Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wolf Reintroduction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JBC wants more detail on wolf depredation and ties reintroduction funds to Wildlife Commission actions
Summary
JBC staff recommended reinstating a long‑standing footnote for Proposition 114 implementation, proposed a new footnote describing legislative intent tied to Colorado Wildlife Commission actions, and asked agencies for further reporting on wolf depredation claims and compensation.
Kelly Shen, JBC staff, asked the committee to restore a footnote that links general‑fund spending in Colorado Parks and Wildlife to implementation of Proposition 114 and proposed a new, more detailed footnote and a request for information (RFI) to clarify depredation compensation reporting.
"This is a footnote basically specifying that the amount of general fund in the wildlife operations line item within Colorado Parks and Wildlife is specifically for the implementation of Proposition 114," Shen said, noting the footnote had appeared in prior long bills and was omitted in the most recent draft.
Shen told members the proposed new footnote was intended to express the General Assembly’s intent and to reference measures discussed at the Colorado Wildlife Commission meeting on Jan. 8. Staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services reviewed the draft wording and recommended it as a way to direct agency implementation without creating a statute. Shen also recommended an RFI asking the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to provide fiscal‑year‑based breakdowns of depredation compensation and to separate direct losses from indirect or broader impacts if the committee wanted that level of detail.
Committee members asked whether existing reporting already provided some of the requested information. Shen said DNR maintains an up‑to‑date online list of claims and that an annual statutory report on wolf depredation compensation already exists; the RFI would request additional itemization (for example, separating livestock losses from indirect impacts) and a fiscal‑year reporting format (e.g., FY23‑24 and FY24‑25) with a November deliverable.
Senator Kirk Meyer asked whether the governor could veto a footnote; staff replied that a governor has veto authority over the long‑bill text and that if the governor vetoed the footnote, the committee could pursue other legislative routes.
Representative Rupchakar said she wanted the additional breakdown, expressing concern that indirect costs might exceed direct damages.
The committee voted without objection to adopt the staff recommendations: restoring and adding the described footnotes and issuing the RFI to DNR. The motion passed 6–0.
Why it matters: Proposition 114 implementation and wolf depredation compensation are county‑level and ranching‑sector issues with statewide policy consequences. The RFI and footnote will direct DNR to provide more granular data the committee can use in future budget and policy decisions.
