111320-cp-print-oped-editorials-1

A gray wolf walks in its enclosure in a wildlife park in Germany. 

A threatened lawsuit by environmental groups against a decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior to delist the gray wolf could put the recent decision by Colorado voters to reintroduce wolves in Colorado on a slower track.

On Oct. 29 Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt announced the delisting of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act (ESA), to howls of outrage from environmental groups, including some who backed Colorado's Proposition 114. That action takes effect on Jan. 4.

“The gray wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery” after 45 years on the ESA list, according to a news release from the Interior Department. “Today’s announcement simply reflects the determination that this species is neither a threatened nor endangered species based on the specific factors Congress has laid out in the law.”

The gray wolf population in the lower 48 states has grown to more than 6,000, “greatly exceeding the combined recovery goals for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Western Great Lakes populations,” the statement said.

Proposition 114 requires the state’s Park and Wildlife Commission to come up with a plan on reintroducing the species in Colorado, “using the best scientific data available,” and to reintroduce the wolves west of the Continental Divide by Dec. 31, 2023.

The ballot measure was approved by voters by a 50.9% to 49% margin. The measure won based on strong support from urban communities along the Front Range and in Southwestern Colorado. Rural communities, including those west of the Continental Divide where the wolves would be located, overwhelmingly opposed it.

On Nov. 5 a coalition of wildlife environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, which backed Proposition 114, notified the Department of Interior that they intend to sue over the delisting. The notice of intent to sue has a waiting period mandated by the Endangered Species Act, meaning it can’t be filed for 60 days, putting its timing on course for a filing right around the date the delisting becomes official.

The pending lawsuit and the costs of reintroduction came up Monday with the Joint Budget Committee, which received a staff briefing on the budget for the Department of Natural Resources.

JBC staff analyst Justin Brakke wrote in his briefing document that if the legal challenges to the federal decision are successful, and federal courts put the wolves back on the endangered species list, Colorado's parks and wildlife division could not reintroduce them to Colorado without the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

On the other hand, if the delisting decision stands, the state parks and wildlife division would not need federal approval, and CPW could implement the plan it’s tasked with coming up with to reintroduce the wolves.

There’s one other resolution to the issue: that the incoming Biden administration might order the Department of Interior to reverse that delisting decision.

Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, who was among the proponents of Proposition 114 said that third outcome isn't likely.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has had an anti-wolf tendency for decades, Robinson said, going back to about 30 years after the agency’s founding in 1885, when its mission was changed to an economic one that transformed the agency into an agricultural service.

That lasted until the 1960s, when then-Rep. John Dingell Jr. of Michigan persuaded Congress to enact a series of laws that eventually led to the Endangered Species Act, which was passed in 1973. That forbade the Fish and Wildlife Service from exterminating wildlife and tamped down, but didn’t eliminate, its agricultural service component.

Should the lawsuit against the delisting succeed, that puts the permitting process back into play for Colorado’s reintroduction plan, and back into the hands of Fish and Wildlife and its anti-wolf tendencies.

The permit process itself is fairly simple and would require little to no research by federal biologists, Robinson said. The permit would rely on the ESA’s “enhancement of conservation” section, which would entail development of a management plan, already part of Proposition 114’s requirements. That would show that the act of taking a live animal would result in a conservation benefit, and should meet the requirements for the permit.

There’s one wrinkle in that, however, and that’s the political ramifications, which don’t favor reversing the delisting decision.

Robinson cites an example from 2011, a deal contained in the federal budget and made by President Obama on behalf of Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, who was facing re-election in 2012. The deal allowed wolves to be delisted from the ESA in Idaho, Montana, northeastern Utah, eastern Oregon and Washington. Robinson said that deal was made in contravention of the science-based standards required by the ESA. It resulted in thousands of wolves being killed in the years that followed, he added.

The 2011 decision is not unlike decisions made by previous presidential administrations over the decades, Robinson explained. The Eastern gray wolf was delisted by the George W. Bush administration, and the Clinton administration, according to Grizzly Times, removed grizzly bears from the ESA, in part to save the ESA. That decision was later reversed by the Bush administration.

Once wolves are off the ESA, they can be hunted and killed, whether it's pups in their den or killing of adults, Robinson explained. In Wyoming, for example, wolves in 85% of the state can be killed by hunters or ranchers.

Delisting — and the resulting risk to the wolves from hunters or ranchers — flies in the face of an intent to reintroduce a population with an end goal of growing the species in Colorado.

The budget for reintroducing the gray wolves, according to the JBC analysis, is about $800,000 over the next two years. Brakke explained that there are three options for funding it, including using existing fees obtained from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, which go into the state’s wildlife cash fund. That fund also derives some of its funding from GoCo Colorado, and, according to Brakke’s analysis, the department believes it can apply for the initial costs of coming up with the reintroduction plan without raising the fees on those licenses.

Two other options exist, Brakke wrote. One is a license plate, but JBC chairman and Democratic Sen. Dominick Moreno of Commerce City said the JBC doesn’t like using license plates.

The other is to use general fund dollars. “If the general public wants wolves in the state, the general public can pay for them with general tax dollars,” Brakke wrote in his briefing document. But the current budget situation, with billions of dollars in general funds cut from the state budget just months ago, makes that unlikely.

The wildlife cash fund would also be the source to compensate livestock owners, should their livestock be killed by wolves, but it contains a caveat: that funds have to be available.

Newsletters

Get OutThere

Signup today for free and be the first to get notified on new updates.

(3) comments

Al

Agree with both of the earlier comments, this decision should be made by the people that live west of the continental divide, who appear to have a bit more common sense on this issue.

Nephilem

It is a shame the urban dwellers who don't have to live with wolves want them back. There are wolves all over the state that the CPW doesn't acknowledge. The fact is those of us who live in the rural setting already know how to handle this and will continue to do so. Hope the treehuggers out there don't run into a wolf pack unarmed or they be lunch.

Elk2006

How do they expect CPW to have the funds for this? They barely have enough as is. They've had to bump up license costs more and more

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.