Garfield County moved to a new web address in March. Find us then at garfieldcountyco.gov. Domains like this are more trusted, because only official governments can use them.
Portrait of a grey wolf in the forest.

‘Promises broken’ - CPW Commission struggles with wolf reintroduction

The broadly represented Wolf Coalition pins failed plan implementation on political interference, resulting in wolf deaths and a severely damaged state agency as the real casualties

PRESS RELEASE
June 18, 2025

Garfield County has presented the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (CPW) with an updated map highlighting the dwindling area that wolves may be reintroduced to on the Western Slope under Proposition 114, which was narrowly passed by voters in 2020. West Slope county commissioners, Colorado State Senator Marc Catlin, and a broadly represented West Slope and statewide Wolf Coalition, including agricultural producers, addressed the commission with serious concerns over the controversial program.

The CPW commission held the meeting at the Hotel Colorado in Glenwood Springs on June 11 and 12 to discuss an array of topics, of which the wolf reintroduction program was highlighted. Garfield County Commissioner Perry Will, among many others, addressed the commission, emphasizing his frustration with how the reintroduction has played out.

“I am here to address the State of Colorado’s implementation of the reintroduction of the wolves’ plan, which has failed virtually on every front,” he said. “Ultimately, this failure has now resulted in wolf deaths, which is the most unfortunate casualty of a failed program. You can make appropriate fixes. Ultimately, you are failing the voters. They gave you a precious decision, which has gone completely off the rails. Promises broken!”

Will, a game warden for more than 40 years with the Colorado Department of Wildlife and CPW, stressed that he is a strong supporter of wildlife but lamented the toll the reintroduction program has taken on CPW staff, who have endured public criticism and put in countless hours of work trying to protect livestock in the state.

“It has strained relationships between field staff and landowners and livestock producers,” Will said. “Our field staff have spent years developing these relationships to benefit wildlife and landowners. Reintroduction of wolves is hurting the very same producers that provide all this private land habitat.”

Garfield County provided the CPW commission with a detailed map showing the extremely small land area that is eligible for wolf reintroduction under the current plan, consisting of only private and state-owned lands. The area includes just 2 percent of the state, at less than 2,000 square miles. That is less than the entire land area in Garfield County, just one county on the West Slope. This area was an administrative decision by CPW leadership well after the Proposition 114 vote, where voters were told reintroduction would take place on the full West Slope, which is actually 37 percent of the state.

This broad coalition of Western Slope county commissioners, statewide agriculture producers, and hunting outfitters submitted a letter to the CPW commission stating their “deep disappointment and growing concerns over the implementation of wolf reintroduction,” and asked for the program to be halted until a list of common-sense recommendations were implemented.

“Agency leadership and Governor Polis’ lack of care for our livelihood is unraveling the trust that was forged through generations. We were assured that wolf reintroduction would not upend ranching and rural life. It has,” the coalition letter notes. “We were promised support, fairness, and collaboration. Instead, we are left to navigate this upheaval neighbor-to-neighbor, with little meaningful coordination from CPW. It is this political interference in science-based wildlife management that is hurting landowners and wolves.”

The letter added that the lack of consistent, timely communication on wolf activity between CPW leadership and its field staff is making the situation untenable.

“This critical information allows producers to take proactive steps to protect their herds, steps that ultimately protect wolves as well,” the letter reads. “Yet, notifications often come hours or even days after CPW is aware of wolf activity, if they come at all.”

No clear direction on carcass management, an overly complex and bureaucratic compensation program, and the increasingly political nature of the entire program were also listed in the letter as reasons that reintroduction is failing.

“With over 125 years of experience, wildlife management should be based on data, functionality, and local expertise, not public relations campaigns, media headlines, or one administration’s desire to fundamentally change Colorado,” the letter states.

State Senator Marc Catlin (5th District) praised CPW as the best wildlife agency in the West but told the commission that the Copper Creek wolves are not supposed to be in this area, since they had depredated on livestock in Grand County before being relocated to the Roaring Fork Valley.

“It’s not working. We’re not doing the things that I think we could have been doing,” Catlin said. “The [landowners] are losing the attitude that they can do this because they’re suffering and finding killed animals, which are their livelihood. They’re worried about being able to fulfill the contract with the buyer for the livestock they produce. We’re putting them in a situation where they lose twice.”

Tai Jacober, CPW commissioner and Carbondale rancher, said he speaks with people on all sides of the argument and asked if removing the Copper Creek pack would alleviate some concerns.
“It seems to me that the objective is to sustain the population that co-exists,” he said. “We have a deviation from the management plan that has put some bad actors on the environment. It seems to me that if we are able to address these bad actors, we’re able to move forward with a really positive wolf reintroduction.

“We’re a law enforcement agency, as well, and we remove bad apple human beings when they’re not acting properly,” he continued. “In your opinion, if we were able to deal with a certain group of wolves that have been moved and have been causing the issues, that this would help move this project forward?”

“One hundred percent,” Garfield County Commissioner Will replied. “That Copper Creek pack has proven what it’s going to do.”

Jacober made a motion to remove the Copper Creek pack from the reintroduction program, adding that he hoped it wouldn’t have to be by lethal means.

“Trap them, remove them, and don’t release them back into Colorado,” he said.

CPW Commissioner Marie Haskett added that wildlife commissioners from Oregon told her that sometimes a problem pack needs to be removed.

“They laughed at us because we took their problem wolves,” she said. “They said sometimes you have to take out a problem pack. I don’t know where we are in that situation, but we need to figure that out with our federal partners. We do need to support the people here and what they’re going through and the emotional toll.”

Just five of the 22 counties west of the Continental Divide voted in favor of Proposition 114, and just 13 of 64 statewide supported it.

The CPW commission agreed to schedule a special meeting in Glenwood Springs, involving input from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, to discuss its next steps with the Copper Creek pack.

“I feel that the reintroduction, Proposition 114, should be called the Promises Made and Promises Broken bill,” Will added. “It is East Slope directed, and West Slope affected, and I don’t think the voters would have supported it if they knew that only a few counties would bear the entire burden. So, in the end, not only are you failing Coloradoans, but sadly, you are also failing the wolves!”