Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wolf Reintroduction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife details wolf reintroduction, depredation compensation and rancher concerns
Summary
CPW told the Joint Budget Committee it has translocated 25 wolves to date and confirmed four dens in 2025; the agency described a compensation program that pays market value (with statutory frameworks) and stressed negotiation timelines for pending claims while acknowledging ongoing rancher frustration about timeliness and perceived underpayment.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff outlined the state's wolf restoration progress and the mechanics of the compensation program during a detailed exchange with JBC members.
Reed DeWalt and other CPW staff described operational and program numbers: "the Colorado wolf restoration and management plan calls for reintroducing 10 to 15 animals per year for 3 to 5 years," and CPW reported that 25 wolves have been reintroduced so far with 10 confirmed deaths and four confirmed dens in 2025. CPW said minimum annual counts are produced in the winter and that a new updated minimum count will be published in the annual wolf report expected in June 2026.
On compensation and depredation, CPW staff said the FY26 revenue supporting gray wolf implementation includes a general-fund appropriation for implementation (about $1,835,732), a $350,000 GF transfer for the wolf depredation compensation fund, Great Outdoors Colorado grants and donations. Deputy director Reid DeWalt told lawmakers the compensation program "is by far the largest in the nation" and described statutory mechanisms: payments reflect market value while statutory caps allow payments up to a ceiling for death or veterinary costs; indirect losses (reduced weaning weights, conception rates) are evaluated case by case. CPW said it paid roughly $600,000 in claims last year, has roughly 26 pending claims, and is negotiating with producers to firm estimates.
Lawmakers pressed officials on whether lack of available source animals for translocation is political or logistical. Director Dan Gibbs said that while some states or jurisdictions have been cooperative (e.g., British Columbia), "different entities have lobbied key decision makers in other states to kind of shut the door on us," and CPW said it is exploring tribal and interstate options for sourcing additional translocation animals.
CPW acknowledged rancher concerns about claim timeliness and valuation and said it has updated documentation standards, met with producers to standardize required records and will use CSU animal science expertise to improve certainty in calculations. CPW described two reimbursement pathways: direct claims and itemized indirect claims (including a ratio-based approach—7:1 compensation to 5:1 depending on deterrent use—for missing calves) and said it is open to refining processes.
What happens next: CPW will continue claim negotiations, finalize early estimates in the next few weeks, and supply additional financial details to the committee; the agency is also responding to a US Fish and Wildlife service request for documentation of management actions and said it is complying with those requests.
