As Colorado reintroduces gray wolves to the Southern Rockies, the state is much better prepared today than Idaho, Montana or Wyoming were when wolves were reintroduced there in 1995. The first use of direct democracy to restore an endangered species followed decades of discussions, and a very public campaign. That was followed by a lengthy public engagement and planning process, led by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, which is not only legally bound but financially invested in a way that the state wildlife agencies of the Northern Rockies were not.
I support ranching, hunting, and restoring native wildlife. I’ve managed cattle in Colorado, and worked with ranchers in Montana and Wyoming to reduce conflicts with wolves and grizzly bears.
As a conservation scientist, I’ve followed this issue closely. Research by Colorado State University shows that Coloradans have mutualistic wildlife values, support wolf restoration, and value a restored wolf population at over $100 million/year, and more so if the money is used to support ranchers and rural communities where wolves will live. That research also showed consistent negative media coverage of wolves reduced public support in Colorado, and as such I have concerns about a recent Colorado Sun article that implied that CPW is merely preparing Coloradans with a brochure, when in fact they are doing far more.
Nineteen years ago, the state’s 2004 plan for migratory wolves established our live-and-let-live policy.
☀ MORE IN OPINION
Now, CPW just went through a multi-year planning process including a Technical Working Group (mostly biologists) and a Stakeholder Advisory Group (mostly ranchers, outfitters, hunters, and wildlife advocates) — followed by months of even more well-attended CPW commission meetings discussing the plan. The ranchers got a great deal in the plan, including the most generous livestock compensation program for any carnivore in the country.
Meanwhile, CPW has dedicated numerous staff to wolf planning, hired two wolf biologists, a wolf conflict coordinator, and plans to hire several more livestock-carnivore conflict specialists. Additionally, over 100 district wildlife managers are trained to identify livestock predation.
CPW has substantial conflict minimization equipment on hand. Notably, much of that was donated, including $15,000 worth by the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project. Other non-governmental organizations, including the Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, covered the cost of a fladry trailer, designed by a rancher in Montana, now in use in North Park.
Workshops and other events have been held by CPW, CSU Extension and several NGOs. At a recent livestock association meeting in the initial release area, there were about two dozen CPW employees present, and they spoke quite a bit about conflict minimization. Personally, I’ve given numerous presentations about ranching with wolves, many alongside the traveling Living with Wolves exhibit.
Other CPW resources include the Wolf Resource Guide, rebranded from the original produced by Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks, People and Carnivores (then my employer), and the Wildlife Conservation Society.
CSU Extension published an exhaustive multi-part report compiling all of the known science related to wolves in Colorado, written by scientists at the Center for Human Carnivore Coexistence with help from numerous independent scientists and practitioners (including me), that’s been available since before Proposition 114, People and Predators: Colorado Wolves.
The Born to be Wild license plate, developed by the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project, will raise funds — possibly up to $600,000 a year — for CPW and ranchers to invest in non-lethal conflict minimization projects.
I sympathize with the concerns of ranchers and hunters. But in most ways, Coloradans’ experiences with wolves are likely to be similar to those we have with other native carnivores, such as mountain lions, black bears and coyotes, each of which numbers in the thousands.
We will have ranching and wolves. Fortunately, in the Northern Rockies, most wolves do not kill livestock, and conflicts can be reduced by addressing herd vulnerability, and incorporating tools such as those in the Wolf Resource Guide, ideally collaboratively like prototypes in the Blackfoot Valley, Tom Miner Basin, or Centennial Valley, Montana, central Idaho, and northeastern Washington.
As for native prey, the Northern Rockies have more elk, licenses sold, and hunting revenue today than when wolves were reintroduced in 1995. Predation is eclipsed by human hunting, which state agencies use to keep populations below carrying capacity.
For outdoor recreationists, the recommendations are essentially the same as they are for hiking in bear country. Contrary to folklore, wolves are the least dangerous large carnivore in North America.
The important story here is how much is being done to address wolf-livestock conflicts, all the work that agencies like CPW, our universities, and NGOs are doing to plan for and reduce those conflicts — and how wildlife advocates are supporting livestock producers.
Conflicts over wolves, like many wildlife issues, are not about the animals themselves so much as underlying social and governance issues, and even more deeply held cultural beliefs and assumptions, of which we are often unaware.
Matt Barnes is a rangeland scientist, who works on Reintegrating Wildness with the Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, and a former ranch manager. He was appointed to the advisory board of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project, and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Stakeholder Advisory Group. His opinions are his own, and do not represent CPW or the SAG.
The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.
Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.