jbowers@summitdaily. com
Last month, when the first wolf organization was reintroduced to Colorado amid media fanfare, following a low statewide turnout (50. 91%) in 2020, Bonnie Brown was dismayed.
The executive director of the Colorado Wool Growers Association, which has worked for decades with sheep and farm animal manufacturers in the West, was aware that Colorado Parks and Wildlife might not allow adjacent landowners on the domain to know that those releases were declining in their metaphorical backyards. But those same landowners, he said, own the livestock that may be threatened by those top predators.
“This kind of thing,” he said, “only deepens the gap between the other rural people in the landscape who have to live with this challenge and the citizens of the city who voted for it. “
Kaitie Schneider of Defenders of Wildlife, a national conservation organization that seeks to protect endangered wildlife, understands this sentiment.
“Breeding in the West is not a simple business,” he said, “and I can sense how wolves can seem like just another thing for ranchers to consider. That’s also part of the fear: not knowing if they’ll be hit.
The other component of this concern is long-standing and still underlying the resistance to the reintroduction of wolves into the state, a type that goes back generations.
“The challenge with wolves is this long-standing concern,” said Andrew Gulliford, a professor of history and environmental studies at Fort Lewis College in Durango who specializes in the American West and its wild nature. “We go back to the colonial era and beyond, with some of the country’s first environmental laws awarding bounties to wolves,” he said.
“But this concern for wolves is Europe’s deep concern for canis lupus,” he added. “It’s simply about who we are as humans because, in fact, wolves are a species that competes with us. “
This mix of historical, mythical, and modern fears and perspectives between cattle ranching and wolves officially peaked in the state with the passage of Proposition 114 in 2020, the recent lawsuit in December to try to prevent the resurgence, and Colorado’s plans. to add more wolves in the long run to your advent reserve.
Even with compensation and nonlethal deterrents available, the reintroduction of these federally endangered apex predators struck a nerve in the ranching community. So, what’s behind it?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps tabs on not only the number of cattle, calves, sheep, and lambs throughout the country (in addition to other livestock, like pigs), but also, through different agencies within the department, the number of livestock killed by non-predatory and predatory means. Those agencies are the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
For comparison, Colorado sits across the street with other mountain states in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming that have established wolf populations, allowing Colorado to see what it will face in the long run with its own established wolf packs. Although the last three states have been home to wolves for years, some of those predators are making their way to Colorado, which is reflected in the knowledge that follows.
For farm animals and calves, the most recent dataset is from 2015. For sheep and lambs, it’s from 2019.
For farm animals and calves, the total in each of the four states is as follows: Colorado, 3. 35 million; Idaho, 3. 02 million; Montana, $3. 995 billion; and Wyoming, 1. 88 million.
Non-predatory losses, as explained through NASS and APHIS, come with the bureaucracy of disease, lameness/injury, weather, calving problems, poisoning, age, theft, other non-predatory causes, and other unknown non-predatory causes.
Data sourced from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Death Loss in U.S. Cattle and Calves, Due to Predator and Nonpredator Causes, 2015Malisa Samsel/CMNM
Data sourced from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Death Loss in U.S. Cattle and Calves, Due to Predator and Nonpredator Causes, 2015Malisa Samsel/CMNM
Data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture, “Death Loss in U. S. Cattle and Calves, Due to Predator and Nonpredator Causes, 2015Malisa Samsel/CMNM
Data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture, “Death Loss in U. S. Cattle and Calves, Due to Predator and Nonpredator Causes, 2015Malisa Samsel/CMNM
For Colorado, 58,840 cattle and 51,080 calves died by non-predatory means. For Idaho, 40,100 cattle and 48,950 calves; Montana, 25,070 cattle and 55,660 calves; and Wyoming, 11,380 cattle and 24,220 calves.
Losses by predators include grizzly bears, black bears, bobcats/bobcats, coyotes, dogs, foxes, wolves, predatory birds, mountain lions, other predators, and unknown predators.
In Colorado, 1,160 farm animals and 3,920 calves were killed by predatory means; Idaho, 900 farm animals and 3,050 calves; Montana, 930 farm animals and 6,340 calves; and Wyoming, 620 farm animals and 2,780 calves.
Of the farm animals and calves slaughtered in Colorado, 24 farm animals and 0 calves were killed by wolves. In Idaho, 298 farm animals and 1,049 calves; Montana, 95 farm animals and 812 calves; Wyoming, 114 farm animals and 467 calves.
Turning now to the sheep and lamb statistics: the total number of head in each of the four states is as follows: Colorado, 425,000; Idaho, 230,000; Montana, 200,000; and Wyoming, 340,000.
In Colorado, 4,600 sheep and 6,400 lambs died by non-predatory means. In Idaho, 6,160 sheep and 4,150 lambs; Montana, 7,900 sheep and 6,400 lambs; and Wyoming, 8,400 sheep and 6,400 lambs.
For deaths by predatory means in Colorado, 7,400 sheep and 10,600 lambs were killed; Idaho, 8,400 sheep and 4,850 lambs; Montana, 3,100 sheep and 10,600 lambs; and Wyoming, 3,600 sheep and 7,800 lambs.
Of these sheep and lambs killed in Colorado, less than 100 sheep and less than 100 lambs were killed by wolves. In Idaho, 40 sheep and 440 lambs; Montana, 100 sheep and 200 lambs, and Wyoming, 100 sheep and 100 lambs.
Data sourced from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Sheep Death Loss in the United States, 2020”Malisa Samsel/CMNM
Data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture, “Sheep Death Loss in the United States, 2020” Malisa Samsel/CMNM
Data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture, “Sheep Death Loss in the United States, 2020” Malisa Samsel/CMNM
Data sourced from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Sheep Death Loss in the United States, 2020”Malisa Samsel/CMNM
In general, the percentages of cows, calves, sheep, and lambs killed by wolves are low.
However, the statistics are part of a total when it comes to the presence of wolves in ranchers’ lives, according to Gulliford.
“That’s the rational part,” he said. What is irrational are those deeply rooted fears, which are necessarily cultural.
“The wolf,” said Matt Barnes, grassland scientist at the Northern Rocky Mountain Conservation Cooperative (NRCC), who also served on CPW’s stakeholder advisory group, “is the genuine wolf’s greatest enemy. “
Gulliford is much more direct in his view of the wolf and its history with humans.
“We hate wolves because they’re just like us,” he said. We hate wolves because they have a social system, obviously they have a circle of relatives, and they mate for life. Indigenous peoples have traditional wolves, and wolves were and still are difficult symbols. But for the Euro-Americans, the wolves were just competition.
Barnes talked about the history of the lands of America, where the myth of the cowboy – called the myth of the frontier – rivals the myth of wilderness. He said that any of those narratives were idealized narratives about the Western landscape and the meaning each of them had. one transmits.
With the former, which is the oldest and most traditional, he said you “make the West safe for livestock, kill off the predators. They’re dangerous; they’re bad. We use them in our folklore to personify evil or personify characteristics that we do not like in our fellow human beings.”
He said this initiative to eliminate wolves “almost at a devout level. “
“It is this total concept of human domination over nature that has largely materialized in the history of the Western Frontier,” he said.
This last view, that of the myth of wild nature, has only been around for 50 years, he says, and “tends to see wild animals as more valuable than domestic animals. “
Another way of looking at these two, though, is where both ranching and wildlife are valued and respected, he said.
“I think maybe we’ll see a West where those animals are deliberately brought back. But we also deal with those who cause conflict, let’s admit that society puts a price on those animals, but we also put a price on our reproductive landscape,” he said.
Gulliford pointed out the stark difference in how he perceived the wolf in the 1920s compared to today.
“Here we are, a century later, we understand the whole ecosystem,” he said. “We understand that wolves can affect their prey. “
Beyond the Numbers
While the aforementioned statistics show statewide losses, they are problematic, said the CWGA’s Brown. He said how they should be reviewed at the county level.
“Obviously, you’re not going to have wolf depredations if you don’t have wolves in your area,” she said. “Those counties that do have wolves will have a higher depredation rate than those that don’t have wolves. It may be minimal overall, but in the areas where wolves are at, it’s high.
“It’s a very localized impact.”
In addition, cattle present other disorders that are difficult to quantify, he added. When these animals are aware of predators and are scared, they may lose weight, have lower conception rates, or injure themselves while seeking to hide.
Gulliford, the historian who grew up on a ranch in Lamar, Colorado, agrees.
“There are certain types of disorders in wolves,” he added, “that can’t be adequately compensated for. And that includes the hours and hours they spend shepherding their flock, shepherding their flock. “
Ranching can be a gamble, he said. Not only with the amount of time and effort involved for a price tag, but also the sale that may be far less than the expenses incurred.
“These kinds of things are very difficult to categorize, and yet they are very genuine to farmers,” he said.
Wolves also want to be controlled, especially when it comes to the use of lethal means, due to their federal designation as an endangered species. One that differs not only from other animals that are not in danger of extinction, but also from those that are not.
“The only time a rancher/landowner can reach lethal control is if he encounters a wolf preying on livestock or if he is acting in self-defense or defense of human life,” said Travis Duncan, public data supervisor for CPW. If a lethal control is used, a predation event is used, a permit must be issued and a CPW investigation will determine if there is evidence that any such occurrence occurred at the time of capture. Since wolves are a federally endangered species, any further lethal control would be prohibited by the Endangered Species Act.
He added that Colorado-designated game animals, such as bears and mountain lions, can be lethally controlled with a permit issued through CPW when they cause excessive damage to assets or without a permit under conditions where it is mandatory to prevent them from causing damage. death, injury, or injury to livestock, genuine property, automobiles, or human lives.
To help breeders in this reintroduction process and reduce conflicts with wolves, several teams have been put in place through the CPW.
“If an incident of (wolf) predation is proven through CPW,” Duncan said, “livestock owners can receive a fair market reimbursement for the animal, up to $15,000, which is one of the largest charities in the country. “.
By comparison, physical trauma that results in injury or death to livestock due to big game hunting has effects on much lower reimbursement amounts, he said. Damages are limited to the fair market price of the animals up to a legal limit of $5,000 per head.
In addition to compensation, he said management tools are available, such as management-intensive grazing, livestock guardian dogs, carcass management, range riders and herders, fladry, scare devices, high risk landscapes, and herd composition.
“The purpose of the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan,” he said, “was to identify mandatory steps to recover and maintain a viable, self-sustaining wolf population in Colorado, while seeking to minimize wolf-related conflicts with animals. domestic animals, other wild animals and people.
Several organizations, such as the DoW, the Colorado State University Wolf Conflict Reduction Fund, the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project, among others, have also implemented tactics to complement CPW’s efforts in human-wolf conflicts.
“I know that even a single loss can have a big impact on generational smallholder farmers, regardless of the cause,” said the DoW’s Schneiderm. “A major barrier has been, and will continue to be, the construction that is accepted as true with, so that more people feel comfortable accepting help from the variety of aid systems already being developed in the state; However, accept as true that help is available to those who wish to join us in the community. “
But this may not be enough, as wolves are “extremely dangerous” to members of his association, Brown said.
“We have relied on herding dogs for our flocks for decades,” he said. “They are very effective against black bears, mountain lions and coyotes; they will flee if a predator comes; they will keep them away from their flock. ” and them. Often, as we see in other northern states, wolves are so territorial that they simply come down and kill guard and shepherd dogs and then start killing sheep.
With other forms of non-lethal deterrence, like fladry, noise makers, fox lights, she said even these come with their own issues.
“In small areas, they paint for a very limited time,” he explained. “They paint until they don’t anymore because the wolves get used to it.
“This is what we are up against: a limited ability to protect our livestock. “
Conflict of Interest
While CPW reimbursement and non-lethal deterrents are available, Barnes, the NRC pasture scientist who has spent his entire career working with ranchers, said the fight against reintroduction is nothing of the sort.
“It’s not primarily about money. You can even say it’s not about the animals themselves, but about deeper philosophical questions,” he said. “For those farmers, this should not happen. It is a step backwards. This undoes the progress of their ancestors.
And that was reflected in a component of the lawsuit filed in December 2023 to prevent reintroduction through the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and the Gunnison County Cattlemen’s Association. Although the CWGA did not sign up because of its limited monetary resources, Brown said the agreement supports its efforts.
She said many of the ranchers in Colorado own the critical wildlife habitat, which is private land located at lower elevation, and their summer pastures — the public land allotments where livestock graze — are in higher elevation pastures. And if ranchers are pressured off these allotments, many of them do not have another place for their livestock.
What’s more, when big game descends to lower elevations, predators latch onto them, making it even more difficult for farmers and ranchers to manage, he said.
The addition of wolves to Colorado not only creates more festivals for those public lands, but also more tension on the pastures where farm animals graze (more so for farm animals than sheep), he said. When farm animals are afraid, they regroup and there is no need to move forward; Then they start trampling on the ground in that area, which is overuse. With that, the U. S. Forest Service has been able to take a step forward in the process. The U. S. Department of Agriculture says farm animals will have to be removed from grazing areas, he said.
“That’s what we’re seeing when wolf rights advocates say, ‘Well, just take your farm animals out of a subdivision. ‘It sounds like a simple solution but, again, it’s the cascading effect of what they’re doing across the farm. “operation,” he said. Land is very expensive now. “
For Gulliford, the fact that farm animals graze on public lands is the key factor for him. He said what ranchers do with their own assets is their business. If a wolf, for example, intrudes on your property, there are steps ranchers can take. carry.
“But for decades,” he says, “pastors and pastoralists could do whatever they wanted (with public lands). Finally, in 1934, we had the Taylor Grazing Act, which required express powers. Livestock prices: the burden of raising agricultural land – animals and sheep – on public land – are extremely low.
He sees these low fees as essentially welfare since ranchers are able to graze their livestock for so little cost, unlike grazing on private land, which would be expensive.
Environmental issues and recreation have also played a bigger role in public land use in recent years, he said.
“This reintroduction of the wolf will come at a cost,” he continued. And that’s the value of putting farm animals on public lands, where now the public is much more interested in other things. “
Moving forward
Although the state’s ranchers’ associations make up some ranchers, not all ranchers oppose the wolf’s reintroduction, according to news reports on the subject and most of the people interviewed for this article.
“I would venture to say that most of the demanding situations of living and running with wolves are social, rather than biological,” the DoW’s Schneider said. “A lot of breeders I’ve met are content to be conflicted by wolves. »
Now that the wolves are here, Brown explained how he will help CWGA members even if reimbursement is the purpose of the aid.
“We will provide information and educational materials to our members,” he said, “to ensure that they understand the regulatory framework surrounding wolves, that they have access to non-lethal deterrents, and that they are working with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to ensure that Please be aware of the effects wolves have on farmers and ranchers. We will continue to fight for monetary reimbursement good enough to cover all costs associated with managing livestock with wolves on the landscape.
The CWGA is the only breeding agreement to grant an interview to The Times. The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and the Gunnison County Cattlemen’s Association declined interview requests.
CPW said it would continue to conduct outreach and education activities in spaces likely to harbor wolves, which can range from internal trainings to joint external presentations, demonstrations, panels and attendance at local meetings. CPW recently hired a wolf conflict coordinator. .
“For those who have general questions and considerations about wolves,” Duncan said, “the Living with Wolves educational resource page was created on the CPW website, and there are a wide variety of reading resources/features that can be discovered in the first accordion segment. on our control page. Our new booklet “Living with Wolves” is also a wonderful resource. A “Wolf Resource Guide” has also been developed. It is available online and in print for distribution to Colorado ranchers involved in preventing wolf predations.
The agency also has an Education Team, which has developed a variety of resources for both school-based and general public use. Included in these resources are a four-part educational video series highlighting basic wolf biology and the reintroduction process, as well as opportunities for in person and virtual guest speaker engagements. It is continuing to develop classroom activities for a K-12 audience, as well.
Breeding and wolves are here to stay, Barnes said, and what’s needed is for the parties to be informed so they can work together.
“If you’re the rancher who loses several calves or a dozen sheep, you’re not going to be happy, obviously,” he said. “I totally get that. But in the bigger scheme of things, it’s not going to put ranching out of business in Colorado. It didn’t put ranching out of business in Montana or Wyoming or Idaho, either.
He cited Washington state as an example of reducing confrontations, saying it “spends the most on preventing livestock-related confrontations, and has the fewest livestock-related confrontations. “
“What we need is an incentive to make the kind of adjustments that will make long-term conflict less likely, probably because society needs wolves and, I would argue, society needs reproduction as well. “
Gulliford explained how ranchers in other states have had to adjust their operations in order to be among the wolves and continue to be successful.
“Our ranchers, farmers are now catching up with things that have happened in other states,” he said. “It’s difficult. It’s time consuming. But it’s possible.”
He said the resistance to replacing public land use is generational, with pastoralists increasingly wasting public land where there were once places where their cattle roamed where other people didn’t pass by or recreate.
“The breeder has almost everything going for him. Well, that’s converting now with the reintroduction of the wolf,” he said. “I’m all for the success of ranchers, so how do we make it work?