Through a footnote in the proposed budget, state lawmakers are making it clear that they want Colorado Parks and Wildlife to focus energy on mitigating conflict between wolves and livestock before more wolves are released.  

In a March 21 memo, the state’s Joint Budget Committee issued a budget footnote for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, which oversees Parks and Wildlife. The footnote stipulates that the $2.1 million appropriated to Parks and Wildlife to support the wolf program should not be spent on future wolf reintroductions “unless and until” preventative measures “are implemented to the highest degree possible to assist owners of livestock in preventing and resolving conflicts between gray wolves and livestock.” 

The footnote specifically references measures from a citizen petition, which was submitted by a group of 26 agriculture and livestock producer groups to Parks and Wildlife in September. The petition asked the agency not to release any more wolves until seven conditions — predominantly aimed at reducing conflict between wolves and livestock — were met. 

---

---

It was denied by Parks and Wildlife’s commission in January, days ahead of its capture operations to bring 15 more wolves from British Columbia. In its denial, the wildlife agency said it was already committed to the conditions, rendering approving the request unnecessary. 

“We’re not denying the conditions. We’re not denying the concerns. Our recommendation to you all for denial is based on addressing those conditions,” said Jeff Davis, Parks and Wildlife’s director, during the petition’s denial. “We’re doing our due diligence to put really what we understand to be effective programs in place to address those conditions and more.” 

---

---

What would a budget footnote do?  

Budget footnotes are neither legally binding nor very common, according to Sen. Dylan Roberts, a Frisco Democrat who helped write the footnote.  

“Footnotes are a way for the legislature to add in some context to how they wish that money to be spent, essentially providing some more information and guidance than just a number on a page,” Roberts said. “While the footnote is not legally binding, I think it draws a line in the sand that the legislature is saying very clearly that we are paying attention to how (wolf reintroduction) is going.” 

The footnote will be introduced as part of the 2025 budget as it goes through the legislative process and heads to the governor’s desk toward the end of April. 

“Footnotes can also be amended the same way bills can be amended, but we’re hoping that this sticks strong, and we’ll be fighting to make sure that it doesn’t change as it goes through the process,” Roberts said. 

The intentions behind the footnote are a clear message to the state wildlife agency, Roberts said. 

It says: “We are giving you funding to keep this going for one more year, but here are the things that we hope are accomplished alongside and with that funding,” Roberts said.

“When we come back to our budget next year, if those things in the footnote were not honored, then we’re going to be having a much tougher conversation about whether you deserve funding going forward,” he added. 

The passage of Proposition 114 by Colorado voters in 2020 required the wildlife agency to receive additional annual allocations from the state general fund to support the reintroduction program. In the first fiscal year of the effort, 2021-22, Colorado Parks and Wildlife received $1.1 million from the fund, after which the annual allocation was increased to $2.1 million. 

In seeking solutions to Colorado’s budget crisis this year, state lawmakers previously discussed whether cuts or pauses to the state’s wolf reintroduction could be a place to save money as the ranching community continued to raise concerns about the program. 

Travis Duncan, the statewide public information officer for Parks and Wildlife, reported that the agency “does not track the cost of reintroduction efforts separately from other management efforts at this time,” but he added that the appropriated funds “support all wolf management activities.”

In March, Eric Odell, manager of Parks and Wildlife’s wolf conservation program, reported that the January wolf capture and relocation effort in British Columbia is expected to cost the agency around $250,000 and will not exceed $300,000. This figure does not include Parks and Wildlife staff time.

“(Parks and Wildlife) and (the Department of Natural Resources) appreciate the (Joint Budget) Committee’s collaboration and support in maintaining the funding necessary to support those efforts,” Duncan said. “The agency’s efforts to put preventative measures in place will be ongoing and will evolve, particularly as new technologies emerge.”

What the footnote is seeking from Parks and Wildlife 

In drafting the footnote, Roberts said it was a way to formalize the commitments made by the agency when it denied the petition in January. 

“As the state senator representing most of the groups that filed that petition, those are my constituents saying what is happening on the ground and what support they need,” Roberts said. “They’re the ones that are living with it every day, and they’ve come forward with very reasonable requests that were contained in the petition.”

He added that having this in the budget serves as “an extra form of accountability to make sure that we’re holding (Parks and Wildlife) to their word to implement those seven items.” 

The petition requested that the agency: 

• Adopt a definition of “chronic depredation,” with stipulations on when it could result in lethal management
• Test and evaluate alternative forms of nonlethal measures to keep wolves away from livestock
• Develop a site assessment program to help producers implement site-specific nonlethal measures
• Develop a range rider program
• Hire, train and implement a “rapid response team” to “immediately respond” to wolf threats and depredations
• Develop best practices for carcass management
• Create a communication plan to increase transparency with local leaders and producers 

Duncan said that Parks and Wildlife’s work toward this includes “the development of a state range rider program, development of a depredation response operations team to address conflicts, non-lethal conflict techniques, site assessment program, a definition of chronic depredation, collaboration with ranchers on carcass removal, development of a communication plan and consultation with local officials, communities and producers.” 

At its January and March meetings, the agency has given updates on several of these items. 

Parks and Wildlife recently began hiring for a range rider program in partnership with the Colorado Department of Agriculture. As of March 8, it had hired nine of a dozen riders that will be deployed in “high-priority areas” where there are wolves, according to Odell. Both agencies also released a one-page document on carcass management best practices last fall and reported that they released funding to several carcass management programs as part of a nonlethal wolf conflict reduction grant.

The agency has been creating more streamlined processes for site assessments as well. On March 8, Odell said staff had received 158 requests for site assessments and completed 129 with the goal of proactively and reactively, when needed, minimizing conflict. 

Despite these efforts, Roberts said he is continuing to hear from constituents with concerns, particularly as calving season kicks off this spring and summer grazing begins.

Tim Ritschard, president of the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association, one of the petition’s leading organizations, expressed that while there has been some movement and progress on the requests, a lot of questions remain, and ranchers have not seen everything fully implemented. 

For example, carcass management is still “in the air,” he said. 

“What should be done with our dead stuff while the ground is frozen? Middle Park does not have a landfill, so what are we supposed to do with dead animals?” Ritschard questioned. 

In the case of a death of a yearling in Pitkin County in March — which Parks and Wildlife confirmed was a wolf-caused event — Ritschard questioned whether a range rider was already deployed and whether a rapid response team was used. 

These looming questions speak to the ongoing need for communication and transparency, which still needs work, he added. 

“Rome wasn’t built in a day. We spent two years on a wolf plan, and it seems like the state needed more time to get range riders hired, carcass management figured out, site assessment done, communication with local producers, have a rapid response team and a better definition of chronic (depredation),” Ritschard said. “We asked for this pause with the petition as we have seen Colorado is still not ready.”