While Colorado debates the best way to reintroduce wolves to the state, ranchers continue to battle wolf attacks from the few wolves already found in the state.
In late May, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission began reviewing recommendations on how the state will reintroduce wolves after voters approved the measure in the 2020 election via Proposition 114.
The Technical Working Group presented its recommendation to phase in an approach that allows for more protective wolf management. Once the state reaches a minimum count of 50 wolves (counted in the wintertime) for four successive years, the state would move to the next phase, where wolves would be considered threatened instead of endangered.
Once wolf counts were increased to a minimum of 150 animals for two years in a row or 200 wolves with no time limit, the gray wolf would be delisted. The group said at 200 wolves, the wolves would be at a secure level and no longer threatened.
The next phase would cover whether wolves could be classified as a game or non-game species, although this phase will be discussed in the future, as the group said it goes beyond the scope of what they must do under Proposition 114. The announcement of this phase garnered controversy from environmentalists and other members of the public in attendance.
The Stakeholder Advisory Group is expected to release their recommendations sometime in June. Wolves must be introduced by the end of 2023, so a draft plan must be completed sometime this year to give enough time for commission review and a public comment period next year.
Walden, CO, rancher Don Gittleson has been at the forefront of the wolf issue in Colorado. Gittleson’s operation garnered national attention in mid-December and earlier this year after a string of wolf attacks on his cattle left several animals dead. Prior to the attacks, it had been more than 70 years since the last wolf kill of livestock in Colorado. Since then, Gittleson’s ranch has been plagued by wolf attacks and depredations.
As the gray wolf was reinstated as federally endangered in February—with the exception of the Northern Rockies population—nonlethal deterrents are now the only acceptable hazing measures.
Wolf attacks on cattle
Gittleson told WLJ that although there is a list of acceptable nonlethal deterrents, many of them are inaccessible to most producers or simply don’t get the job done. He was given a few miles of flaggery from USDA and environmental group Defenders of Wildlife, but he gave some to a neighbor, leaving about 50 acres of flaggery in place on his own property. This, he said, was the largest project the organizations have done.
“So anybody else out there that thinks that they’re gonna use flaggery as a nonlethal deterrent, they’re outta luck,” Gittleson said. He added that he was also supposed to receive inflatables commonly seen at car dealerships (they wave around via air blowing through them) to use as a deterrent, but “that’s never showed up.”
If he wants to use dogs to protect his cattle, he said he needs dogs that are older than 2 years of age, which are difficult to find. Not to mention, he would need more than a dozen dogs. Plus, “The cost of feeding them—it’s almost cheaper to lose cattle because they’re going to eat almost that (cost in feed), and then there’s the cost of hiring people to handle them.”
In late February, CPW delivered six wild burros to Gittleson in an attempt to deter wolves and protect his cattle. Gittleson said the burros are smart enough not to get themselves killed by wolves, and while they might warn you there are wolves present, they’re not going to keep a pack of wolves out. Their herd instincts also make staying around cattle less of a priority than grouping together with each other.
Cracker shells are also an acceptable deterrent, and Gittleson was given a box of 25, which he just used the last of. He asked for more but was told there weren’t any more to be found.
“When they start talking about how we have all these things to haze wolves with, no, we have a list of things we can use, and you can’t get them,” he said.
Some of the easiest deterrents he can get ahold of are fox lights, which he says do not work well on the pack of wolves in his area. He said while the lights may work for a couple of weeks—and maybe just because the wolves aren’t actually around—the wolves begin to walk through the lights.
Gittleson also noted that because you are unable to shoot wolves in Colorado, they are becoming used to people. Wolves will come within several hundred yards of a diesel truck running with lights on, and he has even found wolf tracks around his house.
For a period of time, a group of wolf advocates volunteered to keep watch at nighttime around the cattle. “I knew that wouldn’t last very long,” Gittleson said. “I figured it would last about two months or maybe three months—it lasted about three weeks,” he said with a laugh.
One night in early May while checking cattle, he heard a disturbance that sounded like something had gotten ahold of a calf, and it took driving directly at the attacking wolves with his hand on the horn for them to leave a cow and calf alone—and even then, Gittleson said the wolves waited until he was right on them. The wolves have been back several times since then, killing another calf in late May.
Since the initial attacks in December, Gittleson has lost several mature cows and calves due to wolves. One calf was chased so hard by wolves that it damaged its lungs, and the calf died about a week and a half later. Another wolf chased some cows with newborn calves through a fence, and a calf was either stepped on by a cow in the chaos and killed or killed by a wolf and then stepped on.
Just recently, a calf was injured and another killed, in spite of its mother’s attempt to fend off the wolves. Gittleson said you could see the wolf marks on the cow from trying to protect her calf, but she was eventually too worn out and tired from their attacks. Her calf was killed and eaten by the wolves, and three of its legs were carried off.
Gittleson said he has been working closely with CPW and its wolf Stakeholder Advisory Group in an attempt to share how producers are being left unequipped and unable to handle wolf threats. He did note a recent conversation with a CPW official gave him some hope the agency would remove the $5,000 cap per animal on compensation.
“If you can show them the animal is worth more than $5,000 and it’s killed by wolves in Colorado, they should (now) pay you for the cost of that animal,” Gittleson said, which wasn’t the case just a few weeks ago.
He also brought up CPW’s past policy, where they only compensated for the value of the animal at the time of death. The agency would compensate for what a calf was worth the day it was killed, as opposed to the value it could have brought later. Gittleson said after speaking with the CPW officials, they said they would change the policy so that if you are able to show what you were going to contract your calf for, they will pay you that price.
Whether or not that will become the policy in effect remains to be seen. — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
