Colorado Wolves? A Reintroduction Discussion.

Andrea Hall

These days, the only howls Coloradans hear are likely from our own furry canine companions. Colorado hasn’t heard a wolf howl in decades.

This November, Colorado voters will have a choice on their ballots whether to reintroduce wolves into our state. Ballot initiative 107 would allow grey wolf reintroduction to Colorado starting in 2023. Despite Colorado being a state that loves our domestic canine companions and outdoor haven, this issue is hotly contested.

The initiative itself states its purpose is to restore a balance in nature that has been missing from Colorado for quite some time. To address the fears of the initiative’s opponents, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (“CPW”) Commission will develop a plan to mitigate conflicts between wolves and ranchers including compensation for any livestock losses. The initiative leaves funding up to the general assembly. The initiative’s initial fiscal impact statement indicates that its first two fiscal years would cost the state as much as around $800,000. CPW will request funds through the annual budget process for continued pack monitoring, data collection, and rancher compensation funds.

This is not the first time wolf reintroduction has been discussed. Officials have considered the issue as far back as 1982. And again in 1989, 2004, 2016, and 2020. Generally, each of these discussions terminated because CPW lacks authority to initiate this type of program and must rely on the legislature. Coloradans might be tired of waiting on the general assembly to act on this issue.

Proponents of the measure make a compelling case. First, Colorado creates a gap within grey wolf habitat in the Rockies. Reintroducing wolves would close that gap and connect the entire wolf population from the high arctic to the Mexico-U.S. border. Second, Colorado looks to Yellowstone as inspiration. In Yellowstone, wolf reintroduction resulted in increased biodiversity and healthier forests. Species of plants and animals alike were able to make an unexpected comeback and create a more balanced ecosystem. Third, if reintroduction in Colorado has the same effects on biodiversity as it did in Yellowstone, our state could see an increase in beaver populations. This can result in increased water storage and higher water tables—aspects of our ecosystem that are especially important with the amount of drought our state faces. Fourth, proponents of the measure know that wolves have started migrating back into the state on their own. However, if the state moves forward with a reintroduction approach instead of a natural recolonization, there will allegedly be more regulatory flexibility around pack management. Finally, wolves serve as natural predators to elk, deer and moose, therefore wolves would help keep population sizes subdued. Perhaps all these points will sway voters to push the state to act on this issue.

While there are a lot of reasons wolves might be a welcome return, it is worth noting the hesitation and reason for opposition to 107. First, wolves are doing this work on their own; perhaps it is best to keep humans out of it. Second, while $800,000 might seem small in the scheme of a state budget, that amount only covers the first two years. An open records request indicated that the entire project for successful reintroduction could cost over $5 million. Ultimately, this expense will fall on taxpayers because data projects CPW will have a $41 million budget shortfall by 2025, only two years after the program is set to begin. Third, CPW is already actively managing and surveilling the wolves that have migrated here on their own. CPW, therefore, has insight and opinions on wolves in Colorado, but the Fair Campaign Practices Act (C.R.S. §1-45-117) prohibits CPW from commenting on this ballot measure. This prevents the public from obtaining data and information from a reliable source. Fourth, proponents argue that wolves are the needed response to maintain and control deer, elk, and moose populations. However, even without wolves in the state, Western Colorado—where wolves would be introduced—is seeing significant declines in big game populations. Fifth, there are obvious concerns from ranchers about their stock. While the measure includes a compensation plan, there are potential funding issues. Finally, as the state’s population continues to rise, there are concerns over an increased number of human-wildlife conflicts. Wolves have a range from fifty to one thousand square miles. From Colorado’s eastern border to its Western border is only 396 miles , and people recreate in the back-country across our state.

Opponents argue that the issue is being pushed now because wolves are not as endangered as they used to be. In fact, they are likely coming off the endangered species list. Are wolves doing fine without us? Or do they need our help to connect their population groups? Can we co-exist as our human population continues to grow and infringe on their habitat? Would our ecosystem truly benefit from reintroduction? These are questions that voters will have to wrestle with by November. Whatever the voters choose, there will likely be tangible effects.