Wild Earth Guardians are leading the process of releasing the Colorado Wolf Recovery Plan to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, a plan the group called an “alternative to CPW-led efforts focused on wolves reduction and “management.” Instead of the 250 wolf heads previously discussed by experts at CPW , groups pay for 750 wolves, a number they call a minimum.
In a statement, the groups said, “The best available science on self-sustaining populations and modeling of the carrying capacity of wolves in the West Slope indicates a minimum population of 150 packs or approximately 750 wolves. The plan is clear that 750 wolves is not a ceiling, but a minimum of Requirements to write off the state in the future from “threatened” to “indefinite” status.
In the introduction to the plan, the groups criticized the official operations of CPWP, saying that they “reduce targeted public inputs and raise the voices of ranchers, outfitters, fishermen and fishermen at the expense of others.”
They went on to say that the spirit and letter of Proposition 114 had been lost or undermined, and said the makeup, structure and facilities of both the Technical Working Group (TWG) and the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) “have upended what should be an ambitious conversation toward a cynical game focused on compensation for wealth holders.” fauna, artificially reducing the population, when, where and how to kill wolves.”
animal activity board
In a webinar led by Wild Earth Guardians, HSUS, and the Sierra Club, Chris Smith advocated with Wild Earth Guardians, and panelists Delia Malone, an ecologist with the Colorado Sierra Club; Open Royal, HSUS; Lindsey Laris, Program Manager, Wild Earth Guardians and Chris Smith, Defender with Wild Earth Guardians, reviewed the plan.
Lares said CPW’s Colorado operation lacks the positive benefits of wolf recovery and cohabitation, and he said the groups plan focuses on reintroduction areas, population goals, management guidelines and compensation considerations. She also said that Mexican gray wolves should be included in the reintroduction to speed the growth of the species in New Mexico and southern Colorado. CPW has opposed this in the past.
By researching the groups, Lares said, there are 17 million acres of suitable wolf habitat, and the state can support more than 1,000 wolves. She said that based on the elk prey base alone, the state could conserve 4,138 wolves.
Royall said while CPD claims a strong stakeholder process is in place, she hopes the agency will incorporate the groups’ plan, which she said includes a science-based and conservation perspective.
Malone said there are elements to the process that she finds troubling.
“SAG is dominated by the same interests that got rid of the wolves in the first place,” she said. “These interests dominate the conversation, rather than the interests that voted in wolves to return to Colorado.”
She said those interests are hunters and ranchers.
Smith said the amount of conflict between wolves and cattle that occurs on land is greatly exaggerated, although he said there will be some conflict when “wolves return to the landscape in a meaningful way.”
Royal said local carnivores have an inherent right to exist on public lands, and non-lethal measures should be prioritized.
“The focus on this issue really outweighs the importance of the problem,” she said. “Data from state and federal agencies reflect that wolves cause very, very little livestock losses.”
Among the proactive methods of conflict reduction the plan recommends are putting up a marked fence, removing healthy carcasses, and guarding livestock. With regard to compensation for livestock losses, the plan dictates the implementation of site-appropriate non-lethal measures and conflict prevention strategies for a sufficient period of time as a prerequisite for payment of compensation.
The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association responded to the report, explaining that the authors of Proposition 114 called for a “statewide hearing to obtain the information to be taken into account when developing such a plan, including scientific, economic, and social considerations relating to such restoration” and to “periodically” obtain public input to update such a plan.” With this in mind, the CCA said that individual groups should not be allowed to circumvent the process to advocate for their individual ideas or promote a one-sided process over that developed by the government’s Game Management Agency and professionals who collect all stakeholder input, Including producers whose daily life is directly affected by wolves that are already plundering livestock in the state.
Philip said: “While deeply disappointed with the passage of Proposition 114 in 2020, and concerned about the negative effects that the forced wolf introduction could have on Colorado, CCA remains committed to participating in the state’s wolf management processes and ensuring that the concerns of wolf producers are represented. Livestock. Anderson, President of CCA.
According to a statement from the CCA, throughout the process, leaders and members of the Colorado Cattlemen Association made public comments and testimonies through several Wolf operations including the Wolf Stakeholder Advisory Group, Technical Work Group, and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, and two comment writers submitted through Online comment form. Comments and testimonials from producers should not be underestimated because Proposition 114 states that “the return of the gray wolf to the State shall be designed to resolve disputes with persons engaged in ranching and farming in this State.”
Reading press reports across the state, Lars said she’s noticed a great deal of rhetoric about how this is an example of front-line voters imposing their values on the West Slope. She said there were people across the state who voted yes for proposal 114, Denver County did not vote unanimously on the measure, and West Slope counties did not vote unanimously against it.
“These are individual voters who wanted it, and yes, there may be more individuals on the West Slope who voted ‘No,’ but there are definitely a number of people in the West Slope who want the wolves back there. Charting this front black and white divide Range is a pro-wolf but you don’t have to treat it like the West Cliff does, it’s not really how the sounds come out.”
Royal added that she expects a number of voters to vote against this measure due to the lack of confidence in the Chemical Weapons Convention.
“They’ve seen how native carnivores are treated in this state and they don’t want Colorado Parks and Wildlife to open them up to slaughter, which we’ve seen in other states and even from afar,” she said.
Fence Post Magazine asked the committee why the plan required that only Grain Global Partners be allowed to confirm looting, and not allow the USDA Wildlife Services to do so. Referring to an article in The Intercept alleging false reports of looting by Wildlife Services at the behest of livestock owners, Smith said it incentivized producers to care for their livestock negligently and facilitated the killing of Mexican wolves. In the grouping plan, Mexican wolves are included to ensure “real Mexican wolf recovery requires three interconnected subgroups. Ideal areas are Gila Bioregion (where wolves currently roam), Grand Canyon, and Southern Rockies. According to an email from Smith, a group of Mexican wolves are In the southern Rockies (the San Juan National Forest is the ideal location) you will contribute to genetic rescue.” Smith said there is “abundant suitable habitat for Mexican wolves in southern Colorado. This habitat is likely to increase in importance as climate change continues to warm and dry up Mexico, southern Arizona and New Mexico.”
In addition to Wild Earth Guardians, the signatories also include the Center for Biological Diversity, Project Coyote, The Rewilding Institute, Green Latinos, Colorado Sierra Club, Humane Society of the United States, Herbal Gardens Wellness, Western Watersheds Project, and Colorado Voters for Animals, Endangered Species Coalition, Animal Welfare Institute, Grand Canyon Wolf Restoration Project, and Wolf Conservation Center.
The CPW meets in Edwards on July 21-22. According to the agenda, a Keystone update on Wolf Planning will be Friday at 8:35 a.m. followed by an update and feedback on Wolf Planning CPW until 10:25. The meeting, which is scheduled to end at noon Friday, will be broadcast live.
We, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to assess the potential environmental impacts of a proposed rule required by the State of Colorado for its reintroduction and management. Gray wolf (Canis lupus).
As part of the reintroduction and management planning process, the state has requested that the service designate a pilot group under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. We are considering issuing a Section 10(j) rule to address components of a gray wolf recovery and management plan developed by the State Colorado. The proposed regulations would establish regulations for managing gray wolf reintroduction in Colorado and potential neighboring states to minimize potential impacts on stakeholders while ensuring wolf reproduction and management is consistent with federal regulations. We invite contributions from other federal and state agencies, tribes, NGOs, private sector companies, and members of the public on the scope of EIS, alternatives to our proposed approaches to help reintroduce and manage the gray wolf in Colorado, and related issues that we must address in EIS. Submission of Comments: To ensure that written comments are considered, they must be received on or before August 22, 2022. Comments submitted online at https://www.regulations.gov It must be received by 11:59 PM ET on the closing date.
Public Meetings: We will be holding open public research sessions on August 2, 3 and 4, 2022. In addition, we will offer a public webinar. Additional information regarding these scoping sessions, including times, will be available on our website at https://www.fws.gov/office/colorado-ecological-services-field-office. Persons wishing to participate in public scoping meetings and requiring special accommodations should contact Nicole Alt at (303) 236-4773 or [email protected] by 27 July 2022.
Submitting comments: You can provide written comments in one of the following ways. Please do not send comments either way.
• Online: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting feedback to Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0100.
• US Postal: Public Comment Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2022-0100; US Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.