A coalition of counties in north-western Colorado and agricultural groups wants to stop the effort to put the wolves back on the 2026 ballot

deleciousfood | March 20, 2025 | Agriculture | No Comments

A basic coalition of commissioners and agricultural groups of the county of Northwest Colorado asks the Citizen initiative, Colorado defends the policy of Wolf Smart Wolf, to reconsider its efforts to put the wolves on the ballot in 2026.

The defenders of Colorado for Smart Wolf Policy seek to ask the voters to make changes to the law of the State which launched a reintroduction of Wolf Gris with the close approval of the proposal 114 in 2020.

In a letter of March 17, the coalition asked the group of citizens to suspend the proposed voting measure, claiming that the initiative had not obtained a contribution from the stakeholders most affected by the reintroduction efforts of Colorado.

“Like you, we share the underlying frustration with the approach of the administration to implement the proposal 114”, indicates the letter. “We would like to see a break in any additional reintroduction of new wolves in Colorado until adequate programs and resources are provided to landowners to manage wolf and farm interactions more appropriately.”

At the meeting of the County Commissioner of Garfield, on March 17, where the board of directors ratified the letter, Commissioner Perry Will said that when he appreciated the group’s efforts on the ballot proposal, he was “probably too little, too late”.

“The damage is caused (the wolves are) on the ground,” said Will.

The letter is signed by the commissioners of the county of the countries of Garfield, Grand, Mesa, Moffat, Montrose and Rio Blanco. The Coalition – which also includes representatives of the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, the associated governments of North West Colorado, Club 20 and more – was formed earlier this year against the latest Wolf outings.

Lauren Dobson, representative of the coalition, said that the group has trained to build large -scale collaboration and find solutions to press fauna problems, including wolves.

Dobson said that the basic group is “not opposed to a voting initiative concerning the reintroduction of the wolf, but that cannot be done in a vacuum”.

“Any effort – whether administrative through the Commission (Colorado Parks and Wildlife), legislative or by ballot – must ensure collaboration with affected people,” she added. “Although we invite them to join our coalition conversations, we ask the break and allow conservation and agricultural communities to direct any strategy.”

Without the appropriate involvement of stakeholders, the measure is in contradiction with the “political results on which our coalition works,” says the letter.

Dobson said this includes coalition’s efforts to find solutions through existing ways such as the state legislature and the parks and fauna commission.

In addition, if the measurement comes to the ballot and fails, this could harm the current public and political support and to the efforts that land owners and producers have aroused to meet the challenges with reintroduction, supports the coalition.

What the voting measure proposes

The Colorado Advocates for Smart Wolf Policy submitted a petition project in early January to repeal the proposal 114 However, the petition made its way through the process of the state process For the proposals of ballots, this has changed.

Now, rather than abrogation entirely the proposal 114, the current language of the measurement “Seeks to end the introduction of wolves by the end of 2026” and to prohibit the importation of wolves from other states, said Stan Vanderwerf, one of the representatives designated for the measurement of the ballot.

Until January, Vanderwerf spent eight years as a county commissioner in the County of El Paso.

The modification took place after the engagement of the stakeholders with the animal husbandry and agriculture industry, which expressed its concerns that the repeal would result in the loss of reimbursement of livestock loss, he said.

State law promulgated by proposal 114 Requires that financing the reintroduction by the State included “fair remuneration for livestock loss”. In response, the Colorado Legislative Assembly created A wolf depredation compensation fund in 2023 to reimburse breeders for the loss of cattle, farming guards or animal herds due to wolves.

The measure that Colorado’s policy has defenders of Smart Wolf offers two other changes: the addition of language to the law which would codify the compensation of cattle dog and other childcare animals. It also proposes to remove the term “non-game” from the statutory definition of gray wolves, which Vanderwerf claims is not necessary to have in the law.

The measure always makes its way through the Secretary of State’s process to put on the ballot and could see other changes.

“This voting measure should not be controversial,” he said, adding that he was “disappointed” by the letter asking to suspend the effort.

On the one hand, the coalition and the voting initiative share a common objective in improving the management of the state of wolves and conflicts, he said.

In addition, he said that some of the people signed to the letter had been in conversations with them a week ago. Some have shown him support, he said.

“We don’t know exactly what happened, why it has changed,” said Vanderwerf. “We are going to have a conversation with them and ensure that all those involved include the scope and benefit of our voting measure.”

He said that the group is committed with “hundreds of breeders and farmers from Colorado who were really interested in doing things that were poorly designed in (proposal) 114.”

“We just couldn’t arrive at everyone before presenting the measure of the ballot,” he said. “But we are happy to have a conversation with everyone and try to solve this problem because it is not because we do not try; there are a lot of people and organizations interested in problems like this.”

The coalition gathers against the proposal

Tim Ritschard, president of the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association, said that the main concern about the proposed voting measure was how it could have an impact on depredation compensation – which he said that the group was not aware of because they were not consulted in the voting effort.

“If we can stop other reintroductions and manage wolves and keep compensation, then yes, I think we can work through it,” said Ritschard. “It’s just difficult when we have never been consulted or even inform.”

Another concern is how the moment of measuring the ballot and the future wolf outputs will take place, he said.

“We could release another wolf round before it comes into force,” he said.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Final Wolf Plan Predicted that the reintroduction of the wolf will require the transfer of “around 30 to 50 wolves, total, over a period of 3 to 5 years”.

So far, the agency has crossed two years and two transfers of 25 wolves. With births, deaths and animals naturally entering the state, the Colorado wolf population is estimated at 30.

Vanderwerf acknowledged that the schedule for the measurement of the ballot could be close to the end of the parks and fauna calendar for versions, but said that the objective would be to “provide insurance” that the versions would not occur after 2026.

Four of the coalition organizations – La Colorado Wool Growers Association, the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and Club 20 – were part of the group that petitioned parks and fauna last fall to stop other reintroductions of wolves. The petition was refused by the commission just a few days before the agency start to capture 15 wolves from British Columbia and release them in northwestern Colorado.

“We thought we had a break would make time for programs,” said Ritschard. “As we saw from the first version, no one was prepared. It was rushed, and there was a lot to do before the Wolves touched the soil. Once these programs in place, we were able to free up more.”

With the population of wolves where it is today – and the reproduction season at the corner of the street – he said that a break or a stop of new introductions would have an impact on the situation on the field.

“I do not think a break will now do anything,” he said, adding that with the current situation, the presentations are “more likely to occur now”.

It is risky to return to voters on this subject and could harm the work that the coalition and the producers are already working, he said.

“When we return and look at what happened with proposal 114, I think there were a lot of remorse buyers about how people voted,” he said. “I don’t think we have to play with the biology of the ballot boxes more. Going to this is just another tool. Leaving the legislators to obtain real testimonies from the experts to decide what is best instead of simple information sheets and (the) Blue Book is better. ”

Ritschard said that the park’s scholarships have been in conversation with states and federal legislators since April 2024 to find options and solutions to treat the wolf-deflicted conflict.

“The stop of the introduction does not change any capacity (parks and fauna) to take the wolves which are already in Colorado and manage them,” said Vanderwerf. “It must be managed profitably, so that taxpayers do not end up having to divert more and more money towards this.”

The letter was signed by the following individuals:

John Swartout, former executive director of Colorado Couties, Inc., representing the coalition
The commissioners of the county of Garfield, Mike Samson, Perry Will and Tom Jankovsky;
The commissioners of the Grand County Merritt Linke and Edward Raegner;
The commissioners of the county of Mesa, JJ Fletcher and Cody Davis;;
The commissioner of the county of Moffat Melody Villard;
The commissioner of the Montrose County, Sue Hansen; And
The commissioners of the County of Rio Blanco Jennifer O’Hearon, Doug Overton and Callie Scritchfield.

The following groups are also represented in the letter: