Colorado
What’s really killing a lot of cattle in Colorado? Hint: wolves aren’t the culprit (Opinion)
The livestock industry has been running a smear campaign against wolves for years.
It intensified when the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association joined forces with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Colorado Farm Bureau, the National Rifle Association’s electioneering arm, and the Colorado Woolgrowers’ Association to oppose Proposition 114 — a 2020 citizens’ ballot initiative requiring Colorado to reintroduce wolves to the western part of the state.
Fearmongering was a big part of the campaign to prevent the restoration of wolves to their native Colorado habitats: The hunting groups peddled the narrative that wolves would kill all the elk. The ranching interests claimed that wolves would drive cattle and sheep operations out of business.
Notably, neither outcome has materialized since the 1995 wolf reintroductions in Yellowstone and Idaho, and indeed elk populations and cattle and sheep ranches there remain abundant three decades after wolves returned. In 2020, the Stop the Wolf Coalition lost the election, 51% to 49%. But the hysteria over livestock losses from wolves was only beginning.
So it makes sense to put these fears, and the livestock industry messaging that amplifies them, into perspective.
Weather events can kill a lot of cattle. In 2007, a single blizzard caused an estimated 15,000 cattle deaths in Colorado, according to the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association. In 2024, a single lightning strike knocked 100 cattle off their feet, killing 32 of them as well as a rancher, who was engaged in branding the calves. That’s more than Colorado wolves have killed in an entire year. The weather slaughters far more livestock than predators in the state.
Then there is cattle rustling. In late 2025, 23 cattle disappeared in a single incident on the High Plains of northeastern Colorado, and law enforcement characterized the incident as unlikely to be random chance and likely meant they had been stolen. In 2024, 187 cattle went missing on the Uncompahgre Plateau in Western Colorado. Fifteen of them eventually turned up, demonstrating that missing cattle are sometimes simply lost by inattentive ranchers. The Colorado brand inspector estimated in mid-December of that year that about 500 cattle were expected to be reported missing for the year in the state.
Mystery deaths and sickness also plague Colorado’s cattle herd. In May of 2025, 15 cattle in south-central Colorado keeled over from brain swelling and seizures in a single day. Was it eating poisonous plants? An abandoned oil well on the property? Water contamination? While some sort of toxin was suspected, there have been no definitive answers. A 2010 USDA report calculated that 38.9% of all cattle lost in 2007 died from sickness, injury, or poisoning. Only 0.1% of the losses were attributable to predators of any kind.
In Colorado, the number of cattle killed in slaughterhouses in 2025 was 2,269,600, according to the USDA’s Livestock Slaughter Report. The number of calves slaughtered in the state was “[w]ithheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations,” but would presumably add to that total.
The most important predator of cattle in Colorado, by a vast margin, was humans. Specifically, the livestock industry has raised such a hue and cry over a comparatively tiny number of wolf-caused mortalities. We have met the enemy (of cattle, at least), and he is us.
It’s hard to tell how many cattle and sheep have been killed by wolves, because Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Confirmed Depredation Reports lump together livestock that are killed with livestock that are injured, but recover.
There were 13 cattle killed or injured by wolves in the two years prior to the wolf reintroduction, or an average of 6.5 cattle per year. In the slightly more than three years since reintroduction, there have been 44 cattle killed or injured by wolves, 37 sheep and one llama. That’s an average of 15 cattle and 12 sheep confirmed killed or injured per year.
The fraction of Colorado’s livestock losses attributable to wolves is minuscule, and some of the state’s news outlets are starting to get it. The general public, and lawmakers in particular, need to be aware of the tiny proportion of Colorado’s 2.6 million cattle that are falling prey to wolves, and we can all rest easy in the knowledge that when a livestock loss is reported, and wolves are suspected, there is a full investigation.
And when a wolf kill is confirmed, the rancher in question gets a payment from the state that not only covers his losses, but might also cover up to seven times the value of the animal(s). That’s an excessive level of generosity, which creates a perverse incentive to blame wolves.
But when ranchers are getting paid – in fact, paid far more than the fair-market value they deserve – when beef is what’s for dinner for one of Colorado’s new population of wolves, who really cares whether the diner is wildlife or human?
Erik Molvar is a wildlife biologist and the executive director of Western Watersheds Project, a nonprofit conservation group working to reduce the harmful effects of livestock grazing on public lands to protect and restore wildlife and watersheds throughout the American West.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
A powerful search engine that organizes and provides access to vast information on the internet.
Three-quarters of Colorado residents said they were worried about whether they would be able to afford to continue living in the state, according to a poll conducted this spring.
Last year, about 70% of people responding to the Colorado Health Foundation’s annual Pulse poll said they weren’t sure living here would remain financially feasible. That rose to 76% this year.
“That majority concern was cutting across regions, across income levels, across racial and ethnic groups,” said Lucia Del Puppo, senior vice president at FM3 Research, which works with Democrats.
The poll found that the majority of those sampled said they had already cut back on entertainment spending and charitable giving, with smaller shares saying they’d skipped meals, delayed medical or dental care, or paid a utility bill late.
Only about one in four people said they hadn’t changed their spending or dealt with a financial setback in the last year, with older people and Republicans reporting less budget strain.
“It’s significant and it affects the overall economy” when people reduce their discretionary spending, said Lori Weigel, principal of New Bridge Strategy, which works with Republicans.
The responses suggested a significant minority expected further financial strains in the coming year:
- About two in five worried they or a family member would lose health insurance
- Three in 10 worried about affording enough food
- One-third thought they might lose their housing because they couldn’t afford their mortgage or rent
Notably, more than half of renters were worried about whether they could continue to afford their housing, Weigel said. One-third said they’d avoided asking their landlords to fix problems to avoid rent increases, and one-quarter said they’d taken on high-interest debt, such as payday loans or credit card balances, to deal with housing costs, she said.
Lower-income people and those who identified as Black, Hispanic or Native American reported greater financial struggles than other groups.
Even people who haven’t had to cut back are worried about affordability. When asked to rate the seriousness of a list of potential problems, 85% said both the general cost of living and the cost of housing were either “very serious” or “extremely serious.” Additionally, 82% said the cost of health care was a very serious or extremely serious problem.
Younger people were particularly worried about housing costs, with 94% of millennials and 90% of Generation Z members describing the problem as very or extremely serious.
At the same time, when respondents got the chance to name the most important issue facing the state, the largest share — 28% — chose government and politics. The cost of living and inflation came close behind, with 25% deeming it the top issue.
Just one year ago, only 13% of people considered cost of living and inflation their top concern, Del Puppo said.
“It has jumped really since 2025,” she said.
The two may be related, as 72% of respondents said they weren’t satisfied with the government’s response to economic issues. The only question where a slight majority said they were satisfied with the state government’s performance was making the state “safe and welcoming” to everyone, Del Puppo said.
The poll asked more than 2,200 people about their personal finances, experiences with health care and perceptions of the state between March and April, then weighted their results to represent Colorado’s demographics.
As usual, both a Democratic and a Republican firm ran the poll, to reduce the risk of bias.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get health news sent straight to your inbox.
-
Arkansas4 minutes agoInside the tense Arkansas Capitol on July 15, 1996 | Arkansas Democrat Gazette
-
Colorado16 minutes agoMan arrested after armed carjacking in Colorado Springs
-
Connecticut22 minutes agoCT Lottery Mega Millions, Lotto winning numbers for July 17, 2026
-
Delaware28 minutes agoFour shot at Waffle House in Newark, Del.
-
Florida34 minutes agoArea to watch for tropical development in Gulf to bring downpours to drought-stricken Florida | Latest Weather Clips | FOX Weather
-
Georgia40 minutes agoNo AC in Georgia? No way! These counties have highest rates of homes without
-
Hawaii46 minutes agoHilo Orchid Show returns – West Hawaii Today
-
Idaho53 minutes agoIdaho mom charged with murder says vaccines killed her twins. Doctors say it’s not possible
