Colorado Parks and Wildlife has begun an operation to capture and relocate the Copper Creek wolf pack in Grand County following numerous attacks on livestock. 

The wildlife agency said it will not share where the animals will be relocated for the safety of the wolves and its staff. 

“Our options in this unique case were very limited, and this action is by no means a precedent for how (Parks and Wildlife) will resolve wolf-livestock conflict moving forward,” Jeff Davis, the wildlife agency’s director, said in a statement. “The ultimate goal of the operation is to relocate the pack to another location while we assess our best options for them to continue to contribute to the successful restoration of wolves in Colorado.”

---

---

The adult pair, who have three pups, in the pack have caused the “main issues in depredation,” as Reid Dewalt, deputy director of policy for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, told the commission last Friday. Since the wolves were released, the wildlife agency has confirmed that wolves have killed 15 cattle and nine sheep. 

“We have had a few other depredations from the other wolves but nothing to the level that we’ve seen in Middle Park,” he said. 

---

---

The decision to relocate the pack comes less than a month after the agency denied a chronic depredation permit that was requested by the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association in May. A depredation permit, issued for 45 days, would allow producers to protect herds by killing wolves that were chronic or consistent depredators. 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife declined to answer additional questions about the details of relocation or the agency’s plans if the pack continues to prey on livestock. The agency said it will provide more information and details following the operation. 
Colorado Parks and Wildlife will undergo the relocation effort with support from federal partners, following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s rules for experimental populations.

What does the wolf plan say about chronic depredation? 

According to Park and Wildlife’s final wolf plan, the agency does not have a specific definition for what qualifies as a “‘chronically depredating’ pack or wolf.”

“Program managers will make the determination as to whether a situation is characterized as chronic depredation on a case-by-case basis,” the plan states. 

The plan says officials should consider the number of documented depredation events in the area, the practices used to reduce depredation, the likelihood that more depredation will occur without control and the unintentional or intentional attractants luring or baiting the wolves in the region.

The general conflict management strategy outlined in Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s final wolf plan allows for flexibility and case-by-case determinations. 

The plan goes into several scenarios demonstrating negative impacts and identifies possible management actions. 

In identifying possible actions for “confirmed depredations (injury or death) of livestock by wolves,” the plan suggests education, both non-injurious and potentially injurious hazing, and lethal control.” 

“The translocation of depredating wolves to a different part of the state will not be considered, as this is viewed as translocating the problem along with the wolves,” the plan adds. 

The plan, however, is careful to note that these actions are not “prescribed,” and maintaining flexibility is key to the overall strategy.

“It must be emphasized that not all impacts can be predicted and that future management flexibility is crucial for adaptively managing impacts as they arise,” the plan states. 

As indicated in Davis’ statement on Tuesday night, he notes that the situation with the Copper Creek pack is “unique” and does not indicate how the agency will handle other situations in the future.

Was this the right course of action for the agency to take?  

Following Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s decision to relocate the pack, public response has varied. 

Tim Ritschard, president of the Middle Park Stockgrowers, said the decision was “overdue.”

“We’re glad to hear they’re going to remove the pack. If a wolf wanders in and kills a cow or a calf, that’s tolerable. But when they set up camp and repeatedly (depredate) on livestock … that’s where the problem is,” Ritschard said, reading a statement. “I’m glad the fed stepped in and took action before a rancher or local CPW staff had to. Hopefully, CPW can learn from this and eventually learn from this and prevent something similar happening in the future.”

Before requesting the chronic depredation permit, the Middle Park group had sent Colorado Parks and Wildlife numerous letters requesting help, including asking the agency to lethally remove the two problem wolves or relocate them to a sanctuary. In April, the group received a $20,000 grant from the wildlife agency and Colorado Department of Agriculture for nonlethal deterrents including nighttime patrols and herd protection, such as hiring range riders.

Ritschard said that “from the get-go,” after the first depredation, the Middle Park group used nonlethal deterrents including fox lights and critter getters. They also set up a range rider, who was using spotlights, voice commands and had cracker shells on hand, he added. 

“Just recently, we got more into the non-injurious hazing permit, which is rubber bullets, so we had that capacity too, and then we’ve got into guard dogs recently,” Ritschard said. “After snow melted, we were able to move cows out of areas and tried to get them away from locations where the wolves were.”

Adam VanValkenburg, president of the North Park Stockgrowers, echoed that the removal of this pack was “necessary and long overdue.”

“I think it’s a great thing because you know these wolves are obviously chronically depredating,” VanValkenburg said. “And either relocation or lethal management, it was that time to either do one of those options because they were clearly chronically depredating and needed to be managed as such.”

In North Park, VanValkenburg said they’ve been dealing with wolves on their ranch since February. He said they have not had any depredations they could find, noting that their summer pastures are in “very large, high mountain” settings and that depredations would be “almost impossible” to locate “until it’s too late.” 

VanValeknburg said they have used fladry, shell crackers, fox lights, critter getters and human presence as nonlethal deterrents in the range.

While some agreed that something needed to be done with the depredating pack, wildlife advocates expressed their concerns over Parks and Wildlife’s decision. Mike Senatore, senior vice president of conservation programs for Defenders of Wildlife, called the decision “deeply flawed” in a press release.

“This decision is being driven by politics, is not rooted in science-based management and stands to significantly delay the progress of the reintroduction program,” Senatore said. “All parties involved in the events that led to this deeply flawed decision should be held accountable for failure to effectively utilize proven coexistence tools.”

Delaney Rudy, Colorado director at the Western Watersheds Project, stated that it was “disappointing that those wolves may now be deprived of the chance to live wild lives on the natural landscape in Colorado,” in a press release. 

In both press releases, these organizations cited Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s denial of the lethal action permit as proof that ranchers in the area had not used nonlethal strategies to their full capacity. The denial letter states that the ranchers in question, who are redacted from the shared document, “failed to timely implement available nonlethal conflict minimization materials and techniques.” 

“Because these nonlethal measures could have prevented some, if not all, of (redacted’s) depredations,” there was a rationale for the denial, the letter states. 

“We commend (Parks and Wildlife) for taking affirmative steps to keep these wolves alive and to bolster the success of the wolf reintroduction, but (officials) must go further and establish robust requirements for nonlethal coexistence to prevent this kind of conflict in the future,” Rudy stated.

While the pack’s next destination is unknown, there are still concerns. 

“They’ve been depredating on livestock now, and so you know I don’t think that’s going to not stop ever,” Ritschard said, adding that he hopes the wolves “go to a sanctuary.” 

VanValkenburg said, “whoever is going to be getting the wolves, it’s going to be a great concern on their part.”

“Once a wolf learns that, you know, beef and sheep are an easy meal or an easy prey source, it’s not like you can train it out of them,” he said. “They’ve got that ingrained in their brain.”

VanValkenburg added that the agency may need to consider lethal action in the future. 

“With any wildlife management, lethal control is part of the equation, and as we get more wolves in the state, that has to come into play,” he said. 

Still, VanValkenberg called the agency’s decision to relocate “a small step forward in the right direction.”

“Chronic depredation needs to be addressed, and it got way out of hand over there,” he said.