Some wolf claims approved, costs of BC wolves reviewed
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission approved four wildlife damage claims. Claims above $20,000 must be approved by the commission and the payments were approved unanimously.
The James Craig Bair Ranch submitted $65,523.23 claims of sheep killed by bear; PRR Operations, LLC submitted $41,786 for alfalfa and grass damaged by elk; Farrell Livestock, LLC submitted $287,407.63 for sheep and cattle killed by wolves; and Bruchez and Sons, LLC submitted $56,008.74 for cattle killed by wolves. The wolf claims totaled $343,416.37 to two ranching operations for losses.
Director Jeff Davis said emotions continue to run high both in and outside of the agency and CPW has partnered with Colorado State Univeristy to standardize livestock production data through the formation of a work group to standardize data. He said that standardization will be shared with livestock producers, and this will be done with the goal of streamlining the claims process.
CPW Regional Manager Travis Black said the claims were investigated and reviewed. He said the Ferrell claim is unique because the original claim was around $400,000. The remaining $112,000 for missing cattle is still being investigated and the agency and the Ferrells have requested additional time to work through the claim.
Commissioner Rich Reading asked for clarification of the losses. Black said about 15 head of cattle were confirmed losses and there were also $3,500 worth of missing sheep. Reduced weaning weights were calculated using three years of data and that difference was 36.5 pounds per head on about 1,400 head of calves. Conception rates were also compared using three years of production records and that reduction was about 3% which was calculated at about $90,000.
COMPENSATING FOR LOSSES
Chair Dallas May said former Commissioner Duke Phillips was instrumental in putting into place compensation formulas with multipliers for lost cattle, especially in areas of rough terrain. May said any losses affect the entire ranch.
“All this was put into place with a reason,” May said.
May explained to the commission that cows that don’t raise a calf one year are oftentimes less likely to breed back the following attempt.
“If there are pastures that are no longer accessible to a rancher and they have to take cattle that were in those pastures and put them on top of others where they normally wouldn’t manage for those cattle in those pastures, it absolutely causes a weight loss,” May said. “You don’t have the habitat, you don’t have the landscape, and you just don’t have the means to do it. It is a net drain on your program if you can’t use your entire ranch.”
May explained that he experienced this firsthand after a fire tore through their southeastern Colorado ranch, forcing them to move cattle from the burned areas and affecting the other areas of the ranch that had to be more heavily utilized.
“As for the pregnancy rates, I am somewhat surprised by the numbers in this claim, but my surprise is from a different area that they weren’t higher,” he said. “And there are calves in here that are valued at a certain price. Yesterday in our regional cattle market, those calves that were claimed in this would have brought 25% more than they’re claimed for.”
He said the cows were also likely bred for high altitude environments, further adding to their value.
“The request for payment on this isn’t a bonus for anybody,” May said. “It’s simply trying to recover some of the costs that were lost that actually should have been paid to these producers last fall.”
Commissioner Tai Jacober attended virtually, explaining that he’s calving, much like many ranchers in the state. With the most recent wolf releases in his area, he has the added complication of calving with potential wolf presence.
“I have 20 or 30 calves born per day right now with not very much help, so I decided to stay home, particularly with the matter of the wolves, but as everybody knows this is a subject matter that is really important to me,” Jacober said.
NEWEST WOLVES
Eric O’Dell, CPW Wolf Conservation Program manager, gave a wolf restoration update on the eight females and seven males captured in British Columbia and released in January in Colorado. O’Dell said the males averaged 112 pounds and the females averaged 80 pounds, though weights can fluctuate based on recent meals and time of day.
Commissioner Marie Haskett asked about the total cost of the most recent capture and release operation. O’Dell said the total cost was about $250,000, which includes helicopters, facilities, contract veterinarians. That does not include CPW staff time, nor does it include the transport flights, which were donated.
Haskett also requested that CPW be held to the same standard ranchers are being held to with regards to carcass management. She said in the past, CPW has been criticized for dumping wildlife carcasses in wildlife areas, something that is unacceptable for ranchers.
Much of the public comment criticized the amount of depredation compensation claims paid to ranchers and the potential passage of SB 25-038, which passed the same day. SB 25-038 protects the identities of livestock producers who submit depredation claims.
The bill’s primary sponsor, Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Avon, who represents the counties most impacted by wolf depredation, said ranchers are “wary of filling out a claim for compensation that they are legally entitled to.” Roberts said ranchers are hesitant to apply for compensation knowing their names and contact information can be released via open records requests by individuals or organizations. Roberts said allowing “a pro-wolf individual or organization who then would want to show up at their property, maybe to see a wolf, but more nefariously to give that rancher and agriculture producer a hard time about not taking care of their animals, which is completely unacceptable.”
The bill passed the legislature with the sole opposing vote cast by Rep. Bob Marshall, D-Highlands Ranch.
PRODUCERS AREN’T THE ENEMY
Commissioner Robinson implored future commenters to be nicer.
“The themes continue that producers are the enemy, and I want to say on record, from my standpoint, we’ve got to stop looking at each other as enemies and friends,” Robinson said. “We’re all in this together, we’re all Coloradoans, and our producers are not the enemy. When we say things like “get those ranchers” and “these producers,” they’re dealing with a set of circumstances that I’ve really just learned to listen to, that allows us to put ourselves in their shoes. We have to stop hating each other so much and figure out that common ground because the wolves are here to stay, and the producers are here to stay. We are an agriculture state, we are a producing state, and we need to stay a producing state, it’s a huge part of our economy. As much as we love the wolves, we have to love each other, too.”
Black, at Commissioner Haskett’s request, clarified that the compensation does consider whether conflict minimization techniques were used in determining the amount that may be claimed. She also clarified that all of the wolf damage claims occurred on privately owned land, not public. Black said that public comments accusing one of the ranchers of opposition to nonlethal deterrents aren’t accurate. He said multiple conflict management tools from cracker shells to range riders were in place to deter the dozen or so wolves responsible for the damages claimed.
“Working hand in hand with CPW staff, we were trying to keep (the rancher) appraised of wolf locations, which focused the area where the range rider was trying to protect livestock,” Black said. “We provided conflict minimization tools such as cracker shells, fox lights, things of that nature to that producer. In fact, after the first four yearlings were killed, CPW staff spent five nights in a row out there helping that producer do night patrol just to try to minimize the conflicts.”
He said the producer added livestock guardian dogs, though he still had sheep losses. Black also said, as some of the commenters claimed, there was a carcass pit on the ranch which he said may have attracted wolves.
“You have to keep in mind that early on in that calving season, it’s a time of year when the ground is still frozen,” Black said. “There’s snow on the ground and they could not cover up that pit until the ground thawed enough to be able to move dirt.
Black said the pit was covered by the producer voluntarily once weather conditions allowed. He also said the support document for the largest claim was about 166 pages long, which required hundreds of CPW staff hours as well as hours spent by the producer.
“I hope that someday we get to the point where we can reach some common ground,” May said. “It should be pretty obvious to everybody by now that it’s going to take producers and the wolf advocates to make this work. Nobody is going to get everything they want.”
He said the wolf plan was created over multiple years with experts, scientists, and stakeholder input. He said it is not the commission’s role to reinterpret the intent of the voters.
“Prop 114 — when it was put into law — C.R.S. 33-2-105.8, it’s very specific and words mean something,” May said. “When that ballot proposal — 114 — was put in front of the people, it was worded craftily in order to provide the most information to the public that it could. As Commissioner Haskett said, it stated in there that livestock producers would be compensated for losses. For losses. It didn’t say for dead cattle. It didn’t say cattle that were on private land. It just stated in the ballot measure that producers would be compensated for losses. It also said producers would not be required to invoke any land, water, or resource restrictions, which meant producers were not going to be forced to change their way of life in order to make this happen. We all agreed to that.”
WOLF PLAN CHANGES
May said the public comment that demanded changes to the wolf plan like only compensating if non-lethal deterrents are utilized or only paying on private land or the claims divulging additional financial information about the operation, or ending multiplier payments for missing calves were all discussed at length by stakeholder groups during the years long process of developing the wolf plan.
May also clarified that damages and losses due to bears, lions, and even elk eating hay is paid differently because those species are big game species that are managed through a hunting season, unlike wolves. He said the commission was intentional about not including phase 4, which would have made wolves a game species that would have allowed hunting and would have opened the argument for the compensation to mirror the lower rates of game animals.
At Commissioner Haskett’s request, O’Dell explained that the claims are reviewed by the District Wildlife Manager, then the Area Wildlife Manager, the game damage coordinator, then the regional manager for a recommendation. Then, if the claim is over $20,000, it goes to the commission for review and approval. He said it requires hundreds of staff hours and hundreds of hours by the claimant.
“That said, I don’t think it’s up to this commission to reinterpret what the voters meant, or what the ballot proposal said,” May said. “It was very specific. This commission has taken from that day in November 2020 and developed that plan. The constant efforts to try to change that plan — in January, this commission voted to not allow a change to the plan by delaying more reintroductions. We kept it intact. We protected the plan and kept the reintroductions coming, even though producers did not want that, we had 23 organizations, 63 of 64 Colorado counties asked us to stop. We did not because the wolf plan is important to us.”
May said the producers, especially in Middle Park, who are often demonized are the ones who provide the habitat for the wolves.
“Anybody who saw the video of that female wolf and the three pups playing in the rain puddle last fall… I think you should go back and think about that,” May said. “The producers that are suffering those losses were also the ones that allowed that to happen. That’s what both sides have to come together on with this. Rather than fighting each other continually, we have to get to the point that we’re working together to make this Colorado wolf reintroduction plan a success, and we’re well on our way to that happening. But we have to get past this constant contention.”
COMMISSION, BEAULIEU, MURPHY SUED OVER OP-ED
The commission entered executive session Thursday to receive legal advice from Colorado Senior Assistant Attorney General Jake Matter with regard to Safari Club International, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, and Brett Axton, v. CPW, 2024CV33613 (Denver District). The lawsuit brought by the two national hunting groups are suing the commission and both Commissioner Jessica Beaulieu and Commissioner Jack Murphy for allegedly violating open meeting laws.
Beaulieu and Murphy were listed as authors, along with former commission chair James Pribyl, of an opinion piece first published by the Durango Herald expressing their personal support of Proposition 127, which sought to criminalize mountain lion and bobcat hunting. The complaint clarifies that the two Colorado Gov. Jared Polis appointees, who were both identified as current commissioners, “must have met to discuss their position on the hunting of mountain lions and bobcats.” The hunting of those species is public business of the CPW commission.
As reported in The Fence Post magazine, the first line of Beaulieu and Murphy’s letter reads: “We are current and former Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners, which is the body that sets wildlife policy, including a former chair, and we encourage a “yes” vote on Proposition 127.” The letter urges voters to outlaw mountain lion and bobcat hunting as it “in no way contributes to our bright future of ethical outdoor recreation in our great state of Colorado.”
Beaulieu and Murphy said, “to be clear, CPW offers mountain lion hunting to serve mountain lion hunters alone, for a recreational opportunity” and offer California as an example of management without hunting. “Proposition 127 is based on not a little, but more than a half-century of the best science as evidence for commissioners to confidently tell the voters that lion populations will stabilize, not increase, without hunting. In California, without lion hunting, populations are stable, not increasing, and at the same level as they are here in Colorado.”
Beaulieu’s appointment was sent by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to the full Senate without a favorable recommendation. Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Summit County, is the chair of the committee and represents the Senate District most adversely affected by the wolf depredations, voted against Beaulieu.
Roberts told The Fence Post, “The people of Colorado should be able to trust that state agencies like CPW are being guided by science and fact-based decision making, and that their leadership is not influenced by politics or activism. While I respect everyone’s first amendment rights, I’m disappointed to see some CPW commissioners put their personal ideologies over their oaths as commissioners.”
The suit asks the court to rule on whether the commissioners violated the law, prohibit it from reoccurring, and seeks court costs and attorney fees.
