PHOTO: A wolf pup from the Pinnacle Peak Pack in Wyoming peeks its head out of the grass on August 18, 2016. Lori Iverson/USFWS.
This story by Chase Woodruff appeared on Colorado Newsline on April 25, 2023.
A bill sailing through the Colorado General Assembly could complicate a legal mandate the state faces to reintroduce gray wolves to parts of the Western Slope by the end of this year, wildlife officials told lawmakers Monday.
The bipartisan Senate Bill 23-256, approved by the House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee after a lengthy hearing Monday evening, would prevent the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado until the federal government grants an exemption authorizing various forms of “lethal take” — killing wolves in the act of attacking livestock or pets, or wolves that repeatedly threaten livestock herds.
That’s a top priority for agricultural producers on the Western Slope anxious about the threat that reintroduced wolves could pose to their livelihoods. But officials with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources say SB-256’s requirements could interfere with implementation of Proposition 114, the ballot measure approved by Colorado voters in 2020 that requires wolf reintroduction to begin no later than Dec. 31, 2023.
“Ranchers are extremely worried about their livestock being killed,” said state Rep. Meghan Lukens, a Democrat from Eagle and one of the bill’s sponsors. “(SB-256) would permit ranchers and property owners to utilize lethal action as a method of last resort if their livestock or working animals are in immediate danger.”
At issue is a federal policy known as a 10(j) rule, named for a section in the Endangered Species Act that allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate endangered animals as “experimental populations.” Under such a designation, Colorado’s new wolf populations would, under certain circumstances, be subject to lethal control, as well as “injurious nonlethal” methods and “intentional harassment,” which the Endangered Species Act would otherwise prohibit.
“We shouldn’t be felonizing ranchers, outdoorsmen and women, who are defending human life, animal life, livestock, pets, when they’re in imminent harm of being attacked by a wolf,” said state Rep. Matt Soper, a Delta Republican, the bill’s other House sponsor. “If we fail to ensure that 10(j) is in place as a state, all we’re doing is opening the doors for more felony convictions.”
Despite what Soper and other lawmakers implied throughout Monday’s hearing, killing an endangered animal in self-defense or in defense of another person is legal under the ESA, and would remain so no matter what happens with the 10(j) process.
Dan Gibbs, Department of Natural Resources executive director, testifying in opposition to the bill, said it could throw a wrench into implementation of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s restoration plan, violate Proposition 114’s requirements and “needlessly deny the will of a majority of Colorado voters.”
Gov. Jared Polis’ administration has asked federal officials to issue the 10(j) designation ahead of the December deadline, but the move is subject to the often lengthy review process under the National Environmental Policy Act. A draft environmental impact statement was released in February.
“We’re messing with a federal process that has been in the works for over a year now,” Gibbs said. “How we could use support is not this bill, but a resolution or a letter to (Interior) Secretary (Deb) Haaland, or Martha Williams, the head of [USFWS], that says, ‘We support the state’s efforts to get a 10(j), and by the way, we want that by December 2023.’ That’s how we could really use some help, not this bill.”
Under the state’s restoration plan, CPW staff will work with their counterparts in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to capture wolves from existing wild populations in those states later this year, and begin releasing them in a designated zone centered on the Glenwood Canyon area before the end of December.
Gibbs assured lawmakers that the state was “on track” to receive the 10(j) designation by December, but repeatedly declined to answer directly when asked whether the state would move forward with reintroduction in the absence of the rule.
“We need to look at every legal option available to make sure we’re consistent with voters’ intent,” he said. “Our preferred path is… to have a 10(j) in place by December. The highest levels of government have given me assurances that that’s going to happen.”
While Lukens denied that SB-256 is “delay tactic” sought by groups that have long opposed wolf reintroduction, multiple Republican lawmakers questioned whether the text of Proposition 114 — which directed CPW to “take the steps necessary to begin reintroductions of gray wolves by December 31, 2023” — does in fact mean “paws on the ground” by that date.
“The will of the people in here is that the necessary steps must be taken,” Soper argued. “As part of a successful reintroduction, having 10(j)… is a necessary step.”
Lawmakers on the committee advanced SB-256, which has already passed the Senate, to the full House on an 11-2 vote. State Reps. Jennifer Parenti of Longmont and Tammy Story of Evergreen, both Democrats, were the lone votes in opposition to the bill.
Separately on Monday, the committee voted 12-1 to approve a bill creating a dedicated fund to compensate ranchers for livestock losses caused by wolves, as required by Proposition 114.
Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows that wolf depredations account for less than 1% of unwanted cattle and sheep mortality in states with established wolf populations.
Committee chair Rep. Karen McCormick, a Democrat from Hygiene, said prior to her vote in support of SB-256 that the legislation will help the state achieve the “proper and successful” implementation of Proposition 114.
“I don’t see this as a delay mechanism at all,” McCormick said. “I think this is an important part of the implementation plan, which is already in process. I feel like it’s on track to happen on time, which will probably make this whole bill and discussion moot, which will be great.”