Saddle Sore: Finding solutions to ‘chronic depredation’

No one knew where it would go.

The wolf restoration initiative, Proposition 114, passed into law on Nov. 3, 2020. It directed the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission to develop a plan to introduce and manage gray wolves in Colorado west of the Continental Divide no later than Dec. 31, 2023. The vote was marginally close, 50.91% to 49.09% — a difference of 56,986 votes.

To put some further context on the vote, out of 64 Colorado counties, only 13 voted for Proposition 114. Further breaking it down, only 5 of 22 counties on the Western Slope voted for restoration.

Oregon, which had extirpated its wolf population by 1947, found itself host to the first pair of immigrant breeding wolves in 2011, who had migrated to Oregon on their own, without human intervention. Oregon, through much work, study, and resolve, now has a stable wolf population somewhere around 180 individuals. Colorado got its first 10 imports from Oregon in December 2023.

Was three years enough lead time to get this program off the ground? Previously, in 2016, CPW rejected a proposal to restore wolf populations in Colorado, citing various important issues. It appears we may have not provided enough time to prepare for the return of our long-lost natives, canis lupus. Perhaps CPW unwittingly saw the future.

It’s very early in the process, but as it stands today, the restoration of wolves to Colorado is not going well. The first officially recognized pack, the Copper Creek wolf pack, has been removed from the wild in Grand County due to its killing of several livestock animals. Those captured wolves have been put in an enclosure at an undisclosed location — for how long? Can they still be considered wild? Are we going to keep capturing those wolves who kill domestic livestock and/or working dogs and put them in enclosures, as well?

Ranchers have asked for a concrete definition of “chronic depredation,” so that solutions can begin to have impact rather than further conversations. According to the Wolf Management Plan of Colorado, government agencies have been given the authority to mitigate impacts to Colorado’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities arising from last year’s wolf introduction. This includes using lethal methods on those animals identified as being guilty of chronic depredation. Even with that authority, CPW doesn’t want to do that now; it wants to wait until there are 50 wild wolves roaming the state. In the meantime, if they commit killing of livestock, we’ll lock ’em up, I guess.

There are impacts we don’t see when indiscriminate killing of livestock by wolves, or any creature, takes place. The rancher, if he’s any good, knows his cattle, knows his calves, knows good mothers from mediocre, and feels the loss immediately. Just seeing the carnage tugs at the heartstrings. He’s spent countless nights getting his mother cows through the calving season and feels a kinship with each four-legged creature on the ground. Undoubtedly, tears are shed amongst the family, and the loss is an emotional one in addition to the financial hit.

Many ranchers feel, and justifiably so, that even though they didn’t vote for the reintroduction of the wolves, they are being asked to take up the slack created by unintended consequences, i.e., depredation. Is there any other way than to ask them to put their livelihoods on the line for the survival of the restoration? 

And the wolves? What of those yellow-eyed creatures, unwittingly becoming pawns in an experiment being carried out by humans, one of their apex predators? We’ll capture them, put ’em on a truck, and ship them off to unfamiliar Colorado territory where we expect them disperse themselves and make a new home. And if they kill someone’s calf or sheep because it’s easy prey, we’ll shoot them or lock them up in an enclosure if we catch them. Not much future there.

It’s unfair to the ranchers, and it’s unfair to the wolves. It’s not like stirring cream into your morning coffee. We’ve pitted two groups against each other while the rest of us go about our business, reading accounts in the newspaper, or giving our opinions, while those two groups suffer on both sides.  

The ranchers have asked that the restoration efforts be put on hold until nonlethal and lethal means of control can be better investigated and proved effective. Ranchers need some time for healing and reflection, CPW needs time to come up with a better management plan, and surely the lesser of all evils is to give the program more time to develop in a more constructive fashion.

Tony Vagneur writes here on Saturdays and welcomes your comments at ajv@sopris.net.