Can Colorado’s agricultural producers and wolves find a way to coexist?

As reintroduced wolves in Colorado continue to make their way into the state, officials are grappling with how to balance wolf support and management with maintaining healthy agriculture.

“This is not biologically complex. It’s socially and politically complex for us,” Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Jeff Davis said at the commission meeting Thursday, Aug. 22. “Wolves have a historical context and conflict. I would just say the more we’re able to really listen to each other to understand each other and the more we’re able to improve cooperation among ourselves — at least (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) and (Colorado Department of Agriculture) — the better off we’re all going to be in the long run, I think.”

Since the first ten gray wolves were reintroduced to Colorado in December 2023, the state wildlife agency has confirmed one wolf death and one mating that resulted in at least three wolf pups.

Still, the agency has grappled with increasing tensions between the wolves and the region’s livestock and agricultural producers. Now, about nine months into its efforts, the agency is wrestling with how to minimize conflict and depredation, which Parks and Wildlife defines as “physical trauma resulting in injury or death.”

Where do wolf attacks occur?

Since the reintroduction began, there have been 15 confirmed robberies, the first occurring on April 2, 2024, and the last on July 28, according to the agency’s data platform. of confirmed killings of livestock. This latest incident is part of an ongoing investigation, the report says. Most of the killings were calves and cattle, and two incidents involved sheep.

Prior to its reintroduction efforts, the agency confirmed 13 gray wolf predation incidents between December 2021 and November 2023.

Reid Dewalt, deputy director for policy at Parks and Wildlife, told the commission Friday that the “main problem with depredation” was the adult pair of the Copper Creek Pack.

“We continue to work on solutions and ways to improve this situation,” he said. “We have seen a few other depredations by other wolves, but nothing on the scale we saw in Middle Park.”

In accordance with a resolution of the state parliament, the agency has set aside a budget of $350,000 to compensate producers, he said.

How can the government reduce conflicts between wolves and producers?

The state popular initiative that initiated the reintroduction efforts required that the plan to release the wolves “be designed to resolve conflicts with persons engaged in ranching and agriculture” and that the best available science be used to reintroduce and manage the wolves. The law also specifies that the commission cannot impose any restrictions on land, water or resource use by private landowners during its efforts.

The nature and timing of the ballot initiative have put the Parks and Wildlife Service in an extremely difficult position, said Commissioner Marie Haskett.

“The wolf reintroduction was rushed, and we are now seeing many unintended consequences,” she said, later adding that one of the consequences is that “(Parks and Wildlife) does not have the staff or resources to implement the people’s initiative.”

So while looting continues and tensions rise, government wildlife and agriculture agencies are working with communities to figure out how to minimize conflict, including deploying additional staff on the ground.

Dewalt reported that the agency has hired five “predator conflict specialists” who are currently stationed in northwest, southwest and northeast Colorado.

“The focus will be on wolves, but we have already seen that there are many opportunities to work with bears and lions as well,” he said.

That team — with Adam Baca, Parks and Wildlife’s wolf conflict coordinator, and six regional wildlife managers — is currently in Oregon and Idaho to learn from those states and increase Colorado’s knowledge of depredation, depredation management and deterrence, he said.

Dallas May, chairman of the commission, also called on the agency to set up a “rapid response team”.

“I think we need at least three people who specialize not only in biology but also in human dimensions and sociology,” May said. “So the next time there is looting, which will happen, that team can go to the producers, go into the area and start a different process that is designed to resolve those conflicts.”

Davis confirmed that the agency is currently investigating what such a team might look like.

Lethal versus non-lethal treatment

Friday’s discussion was a continuation of the dialogue between the agency and the community about what types of management are needed to reduce predation and sustain wolf populations.

Dewalt noted that the agency has created an ad hoc group to build relationships between wolf conservationists, Parks and Wildlife and agriculture. That group is expected to present recommendations in October on “alternatives to address chronic depredations and to determine when to consider an agency-mandated control action or the issuance of a depredation permit,” as well as ideas for reducing tensions and managing conflict, he said.

The discussion on Friday included a presentation about nonlethal coexistence with wolves as an option in this discussion. The presentation was given by Delia Malone, President of Colorado Wild; Dallas Gudgel, Director of Wildlife and Tribal Policy for the International Wildlife Coexistence Network; and Dr. Adrian Treves, Director of the Carnivore Existence Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin Madison.

“We would like to ask you to require the proactive use of effective, non-lethal coexistence methods before permits to kill wolves are issued. Require that non-lethal coexistence methods, their design and installation, be based on the best available science for that method,” Malone said.

The presentation argued that non-lethal methods – which include fences and fladry, noise and light devices, livestock guarding dogs and deterrents, low-stress human presence with livestock, and range riding and livestock management – ​​are the most effective way to prevent, reduce and minimize conflict between ranchers and wolves.

In the flood of public comments that followed the presentation, both producers and animal rights activists spoke about the need for timely decisions to better manage conflicts. Among the points discussed, there was agreement on the desire to reduce looting and for additional government resources to achieve this goal.

In addition, community members expressed a desire for a state-funded rangeland program, upfront site assessment, a carcass removal program, appropriate nonlethal methods before considering lethal options, and increased education efforts and dialogue. Commenters also discussed topics such as lethal methods for chronic depredation, nonlethal removal, and more.

All of these options would help with “behavior control,” Davis said.

“It’s not necessarily about population control, especially at this stage of the game,” he added.

While the Wildlife Service and the commission have not yet made any new decisions on these issues, Wayne East of the Colorado Department of Agriculture said they will take the lead on carcass disposal, pasture grazing and low-stress livestock handling.

Learn from mistakes and move on

Several commissioners and community members pointed out that the state could and should have been more proactive in pursuing coexistence efforts.

“We’ve put these wolves in a situation they can’t get out of. We’ve put the producers in a situation they can’t get out of. So let’s learn from this. Let’s help overcome this situation,” May said.

Haskett called Colorado’s efforts a “forced reintroduction” and urged all community members to show “empathy for the work of others” as the state is still in the early stages of reintroduction.

To be successful, ranchers and the agency must be given time to learn, she said.

“Give ranchers time to learn. It’s a change in practices they’ve been doing for years. They’ve forced a big change that affects them, not you,” Haskett said. “(Parks and Wildlife) is struggling and needs more resources, and I commend our staff for what they’re doing on this landscape without the adequate funding for this ballot initiative.”

Haskett concluded by saying that the current situation is “a great example of why wildlife management should be left to professional biologists and not to the election.”

Regardless of how Colorado got to this point, commissioners and community members expressed a desire to find solutions in the future.

“The unfortunate facts surrounding ongoing predation and calls to kill wolves demonstrate that an explicit requirement … is needed to provide clarity … about what the expectations are for preventing and reducing conflict, how the tools and resources provided and funded will be used, and how this will impact kill permits,” said Alli Henderson, director of the Center for Biological Diversity in the Southern Rockies.

Tim Ritschard, president of the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association, said that “no one from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Colorado Department of Ag and ranchers across Colorado were prepared for what has happened since the wolves were introduced.”

“We hope we can resolve some of the issues we are dealing with now before more wolves show up,” he said.