OPINION: Strike Three in Wolf-Ousting Efforts in Colorado

This op-ed by Mark Surls appeared on Colorado Newsline on September 9, 2025.

From parenting to work to law enforcement, “three strikes and you’re out” is a concept everyone understands. The same should apply to the attempts to pause or end Colorado’s voter-approved wolf reintroduction.

Since January, cattleman associations, citizen groups, and legislators have tried — and failed — to reverse history.

Almost every news story about wolves in Colorado mentions the “narrowly passed” reintroduction ballot initiative. Yes, it was narrow. But it passed.

Meanwhile, every subsequent attempt by opponents of the wolf program to reverse the initiative has ended in a crushing defeat. Under the three strikes model, the failure of a petition to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to pause the reintroduction, the defeat of a legislative proposal to halt the program, and the rejection of a ballot initiative to end it — all within 2025 — should signal that Coloradans support the continued success of the wolf reintroduction.

Strike one. On January 8, the CPW Commission heard a petition calling for a pause in wolf reintroductions unless seven concerns were addressed. For the 11-member commission, “narrow” denial might have been 5–6 or even 4–7. But the petition was rejected by an impressive 10-1 vote.

Strike two. In August, lawmakers convened for a special session after President Donald Trump’s H.R. 1 blew a hole in Colorado’s balanced budget with an estimated a $1.2 billion loss in state revenue. A handful of lawmakers sought to address the budget crisis by pausing the wolf program and redirecting $264,000 of general fund money meant for CPW’s next relocation — cutting the deficit by a minuscule fraction of 1%. In the end, they did get their tiny fortune removed from wolf reintroduction efforts. However, an amendment was passed that removed language preventing CPW from using other funds to continue the reintroduction.

Strike three. Initiative 13, titled “End Wolf Reintroduction,” was filed by Colorado Advocates for Smart Wolf Policy — which actually wanted a “no wolf policy” — on February 19, initiating a six-month attempt to undermine public-supported reintroduction. Their embarrassing result makes this year’s Colorado Rockies performance seem heroic in comparison. To qualify for the ballot, 124,238 valid signatures are required. In practice, that means 160,000–200,000 signatures are needed to account for invalid ones.

How many did the group collect? Twenty-five thousand — about one-sixth of the actual goal. Their excuse wasn’t a lack of public support but a lack of money for paid circulators. But that itself is telling: If people believed in the cause, they would have invested time, energy and money to make it successful. It is true that securing donations is part of the modern ballot initiative process. The use of paid circulators is standard practice, but isn’t necessarily required to obtain sufficient signatures.

I led the signature effort for last year’s Proposition 127, which would have prohibited mountain lion hunting and bobcat trapping. For that campaign, volunteers collected 117,669 of our 187,147 total signatures; by comparison, this campaign managed just 25,000 — 92,000 fewer on a volunteer-to-volunteer basis.

The failures of this narrow group of anti-wolf special interests are undeniable. Coloradans don’t support efforts to stop wolf reintroduction — not with their votes, signatures or wallets. The people have spoken three times: We want wolves.

The media, lawmakers and others using wolves as a weapon of division should stop and recognize this program for what it truly is: a historic effort, supported by the majority, to restore wolves to their rightful home.

Mark Surls was the volunteer and outreach coordinator for Proposition 127, last year’s ballot initiative to prohibit mountain lion hunting and trapping of bobcats.