The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Detailed analysis shows more than $3 million for county ranchers…
By Mark Reaman
Colorado Parks and Wildlife announced recently that Gunnison County is not on the list of places for the next release of wolves for the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan program. Garfield County, Eagle County and Pitkin County could likely be where the next wolves are released. Gunnison County remains on the list for future releases.
Of course, wolves wander once released and Pitkin County is just over the hill and adjacent to a portion of Gunnison County. Ranchers in Gunnison County have consistently voiced opposition to wolves in the area and they are not letting up in their effort to keep Gunnison County off the list and wolves out of the area.
Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Association president Andy Spann said while Gunnison County is not on the current list for a wolf release next year, the fact they could be on the ground in Pitkin County can impact this area. “Wolves are going to be released on the other side of the hill in the Maroon Bells which is pretty darn close,” he noted. “That could definitely impact our operations at some point even if wolves are not directly released in Gunnison County.”
The Stockgrowers’ Association last week released detailed cost estimates for on the ground “Non-Lethal Wolf Conflict Management” planning by the livestock industry for the Gunnison Basin of Colorado. It isn’t cheap.
The estimates project an initial cost (with equipment to support range riders for wolves amortized over four years), in excess of $3.2 million. According to Spann, “the estimates are for the on-the ground implementation of a stand-up non-lethal wolf conflict management program and are exclusive of any losses of actual livestock by depredation from wolves. Spread over 40 working ranch properties across the Gunnison Valley, the program costs average more than $81,000 per ranch, per year.
In a letter to the Colorado Wildlife Commission and the Colorado Agriculture Commission, the ranchers contend that the CPW is not adhering to the proposition passed by voters in 2020 that explicitly states, “commission shall not impose any land, water or resource use restrictions on private landowners in furtherance of the plan.”
The letter makes clear that the stockgrowers believe, “This language is mandatory, not discretionary. By not affirmatively planning and addressing real land and species concerns that were raised with the Commission and which do exist here in the Gunnison and elsewhere in western Colorado, the Commission is backing private landowners into land, water or resource use restrictions… The potential for major restrictions as a consequence of wolf introduction is very real in the Gunnison Valley, despite express direction by the People in Proposition 114 that such restrictions not occur.”
The letter cites the decades-long effort in the basin to protect the Gunnison Sage Grouse and the potential negative impact of wolves on land practices in place for the sage grouse. “The CPW Commission and staff failed to recognize the potential conflict that is bound to occur when wolf, cow and grouse habitats collide,” the letter states. “…it has become very obvious that these costs are truly significant to individual ranches. They will place an enormous, real burden on the livestock industry when considered at scale over the next decade across the Western Slope. These costs, required solely because of action by the State of Colorado to import gray wolves to Colorado, have always been and are still, ‘the elephant in the room,’ eroding both cooperation and trust between the CPW and the livestock industry.”
Spann made clear the local ranching community and local CPW officials have a good working relationship and communicate well. “The local guys are really good to work with. The strain between the ag community and CPW hasn’t hit here,” he said. “But our work with the state wolf commission hasn’t been fruitful. We understand they are in a tight spot but the conflict at hand is not being resolved.”
The stockgrowers have requested that no costs should be borne by the ranchers but should be paid in full by CPW. That detailed cost analysis was included with the letter and while admittedly “substantial,” the stockgrowers said it is clear being aware of the cost and dealing with them “may provide the basis for avoiding litigation and, if taken seriously, facilitate further discussions on managing the wolf introduction into the Gunnison basin.”
Spann said ranching has never been easy, but the industry has seen a lot of changes recently and adding wolves into the mix makes everything more difficult. “We are adapting all the time, but this is particularly hard, and it just makes it harder for ranchers,” he said. “We are talking to those that have already been impacted like ranchers in Middle Park, so we are doing the research and having the conversations.
“The wolves are on the ground in Colorado so we want to be as forward thinking as we can,” Spann continued. “We haven’t received a response to our letter and there wasn’t much discussion about it at the last meeting. But we need to resolve the conflicts and that hasn’t been done. Our financial analysis shows what it takes. There is nothing outlandish in our figures. It takes a lot of work to have a non-lethal management plan. Given that this was voted on by the voters, the voters — us included — should pay for it.”
As for next steps, there is nothing definitive. Spann said the Gunnison Stockgrowers are looking at all options and hoping for a cooperative solution between the ranching community and the state.
