CPW plans to release wolves near Gunnison

Picture caption: Areas for consideration for CPW’s winter wolf releases. The southern area along the Highway 50 corridor between Monarch Pass and Montrose was identified for January 2026.

Stockgrowers, county commissioners push back 

By Katherine Nettles

Gunnison County stockgrowers are bracing for wolf releases to start in and near Gunnison County next year, and are working with county commissioners to urge wildlife officials to hold off on the move until more funding, protections and mitigations are in place. Commissioners are now working on a comment letter to emphasize the potentially devastating economic effects of releasing wolves next year if communication infrastructure and range riders are not better positioned first.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) wolf program announced last week that it will be reintroducing wolves to the southwestern region of Colorado during its third release period next winter. Gunnison County is within the parameters of the area CPW has identified, specifically along the Highway 50 corridor between Monarch Pass and Montrose. The Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Association has appealed to both the county and the state to pause the releases as chronic depredations and depleted compensation funds have plagued release areas in the northern regions of the state.

During a work session with commissioners this week, Stockgrowers’ Association president Andy Spann reiterated the nonprofit organization’s consistent message that it is too soon to release wolves in the region. The Stockgrowers’ Association represents nearly all livestock growers in the Gunnison River Basin and submitted a preliminary financial study to CPW in 2024 indicating wolf reintroduction mitigation costs among Gunnison Valley ranchers would amount to about $3.2 million. 

“That would include range riders, mitigation materials, compensation for administrative efforts, ATVs, binoculars…all the things you need to actually mitigate wolves on the land,” said Spann. 

Spann and other Stockgrowers’ Association representatives have pointed to the chronic depredation issues happening to the north this winter and spring which have depleted the state’s compensation funds, and they have advocated for strengthening communication and prevention programs, particularly range riding, before adding more wolves to the landscape in southwestern Colorado.

“What I’d like to ask for from Gunnison County is to tell the state that they are not ready; to pause releasing wolves in Gunnison County until they are ready. Until they have funding. Until they have range riders in Gunnison County—physically in Gunnison County,” he continued. “We know that the wolves are coming. They have been through, and we’ve had depredations.”

Spann said stockgrowers have had good contact with CPW and specifically with local CPW leadership, but communication around wolf tracking will need to be faster and tracking has many of its own pitfalls as wolves reproduce and collars malfunction.

“So that dynamic is changing, and we can’t count on tracking to tell us where they are all the time…we need to get an effective program in place before we move on.” He said the range riding seems to be one of the most effective prevention measures for livestock depredation, but the program is also in its infancy.  

County commissioner Jonathan Houck mentioned the indirect impacts to livestock even if they are not killed. “One of the main problems is the stress that happens to cattle,” he said, in which they don’t gain weight or go into heat if they are being chased or moved a lot. 

“The impacts transfer beyond just the dead animal,” agreed Spann, adding that conception rates go down among those affected. While compensation is available for both circumstances, in some instances compensation is impossible because the bodies of depredated livestock are untraceable, having been taken deep into the woods.  

Rancher and stockgrower advocate Kathleen Curry also discussed the economics of dealing with wolves, ranging from administrative costs of establishing operational baselines and impact reports to the potential impacts to the hunting industry if ungulate populations drop off. Curry described limited profit margins in the agricultural sector.

“If you have a 30% margin and a 10% loss…there’s going to be less interest in staying in business,” she said. She added that the county had invested heavily in Gunnison sage grouse protection and should document any potential impacts to those populations. “I guess we could see more of what we have on the eastern side of town, which is burnt meadows and a lack of production. That will trickle down to our overall viability.” 

“We need to reiterate that our communication levels have been good with our CPW officials,” she said, underscoring a few additional ideas for the letter such as researching appropriate release locations, staying timely in touch about known pack movements and bringing on third parties to review depredation events. 

“The sooner the information about wolf locations can be gotten through the better,” said Curry. “I understand they want to go to the southern area, but they really need to think hard about the neighbors… they dropped them literally, in Pitkin County, next to two cattle operations.”

She suggested unbiased third party involvement such as a veterinarian or sheriff deputy, be present at depredation site visits. “Somebody needs to be there that isn’t part of the CPW staff to take pictures and weigh in on depredation cause,” she said. “Because they [CPW] are well over their compensation budget, the fear is that we wouldn’t get a fair review. We’ve been told from other states that having a third party works well.”

Last, the group discussed part of the wolf management plan that allows CPW to issue wolf depredation permits to ranchers to kill a wolf under circumstances of chronic, active depredation events. “We need to be able to use all the tools in the toolbox,” said Curry. “That includes legal aspects.” She mentioned recent issues in which requests have been denied, followed by major livestock depredations, and where requests have gone for weeks without a response. 

“You don’t file for [a permit] unless you are having a problem…if that happens here, and they sit on it for three weeks, that is not how this is supposed to work. We need the county’s help to encourage them to act in a timely matter,” said Curry.

Commissioners expressed their appreciation for, as commissioner Liz Smith described it, “specific collaborative suggestions” they could provide to the state and acknowledged the stress this is having on ranching families in the valley. They will take the input they gathered from the conversation and draft a letter to the state on behalf of the entire Gunnison River Basin. That letter is expected to be ready for final review during next week’s regular meeting.