Advertisement

Colorado Parks and Wildlife last week made history by releasing the first batch of five wolves, embarking on a long-awaited reintroduction program that will return the howl of the wolf to the mountains of Colorado, along with the ecological benefits wolves bring to the landscape. Gov. Jared Polis, and the Colorado voters, are to be commended for providing the leadership necessary to get paws on the ground. The return of the wolf to the Colorado high country is now off and running, and it’s a great time to take stock of the successes and failures of wolf recovery efforts in other states, to maximize the success of Colorado’s nascent wolf population.

In most of the United States, wolves are recovering and reoccupying  their original habitats under the full protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Colorado’s population is classified as an “experimental, nonessential” population, but this designation offers the same legal protections from hunting and poaching. Federal law prohibits killing, harassing or harming wolves, under criminal penalty of jail time and large fines, in addition to confiscation of firearms and vehicles that might have been used. That is a good thing, because in states like Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, where ESA protections for wolves have been lifted, the resulting state-level deregulation and anti-wolf free-for-alls have dealt setbacks to wolf recovery and created the need for renewed federal protections.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Coloradans will now learn how to coexist with wolves, as they have done with other Colorado carnivores for years. For most this will be easy, as wolves pose no threat to humans nor to prey population size, and pose only a minimal risk to pets and livestock. Ranchers representing the interests of the livestock industry were granted a priority seat at the table when drafting the wolf reintroduction plan, and were provided generous, arguably excessive, compensation under the state wolf management plan. This means ranchers who legitimately lose livestock to wolves will be reimbursed for their losses, and could potentially even profit from losses to wolves. It’s worth noting depredation investigations in the Mexican gray wolf recovery program have been riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods, leading to questionable compensation and wolf killings. Colorado needs to adopt strict oversight of depredation inquiries.

In addition to compensation, there has been a great effort on avoiding losses in the first place. Numerous nonlethal coexistence methods have been developed to help ranchers minimize their livestock losses, and scientific studies show these nonlethal methods are more effective than wolf-killing as a means to prevent future losses. In Colorado, the expense of implementing these coexistence techniques will be offset by a newly approved wolf license plate, generating annual revenues for the program. In Idaho, coexistence methods proved very effective for the ranchers that used them, resulting in minimal sheep losses by the Lava Lake Livestock Company without killing any wolves. Sadly, the successes of this program were overridden by ranchers who refused to employ nonlethal coexistence, and who killed off the Phantom Hill wolf pack completely. This episode demonstrates though nonlethal wolf deterrence methods work well for ranchers, enforceable regulations preventing wolf killing are a necessary complement, and these will need to be added to the Colorado wolf management plan.

In eastern Washington, where wolves aren’t federally protected, most ranchers employ coexistence strategies, resulting in few losses of cattle. But one problem rancher, Len McIrvin of the Diamond M Ranch, consistently shirked coexistence methods, allowing his range riders to spend the day in casinos instead of minding his cattle, and even offloading cattle near a wolf den site. The result was elevated wolf-cattle conflicts, and most of the controversial wolf killings undertaken by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife — 29 of 34 killed through 2020 — involved the Diamond M Ranch. Colorado can learn from this sorry state of affairs by taking lethal removals off the table, or at the very least by making full implementation of nonlethal methods a prerequisite for wolf removals or translocations and for financial compensation for wolf-related losses.

California has the best track record of wolf conservation. California state provisions forbid the killing of wolves, even by wildlife management agencies, and under these protections wolves are gradually repopulating their former habitats throughout the state. Importantly, livestock losses to wolves are minimal thus far, demonstrating the California model works not only for wolves but also for rural residents and the livestock industry. It’s an excellent model after which Colorado can pattern its policies.

Perhaps the most exemplary state Colorado can look to is Alaska, with its thriving statewide population of wolves.

The majority of Coloradans – including many of the state’s ranchers and hunters – want to see wolf recovery succeed in the state. Part of that success will be looking at the things our neighbors are doing right – and wrong – and making sure Colorado’s program stays pointed in the right direction. 

Erik Molvar is executive director and Delaney Rudy is Colorado director of Western Watersheds Project, a nonprofit conservation group working to protect and restore wildlife and watersheds throughout the American west.