underwater. 

A field of tall green grasses under a partly cloudy sky, with distant buildings and structures visible on the horizon.
Acres of corn as far as the eye can see are grown by the Melcher family just south of Holly using water from the Ogallala Aquifer. (Mike Sweeney, Special to The Cdolorado Sun)

Holly became a town in 1903, named after a cattle rancher whose stone barn is now a historic building on Main Street. Settlers had come from Kansas and Oklahoma, drawn by the cheap and lucrative land. The Holly Sugar Plant opened in 1905, to turn sugar beets into sacks of white sugar. And from 1965 to 1995, Gateway Downs offered horse racing on a half-mile “bush track” oval just west of town. 

A sign reminds drivers entering on U.S. 50 that Holly is the hometown of former Gov. Roy Romer, and a trail along the banks of the Arkansas is named for a 4-year-old boy, Justin Harrington, who drowned in an irrigation ditch in 2006.

Advertisement

The Arkansas River doesn’t supply the town’s drinking water; that comes from deep-water aquifers, trapped under shale. And that has problems, too.

The town is facing a potential $10 million overhaul of its water treatment system after state and federal officials grew concerned about high levels of radium, a natural mineral that can cause health problems including cancer if people drink it for years. Town trustees send notes with water bills telling people that children should not drink the water and suggesting people buy bottled instead.

Some farmers in Prowers County pump their water from the Ogallala Aquifer, so large that its underground expanse stretches across eight states, including the eastern edge of Colorado. Those farmers don’t rely on the flow of water in diversion ditches from the Arkansas, but even so, the health of the river is related to the aquifer, which is shrinking. 

Holly’s population is shrinking, too, with about 400 fewer people today than in 1950.

After the Arkansas River leaves Colorado, the river that began as melting snow on a mountain top and flowed for hundreds of miles across the state barely trickles into Kansas. Exhausted by the journey, it even disappears underground for a stretch, until it’s replenished along the way by tributaries in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Then it disappears again, spilling into the Mississippi.

Advertisement



Source link

Colorado

US Fish and Wildlife backed Colorado plan to get wolves from Canada before new threats to take over program, documents show

Published

on

US Fish and Wildlife backed Colorado plan to get wolves from Canada before new threats to take over program, documents show


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service backed Colorado’s plan to obtain wolves from Canada nearly two years before the federal agency lambasted the move as a violation of its rules, newly obtained documents show.  

In a letter dated Feb. 14, 2024, the federal agency told Colorado state wildlife officials they were in the clear to proceed with a plan to source wolves from British Columbia without further permission.

“Because Canadian gray wolves aren’t listed under the Endangered Species Act,” no ESA authorization or federal authorization was needed for the state to capture or import them in the Canadian province, according to the letter sent to Eric Odell, CPW’s wolf conservation program manager. 

The letter, obtained by The Colorado Sun from state Parks and Wildlife through an open records request, appears to be part of the permissions the state received before sourcing 15 wolves. The agency also received sign-offs from the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.  

Advertisement

In mid-December, however, the Fish and Wildlife Service pivoted sharply from that position, criticizing the plan and threatening to take control over Colorado’s reintroduction. 

In a letter dated Dec. 18, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik put CPW on alert when he told acting CPW Director Laura Clellan that the agency violated requirements in a federal rule that dictates how CPW manages its reintroduction. 

Colorado voters in 2020 directed CPW to reestablish gray wolves west of the Continental Divide, a process that has included bringing wolves from Oregon in 2023 and British Columbia in 2025.

A gray wolf is carried from a helicopter to the site where it will be checked by CPW staff in January 2025. (Colorado Parks and Wildlife photo)

The federal rule Nesvik claims CPW violated is the 10(j). It gives Colorado management flexibility over wolves by classifying them as a nonessential experimental population within the state of Colorado. Nesvik said CPW violated the 10(j) by capturing wolves from Canada instead of the northern Rocky Mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, eastern Oregon and north-central Utah “with no warning or notice to its own citizens.” 

CPW publicly announced sourcing from British Columbia on Sept. 13, 2024, however, and held a meeting with county commissioners in Rio Blanco, Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle counties ahead of the planned releases last January. The agency also issued press releases when the operations began and at the conclusion of operations, and they held a press conference less than 48 hours later.

Advertisement

Nesvik’s December letter doubled down on one he sent CPW on Oct. 10, after Greg Lopez, a former Colorado congressman and 2026 gubernatorial candidate, contacted him claiming the agency violated the Endangered Species Act when it imported wolves from Canada, because they lacked permits proving the federal government authorized the imports. 

That letter told CPW to “cease and desist” going back to British Columbia for a second round of wolves, after the agency had obtained the necessary permits to complete the operation. Nesvik’s reasoning was that CPW had no authority to capture wolves from British Columbia because they aren’t part of the northern Rocky Mountain region population.  

But as regulations within the 10(j) show, the northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves “is part of a larger metapopulation of wolves that encompasses all of Western Canada.” 

And “given the demonstrated resilience and recovery trajectory of the NRM population and limited number of animals that will be captured for translocations,” the agencies that developed the rule – Fish and Wildlife with Colorado Parks and Wildlife – expected “negative impacts to the donor population to be negligible.” 

So despite what Nesvik and Lopez claim, “neither identified any specific provision of any law – federal, state or otherwise – that CPW or anyone else supposedly violated by capturing and releasing wolves from British Columbia,” said Tom Delehanty, senior attorney for Earthjustice. “They’ve pointed only to the 10(j) rule, which is purely about post-release wolf management, and  applies only in Colorado.” 

Advertisement

More experts weigh in 

In addition to the 2024 letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, documents obtained by The Sun include copies of permits given to CPW by the Ministry of British Columbia to export 15 wolves to the United States between Jan. 12 and Jan. 16, 2025. 

These permits track everything from live animals and pets to products made from protected wildlife including ivory. 

The permit system is the backbone of the regulation of trade in specimens of species included in the three Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, also called CITES. A CITES permit is the confirmation by an issuing authority that the conditions for authorizing the trade are fulfilled, meaning the trade is legal, sustainable and traceable in accordance with articles contained within the Convention. 

An image that looks to be from a security camera shows a wolf looking straight at the camera
Gray wolf sits in a temporary pen awaiting transport to Colorado during capture operations in British Columbia in January 2025. (Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

Gary Mowad, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife agent and expert on Endangered Species Act policies, said “obtaining a CITES certificate is unrelated to the 10j rule” and that in his estimation, CPW did violate both the terms of the 10(j) and the memorandum of agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service, because “the 10(j) specifically limited the populations from where wolves could be obtained, and Canada was not authorized.” 

Mike Phillips, a Montana legislator who was instrumental in Yellowstone’s wolf reintroduction that began in 1995, thinks “the posturing about a takeover seems like just casually considered bravado from Interior officials.” 

And Delahanty says “Nesvik and Lopez are making up legal requirements that don’t exist for political leverage in an effort that serves no one. It’s unclear what FWS hopes to accomplish with its threatening letter,” but if they rescind the memorandum of agreement, “it would cast numerous elements of Colorado’s wolf management program into uncertainty.” 

Advertisement

Looking forward 

If Fish and Wildlife does as Nesvik’s letter threatens and revokes all of CPW’s authority over grey wolves in its jurisdiction, “the service would assume all gray wolf management activities, including relocation and lethal removal, as determined necessary,” it says. 

But Phillips says “if Fish and Wildlife succeeds in the agency’s longstanding goal of delisting gray wolves nationwide,” a proposition that is currently moving through Congress, with U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Pet and Livestock Protection Act bill, the agency couldn’t take over Colorado’s wolf program. That’s because “wolf conservation falls back to Colorado with (its voter-approved) restoration mandate.” And “the species is listed as endangered/nongame under state law,” he adds. 

If the feds did take over, Phillips said in an email “USFWS does not have staff for any meaningful boots-on-the-ground work.” Under Fish and Wildlife Service control, future translocations would probably be “a firm nonstarter,” he added, “but that seems to be the case now.” 

A big threat should Fish and Wildlife take over is that lethal removal of wolves “in the presence of real or imagined conflicts might be more quickly applied,” Phillips said. 

A gray wolf with black markings crosses a snowy area into a patch of shrubs.
A gray wolf dashes into leafless shrubs. It is one of 20 wolves released in January 2025, 15 of which were translocated from British Columbia (Colorado Parks and Wildlife photo)

But it would all be tied up in legal constraints, given that gray wolves are still considered an endangered species in Colorado, and requirements of the 10(j) and state law say CPW must advance their recovery. 

So for now, it’s wait and see if CPW can answer Fish and Wildlife’s demand that accompanies Nesvik’s latest letter. 

Advertisement

Nesvik told the agency they must report “all gray wolf conservation and management activities that occurred from Dec. 12, 2023, until present,” as well as provide a narrative summary and all associated documents describing both the January 2025 British Columbia release and other releases by Jan. 18., or 30 days after the date on his letter. If they don’t, he said, Fish and Wildlife “will pursue all legal remedies,” including “the immediate revocation of all CPW authority over gray wolves in its jurisdiction.” 

Shelby Wieman, a spokesperson for Gov. Jared Polis’ office, said Colorado disagrees with the premise of Nesvik’s letter and remains “fully committed to fulfilling the will of Colorado voters and successfully reintroducing the gray wolf population in Colorado.” 

And CPW maintains it “has coordinated with USFWS throughout the gray wolf reintroduction effort and has complied with all applicable federal and state laws. This includes translocations in January of 2025 which were planned and performed in consultation with USFWS.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Avalanche To Play Mammoth in 2027 Discover Winter Classic in Salt Lake City | Colorado Avalanche

Published

on

Avalanche To Play Mammoth in 2027 Discover Winter Classic in Salt Lake City | Colorado Avalanche


NEW YORK – The National Hockey League announced today that the Colorado Avalanche will be the visiting team in the 2027 Discover Winter Classic and play the Utah Mammoth at the University of Utah’s Rice-Eccles Stadium in Salt Lake City. Additional details for the game, including ticketing information, date and start time, will be announced at a later date.

The 2027 Winter Classic marks the first time the Avalanche will play in the event and will be the fourth ever outdoor game the franchise plays in and the first one they’ll compete as the visiting team. Colorado hosted the Detroit Red Wings at Coors Field in the Stadium Series on Feb. 27, 2016, the Los Angeles Kings for the 2020 Stadium Series at Air Force Academy’s Falcon Stadium on Feb. 15, and the Vegas Golden Knights at Edgewood Tahoe Resort for the NHL Outdoors at Lake Tahoe event on Feb. 20, 2021.

“We’re excited and honored that the League selected us for the Winter Classic,” said Avalanche President of Hockey Operations Joe Sakic. “The Avalanche organization is always proud to be in consideration for marquee events like this. We’re looking forward to being matched up with a great team and represent the Rocky Mountain region in a game that appeals to these two markets in this part of the country.”

The Avalanche are 1-2-0 all-time in outdoor games but captured the most recent one at Lake Tahoe by a 3-2 score.

Advertisement

Colorado has faced the Mammoth six times since their inception ahead of the 2024-25 campaign, and the Avalanche have posted a 4-1-1 record. The club also owns a 2-0-1 record against Utah this season, which includes beating them in the home opener when Nathan MacKinnon became the first player in NHL history to record a game-winning goal against 32 franchises.



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado Parks and Wildlife building ‘bison roster’ for new potential hunting

Published

on

Colorado Parks and Wildlife building ‘bison roster’ for new potential hunting


Colorado Parks and Wildlife is building a list of prospective bison hunters ー a first for the agency as the iconic animal comes under new state management.  Starting this year after the passage of Senate Bill 25-053, bison will be managed as big game wildlife in addition to their historic classification as livestock in the […]



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending