Grand Junction and Western Slope agricultural communities face renewed uncertainty after Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) decided in late September to temporarily suspend its directive for lethal removal of wolves in cases of chronic livestock depredation. State representatives, including Matt Soper of House District 54, which covers parts of Mesa County, are voicing strong opposition to this decision, asserting it "breaks faith with voters, with agriculture and with communities" that have borne the brunt of wolf reintroduction.
When Proposition 114 narrowly passed in 2020, Coloradans were assured that gray wolves would be reintroduced to the Western Slope under a formal management plan. This plan, developed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission after extensive public input and hearings, became known as the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan. It committed to an "adaptive management" approach, which was intended to combine nonlethal tools, fair compensation for livestock losses, and, critically, the option for lethal removal in instances of repeated attacks.
For agricultural producers, the understanding was clear: wolves would return, but the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan would ensure that agriculture would not be left defenseless. This comprehensive plan, once formalized, was viewed by producers as a "mutual contract" with the state. Under this agreement, ranchers and farmers consented to the reintroduction proposal, confident they would have reliable tools to respond when chronic depredation directly threatened their livelihoods and way of life.
However, CPW's recent decision places all lethal removal measures on pause, which the representatives argue does the opposite of what the original agreement promised. They contend that this move prioritizes the well-being of the wolf population over the well-being of Colorado ranchers, thereby leaving agricultural operations in danger. The representatives highlighted that CPW abandoned the chronic wolf depredation directive "without meaningful notice, public input or a replacement standard," effectively destroying the contract forged with the state’s rural communities.
This abrupt change leaves communities across the Western Slope that had kept their end of the bargain feeling exposed, uncertain, and disrespected. State lawmakers assert that while Colorado’s rural and agricultural sectors play an essential role, their well-being is often an afterthought for governing bodies such as Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Despite actively seeking accountability and solutions, and faithfully adhering to the rules set forth in the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan, rural Colorado has been left without recourse.
This situation, according to the representatives, serves as another example that undermines trust in state institutions and the public process itself. They pointed out that rural producers actively participated in hearings, shared "painful stories of livestock loss," and invested their own time and money into nonlethal measures. They did so because they believed the state’s promise that their concerns would be reflected in an adaptive management approach. The representatives emphasized that by "changing the rules in the middle of the game," the state sends a clear message to rural Colorado that their voice only matters when convenient, and commitments made to them can be set aside at will.
Both Representative Soper and Eastern Plains Representative Ty Winter are urging the next governor to make repairing the state’s fractured relationship with the agricultural community a priority. They warn that the incoming administration will inherit not only a wolf population but also deep-seated mistrust among the rural communities that have shouldered the heaviest burden of reintroduction. They advocate for restoring fairness and accountability, and for creating a dependable management framework that enables both wolves and working agricultural lands to thrive.
