Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioner Marie Haskett criticized the release of grey wolves in Colorado at the Jan. 10 commission meeting. Haskett is the sportsman’s representative, appointed in 2017 by then-Gov. John Hickenlooper.

“Wildlife does not understand politics, nor should the management of wildlife be politically driven,” she said. “This commission was asked to fast track wolves by the governor. This commission and staff did not do that. This commission spent two years, sometimes with two meetings per month, working diligently to complete and approve a wolf plan.”

Dec. 18 was a sad day because this commission was not notified nor invited to the first wolf release,” she said. “Nor were the people who worked countless hours invited to the second or third wolf release.

---

---

WHO WERE NOTIFIED?

She said among those not invited or notified were members of the legislature, local counties where wolves were released, or even Grand County Commissioner Merrit Linke, who is a member of the Technical Working Group, though she said other specific members of the working groups were invited. Pictured in the CPW footage of the release was Darlene Kobobel, a member of the Stakeholders Advisory Group. According to her online biography, Kobobel founded a wolf sanctuary known now as the Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center.

---

---

“The people who politically drove this issue were present,” she said. “The divide between rural and urban populations was blown up with this ballot initiative. Now, CPW has taken a huge hit with the public because of these political actions.”

“CPW staff has made great efforts over the years to work with landowners, ranchers and citizens on wildlife management issues only to have their relationships questioned by not informing citizens, legislators, and county commissioners on what was happening with the release. Landowner relationships are on the edge, and many have been ruined. The boots on the ground need to be able communicate and let the public know what is going on with wolf management. CPW needs those relationships, or it won’t be long until every private gate is locked and CPW is not welcome.”

Commissioner Duke Phillips said he learned of the release the following day when it was on the television news.

“It kind of cut, it hurt to be so invested in something and have such a good feeling about a plan that we put forward to find out the day after it had already happened,” he said. “For me as a commissioner to feel that way, I can’t imagine what the producers and people in the area were feeling. It’s an emotional thing. We need to really focus on perception.”

RURAL VS. URBAN

He said the reintroduction set a stage to pit rural against urban, though he felt like the plan was agreeable to rural areas, where he said the impacts would be felt. However, he said the release drove a wedge further between the two groups.

CPW Director Jeff Davis said he has already apologized to members of the General Assembly and apologized to the commission. He said he wants to be “crystal clear” that his staff did their jobs excellently.

“My apology comes from me because the area that had the most impact was the ball that I dropped,” Davis said. “So, I apologize to all of you for the notification and the transparency pieces.”

He said they are in the process of completing an internal after-action review. He said he recognized the impact it would have while it was happening, and the effect has been “quadrupled” as it has played out.

He said wolves elicit an emotional response and he reminded the commission that CPW staff is present for the public, no matter their stance on the species.

“We want to be that bridge, we are that bridge,” he said. “I want to say to the rural communities that we are there, we have been there with you all along. These people haven’t changed, they’re the same people who are part of your community who have those trusting relationships and we don’t want a particular species, or any of our actions, to result in severing those relationships that are so critically important that all of us have worked so hard to develop.”

He said he is also ensuring the on the ground staff has the tools and support they have going forward as they rebuild trust with communities.

Cory Gaines from Sterling offered his comments on the wolf reintroduction.

Gaines said he has serious concerns about the message sent to those affected and to taxpayers about how little transparency he said there was.

“Besides comments like those of Mr. Gibbs, the process has not at all been transparent,” he said. “To my knowledge, no information was released ahead of time about where these wolves were sourced, and they were released in a carefully controlled media event with reporters who were chosen and no outside photo or video.”

He said no local or state leadership or residents were notified, though “the First Gentleman did get a ringside seat.” He said this appeared to make it a photo opportunity for the governor, while others “didn’t get a whole lot.” He said the concern is that long after Gov. Polis has moved on, residents and CPW will still be dealing with wolves. Chairman May asked him to keep the comments to the subject at hand rather than personal attacks by “mentioning certain individuals who had ringside seats” and Chair Dallas May who cut Gaines off.

DAY 2

Reid DeWalt, assistant director for Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Natural Resources, offered a wolf update to open the second day of the commission meeting by thanking the CPW staff for their countless hours of hard work. He said he took an oath in 1992 to serve all citizens of Colorado, and to protect the wildlife and wild places of the state and showed the badge he received when he took that oath. The commission was complimentary of DeWalt and his staff’s work.

He said members of multiple branches of CPW were on hand in Oregon as 10 wolves were captured for release beginning on Dec. 18 in Grand and Summit counties. CPW collared several wolves for the Oregon Fish and Wildlife while there and he said he appreciates their cooperation.

He said all the wolves are still in Colorado and are well with no reports of depredation. He said staff is working on a product to share reasonable location information that will allow residents to access the information online.

He said whenever wolves and livestock share the landscape, there is potential for conflict and the only packs that do not share the landscape with livestock are those located in National Parks or deep wilderness areas. He said they declined to source wolves from several packs in Oregon that were from depredating packs, several that would have been simple captures. He said the Five Points Pack, from which two wolves were captured, had depredation incidents followed by the removal of wolves in July and August. No reported depredation incidents were reported after that removal.

“I want to make it clear that Oregon Fish and Wildlife did not give us their problem animals,” he said. “That was not done, and we wouldn’t do that to them.”

He said looking back, CPW would select the same source animals today. The difference, he said, would be more clearly communicating why those decisions were made.

He referenced the TWG statement that reads: because depredation is situational, even wolves that are not known to be depredators have the potential for depredation.

DeWalt said he asked wolf biologists in the early stages of the restoration process about their advice and was told when mistakes are made, “step up to the plate and say you screwed up and be straight.”

He said eventually, CPW will make public wolf pack boundaries. Location data will also be offered, likely identifying the county where wolves are located via telemetry data. He said general location data can be shared with ranchers in proximity to wolves to allow them to deploy non-lethal methods.

A representative of Humane Society of the U.S. said the group remains gravely concerned about the killings of wolves in the North Park Pack and urged the commission to prosecute illegal wolf killings. She also said she hopes the media will cease the “emphatically” overstating of livestock losses.

Dan Gates, chair of the Colorado Wildlife Council, commented that the commissioners have a tremendous number of issues on their plate. He said making information available and decipherable to the general public on the website is a good one.

“The general public wants to know do we have sustainable populations of wildlife and are they appropriately managed,” he said. “Some of the opposition to actual game harvest, it doesn’t matter what numbers there are, they don’t really care, in my opinion. They want to make sure we don’t harvest anything. There isn’t a suitable number of off take — there’s not a 10 or a 20 or 100 or 1,000. It’s zero. They don’t have a suggestion on what they’re going to turn around and do to make things right or make things better.”

He said wildlife management decisions are likely to, again, go to the voters and Gates said the time is right to provide facts to the general public. Commissioner Haskett asked Gates what other methods of providing information to the public include.

“First and foremost, would be to have the agency speak when they’re asked a question and I don’t think they’ve been appropriately allowed to do that, or they’ve been told not to do that, or they’ve chosen not to do that historically,” he said. “Stuff on the website is one thing, but when they get asked by legislators or they get asked by the press, I think those questions should be answered and I think they should be transparent and accountable.”