Colorado
Wildlife officials aim to keep Colorado’s wolves from meeting the endangered Mexican wolf. Is separation the right goal?
A Mexican gray wolf called Asha wandered hundreds of miles across Arizona and New Mexico searching for a mate — no easy task for one of the most endangered mammals in the United States.
After five months of scouring hills and arroyos, she crossed Interstate 40 west of Albuquerque in the fall of 2022 and headed into the forests outside of Santa Fe. But when she traipsed across the interstate blacktop, she crossed an invisible boundary set by federal wildlife officials. As part of longstanding federal policy, any Mexican gray wolf found north of the interstate can be relocated — which is why Asha was darted and flown south, as documented in news stories and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports.
The Mexican gray wolf subspecies has made a significant recovery over the last 25 years, but government biologists now worry that the reintroduction of the larger northern gray wolf in Colorado could derail that progress, should the two populations mix via wandering wolves like Asha.
Those worries prompted Colorado wildlife officials in September to sign first-of-their-kind agreements with New Mexico, Arizona and Utah. They will allow those states to relocate any roving northern gray wolves back to Colorado. The agreements will help keep the 10 wolves released in Colorado in December inside the state, crucial to establishing the self-sufficient population mandated by voters who approved reintroducing the species.
“This is not a typical kind of agreement for us to have between states,” said Eric Odell, the wolf conservation program manager at Colorado Parks and Wildlife. “It’s not common practice. Wildlife work usually involves geographic boundaries, not political ones.”
Much is at stake with the Mexican gray wolf. Its recovery took hold through an extensive, decades-long effort involving a captive breeding program, international transplantations and ongoing litigation.
The states’ recent agreements, coupled with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s I-40 policy, will create a buffer zone between the two wolf populations.
Without the precaution, Odell said intermixing could result in Colorado’s larger northern gray wolves taking dominant breeding positions in packs, changing the subspecies’ gene pool until they are indistinguishable. In effect, government biologists believe northern gray wolves likely would take over the Mexican gray wolf population.
“Having that hybridization would become detrimental to the Mexican wolf,” Odell said. “We’re working hard to keep (northern gray wolves) separate from those Mexican wolves.”
But conservationists question whether allowing the two to mingle would imperil the rare southern subspecies, and some say the Mexican gray wolf needs the northern gray wolf to survive. The wild Mexican gray wolf population suffers from a limited gene pool, so breeding with the northern gray wolf could help diversify the population.
“Historically, there was a spectrum of wolf species and subspecies from Mexico up to the Arctic Circle,” said Chris Smith, the Southwest wildlife advocate for WildEarth Guardians. “To have this wolfless zone between Colorado and Mexican gray wolves is a bizarre and arbitrary symptom of the politicization of our legal treatment of these wolves.”
A subspecies on the brink
The Mexican gray wolf — also called the lobo — is a smaller subspecies of the gray wolf that historically ranged across Mexico and into Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The Mexican gray wolf is managed separately under the federal Endangered Species Act than the northern gray wolf, which numbers in the thousands across the northern Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes region.
People nearly eradicated the Mexican gray wolf from both the United States and Mexico by the 1970s. Decades of unregulated hunting and targeted trapping by the federal government to protect livestock took their toll.
By 1977, there were only seven known remaining Mexican gray wolves in the two countries.
Wildlife officials returned the subspecies to the wild in 1998 and, after decades of management, at least 241 Mexican gray wolves now roam New Mexico and Arizona, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The federal agency imposed the boundary along I-40, which cuts across the Southwest, in part because the documented historical range of the subspecies did not extend north of the interstate. Officials also faced pressure from ranching and hunting interests to restrict the recovery area.
But the wild population has a lack of genetic diversity.
Each wild Mexican gray wolf’s genes are as similar to the next as siblings’ genes would be, said Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity and the author of a book on wolf management.
Instead of creating a wolfless buffer zone, Smith and Robinson said, wildlife managers should introduce Mexican gray wolves into southwestern Colorado.
Those wolves then would breed with northern gray wolves and add much-needed genetic diversity to the subspecies, while minimizing the risk of the northern species’ genes taking over the Mexican gray wolf population. The risk to the Mexican gray wolf would be greater if northern gray wolves established themselves farther south in the core of the Mexican gray wolf’s habitat.
“We can try to approximate the gradation of wolf types that (once) existed from north to south,” Robinson said.
Wandering under watch
The technical working group that shaped Colorado’s wolf reintroduction plan considered reintroducing Mexican gray wolves here but found them the “least desirable” option.
The ballot measure that mandated Colorado’s reintroduction of wolves did not specify whether a subspecies could be reintroduced. But the group wrote in its final report that the Mexican gray wolf should be the lowest priority for reintroduction because Colorado was not part of its historical range. It also cited logistical management concerns due to the subspecies being managed separately under the Endangered Species Act.
“Because they are listed as a unique entity under the ESA, maintaining the genetic uniqueness of this subspecies is paramount,” the November 2021 report states. “If Mexican wolves were present in Colorado, premature interbreeding with wolves from the north could compromise the Mexican wolf recovery effort.”
It’s unlikely that Mexican gray wolves roamed in Colorado before their extirpation, but the subspecies is better adapted than the northern gray wolf to warmer, drier climates — which is the expected future for southwest Colorado as the climate shifts, Smith said.
“We have to recognize that we’re imposing not just political boundaries, but also pretty complicated legal frameworks on wildlife that do whatever they want on a landscape,” he said. “It’s a problem that we’ve painted ourselves into.”
Biologists have said that Mexican gray wolves need at least three separate but connected populations to thrive, Robinson noted. One study found that one of those populations should be located in southwest Colorado.
It would have made sense to keep the Mexican gray wolves separate when there were only a few dozen of them, Robinson said. But the population is now robust enough to allow some northern gray wolf genetics into the pack, he said.
While all of Colorado’s 12 current wolves — including two that predated the reintroduction effort — and the wolves released in the state in coming years will have radio collars, their progeny will not. That will make tracking whether the wolves have moved into neighboring states more difficult, Odell said.
“It’s not in perpetuity,” Odell said of the agreements with the other states. “We’ll revisit this in time and see how things are going.”
Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.
Imagine a world where the gas pump knows your credit score
Re: “Polis vetoes ‘surveillance pricing’ bill,” June 3 news story
Gov. Jared Polis’ veto of the anti-surveillance pricing bill proves once again he’s just a Republican wearing a liberal costume. His excuse? The bill, which would have banned companies from using AI and “big data” to manipulate prices and wages based on your personal circumstances, might “interfere with the free functioning of markets.”
Sure. Because nothing says “free market” like corporate algorithms tracking your every vulnerability to extract maximum blood from your stone. This isn’t capitalism; it’s corporate sharecropping scaled to the state level.
Consider this hypothetical: A software engineer gets laid off but has some savings. On the way to a job interview, he pulls up to a gas pump. Between inserting his card and pumping, the oil company runs an instant “wealth check.” Seeing his healthy savings balance, the algorithm spikes his price per gallon.
He arrives at the interview. Instead of offering a salary based on market value and experience, the employer scrapes data on his time out of work, his dwindling savings, and his chronic illness. They craft an offer just high enough to keep him from drowning, complete with a health plan that conveniently excludes his condition.
Is this the “free functioning of markets?” No. It’s an asymmetric data war where citizens are completely outgunned. But hey, as long as Gov. Polis can keep defending the “freedom” of monopolies to pickpocket your data, who cares about the actual people?
For someone who just moved from Florida in part to escape this nonsense, Polis disappoints.
Tom Gawronski, Evergreen
Climate crisis is front-page news
Re: “U.N.: Next five years could smash temperature records,” May 29 news story
Banging the climate crisis drum: Last Friday, The Denver Post relegated a major U.N. climate report to page 12. Ho-hum, the world scientific community keeps banging that old drum about the climate. No big deal. We haven’t gone off the cliff — yet.
But there is a cliff there. Scientists just don’t know when the edge — the tipping point — will be reached.
Have you noticed all the floods, droughts and temperature records we are experiencing (again) this year? Are you concerned about this being a really bad fire year? Drill, baby drill continues as President Trump says we have to produce more oil, while the report concludes that oil and gas is the major contributor to the issue. Ho-hum.
As a committed climate activist, I plan to keep banging that old drum and supporting the rapid transition away from oil and gas to renewable energy.
Marc Alston, Denver
Sarah Woodson for House District 42
Sarah Woodson is a breath of fresh air for the residents of House District 42. A new voice of reason and common sense for everyday Aurorans stressed out by politicians on the far right and left who only support special agendas, not their constituents.
It was 40 years ago that Aurorans trusted another homegrown centrist political newcomer who went door to door to listen to his neighbors and represent them, not the special interest lobbyists that swarm over our Capitol like the miller moths and locusts of summer.
It takes a strong voice from a future leader like Sarah Woodson who listens first to the people and serves them, and not the special political insects. Too many people are again suffering real economic hardships, like how to simply pay for this week’s groceries, while the politicians of the far right and left play off one another and do nothing to help the common people.
It is time again to support a homegrown political newcomer who will serve us, the people, not them, the special interests.
Steve Ruddick, Aurora
Editor’s note: Ruddick is a former Aurora state representative.
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.
Colorado
Colorado governor vetoes bill that would have allowed lawsuits against federal immigration officers, signs another to regulate detention centers
Two immigration protection bills passed by Democrats in the state legislature met different fates this week, with Gov. Jared Polis vetoing one and signing the other into law.
Polis vetoed Senate Bill 5 on Wednesday, June 3, a measure that would have allowed people to sue federal immigration officers in Colorado civil court if those officers violated their constitutional rights.
It was sponsored by Sens. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora, and Julie Gonzales, D-Denver, and Reps. Javier Mabrey, D-Denver, and Yara Zokaie, D-Fort Collins.
Supporters of the bill said it was aimed at holding federal agents, like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, accountable. The measure was passed following national backlash to the January shootings and deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, which involved federal agents.
In a letter describing his reasons for the veto, Polis said the bill was too narrow and could weaken other civil rights protections if it were to be struck down by a court. Polis said the bill only applies to violations during immigration enforcement, and does not provide an avenue to sue the federal government for violating rights during protests, elections, prisons or in the workplace.
“It’s that narrow focus that unfortunately creates legal jeopardy,” Polis wrote. “I believe Colorado has a chance to get this right — and we must pass a broader version of this bill that protects all constitutional rights, including in the immigration context, that will serve to truly hold public officials accountable.”
The same Democrats who sponsored SB 5 tried to pass a broader version of the legislation that would have allowed lawsuits against any government employee, including local, state and federal officials, for any civil rights violations.
That measure, Senate Bill 176, dubbed the “No Kings Act,” was killed during a committee hearing in May after two Democrats — Sens. Dylan Roberts of Frisco and Lindsey Daugherty of Arvada — joined the committee’s two Republicans in voting it down. The bill faced pushback from local governments, police groups and district attorneys, as well as from Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who criticized the legislation for being overly broad and said it would lead to a flood of lawsuits against local and state officials.
Polis, in his veto letter, wrote that he supported that bill and that his office worked with sponsors on the legislation, which he believed “would withstand legal scrutiny.” Polis blamed “overly intense and misleading lobbying from local governments and public entities” for the bill’s failure.
Polis, who is term-limited after this year, urged lawmakers and groups involved with that bill to continue working toward a solution. He also acknowledged the need to hold federal officials to the same standards as state and local ones, writing that “we have seen too many examples of senseless deaths and constitutional rights violations during immigration enforcement operations and raids in recent years, and there is an urgent need for federal immigration agents to be held accountable for these lawless actions.”
So far this year, Polis has vetoed 12 bills, the most of his tenure as governor.
Alex Sanchez, president and CEO for the Western Slope-based immigrant advocacy group Voces Unidas, said in a text message that he is “deeply disappointed” in the governor’s veto.
“This veto caps one of the most disappointing legislative sessions for Latinos and immigrants in recent Colorado history — and Democrats, who control state government, are responsible,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez criticized a bill passed by Republicans and some Democrats that raises the hourly threshold for overtime pay for agricultural workers from 48 hours to 56 hours, which Polis signed last month. He also blasted Democrats for killing a bill earlier this year that would have required state and local law enforcement to arrest federal immigration officers who violate state law and prohibited state and local law enforcement from concealing their identity.
“Colorado’s Latino communities deserved strong leadership,” Sanchez said. “We got excuses instead.”
Polis signs bill on immigration detention facilities
Polis did sign another immigration-related measure on Thursday.
House Bill 1276 expands the state’s ability to inspect and regulate immigration detention centers. The measure allows the state to inspect detention centers’ food, water quality and other conditions, and requires those centers to pay for the inspections. Detention centers will also need to submit data annually to the state on the health outcomes of detainees and pass an environmental impact study.
Additionally, the measure bans local and state transit services from transporting immigrants for detention and requires state agencies to publicly disclose when they have received a subpoena from federal immigration officers.
A previous version of the bill would have held state agencies, not just their employees, liable for violating state laws on immigration information sharing, but that provision was removed after bill sponsors said they heard concerns from Polis.
“We won’t let the federal government operate dangerous and inhumane detention centers without oversight, and our bill ensures facilities are regularly inspected,” said bill sponsor Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, D-Glenwood Springs, in a statement. “All Coloradans deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and this law establishes some important guardrails for detention centers and safeguards Coloradans’ privacy.”
The bill’s other sponsors were Weissman, Sen. Iman Jodeh, D-Aurora, and Rep. Lorena Garcia, D-Adams County.
Colorado will host its annual Free Fishing Weekend on Saturday and Sunday, June 6-7.
This weekend, the state is waiving its usual fishing license and habitat requirements, allowing residents, non-residents and anglers of all ages to fish for free, according to a news release from Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
“Fishing is a great activity to share with family and friends, and the perfect chance to get outside and enjoy Colorado’s natural resources,” said Colorado Parks and Wildlife Angler Education Coordinator Andre Egli in a statement.
Colorado has more than 6,000 miles of streams and over 1,300 lakes, including spots that the agency’s biologists have rated as Gold Medal and Quality Waters for anglers due to their abundance of fishing opportunities. The state offers a diverse range of fish for anglers to catch, including over 35 species, according to Parks and Wildlife.
All Colorado fishing regulations still apply this weekend, so anyone who is planning to fish for free should review the 2026 Colorado Fishing Brochure. Anglers can find out more about Colorado fishing locations, classes, events, tournaments and regulations by visiting CPW.State.co.us/fishing.
-
Los Angeles, Ca14 minutes agoNB 405 Freeway closed near LAX after pursuit ends in gunfire
-
Detroit, MI36 minutes agoJudge blocks steam line project on Lafayette Park property
-
San Francisco, CA44 minutes agoFirst Thursdays kicks off Pride Month in San Francisco
-
Dallas, TX51 minutes agoDallas Cowboys Defense is ‘Annoying’ CeeDee Lamb and That’s a Good Thing
-
Miami, FL54 minutes agoTampa Bay Rays vs Miami Marlins Live Stream: How to Watch MLB
-
Boston, MA59 minutes agoOrioles news: O’s win series in Boston
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoDenver Broncos roster review: OLB Dasan McCullough
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoYour Seattle-area weekend events guide: Pride, pinball, and car shows! – MyNorthwest.com
