Let’s tell the truth about those big, bad wolves

The return of wolves to the West has always been contentious, and the deaths last fall of more than 40 cattle really in western Colorado alarmed ranchers. But here’s the true story: Wolves did not kill those cattle found dead near Meeker.

After months of investigation, the state agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, found no evidence of wolves in the area at all.

Yet when the news of the cattle deaths went public last October, the agency issued a press release stating it was “investigating a report of dead domestic cow calves on White River National Forest lands near Meeker that show damage consistent with wolf depredation.”

A month later, the agency’s Northwest regional manager testi ed before the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission that though some of the cattle had injuries that appeared to come from wolves, he added: “It’s perplexing; it’s confusing; it’s frustrating, trying to gure out exactly what occurred in this incident.” e story of wolves as the culprits, however, made national headlines.

Wolves are coming back to the state naturally and because in 2020, the public passed Prop 114, mandating restoration of wolves by the end of this year. rough a Colorado Open e river basin, which lies east of Denver, sandwiched by Interstates 70 and 76, di ers from nearly all others in Colorado in that it gets no annual snowmelt from the state’s

The International Panel on Climate Change has issued its latest report, warning of a dangerous temperature threshold that we’ll breach during the next decade if we fail to dramatically reduce emissions. A Colorado legislative committee on the same day addressed water withdrawals in the Republican River Basin that must be curbed by decade’s end. In both, problems largely created in the 20th century must now be addressed quickly to avoid the scowls of future generations.

Mailing more than 80% of the packs have no con ict with livestock in an average year.

Records Act request, the Humane Society of the United States obtained documents and photos about the livestock deaths, and shared them with Carter Niemeyer, an expert on wolf-livestock con ict. He is also a member of the state’s Technical Working Group on wolf restoration.

Overall, the threat of wolves to the livestock industry is negligible. For the few livestock producers who are impacted by wolves, it is, of course, economically painful and time consuming.

Story Warren

In his Feb. 14 report, Niemeyer found that “the evidence at Meeker is inconsistent with wolf attacks.” Niemeyer and veterinarians concluded that the cattle more likely died from “brisket disease,” which commonly a icts cattle living at high altitudes. Misunderstandings like this one, which lasted weeks, aren’t helpful. Do wolves ever come into con ict with livestock? Yes, but it is relatively rare. In the Northern Rockies where wolves are established, they account for less than 1% of cattle losses. Disease, birthing problems, weather and theft take nine times as many cattle than all predators combined, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In Washington state, which is home to at least 33 wolf packs after nearly 15 years of wolf recovery,

But options exist for ranchers to safeguard their livestock. Oldfashioned riding the range to drive o wolf packs, cleaning up carcasses so they don’t attract wolves, penning up livestock at night, installing scare devices, and using guard dogs are all deterrents that can work.

Unfortunately, data from the United States Department of Agriculture suggest that few livestock owners use these e ective, non-lethal mitigation measures.

But many livestock producers across the west — in southern Alberta, the Big Wood River Drainage of Idaho, the Tom Miner Basin and Blackfoot Valley of Montana and elsewhere — do use a variety of these deterrents, which make it possible for their herds to live alongside both wolves and grizzly bears.

To its credit, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has produced a resource guide for livestock producers. To do an even better job as wolves integrate into western Colorado, the state must improve the way it investigates livestock deaths. ese investigations must be timely and transparent — as in other Western states such as Washington — and withoutscapegoating. e Colorado legislature could do its part, too, by providing funding for a trained, rapid-response team that would immediately investigate livestock injuries and deaths. mountain peaks. Even so, by tapping the Ogallala and other aquifers, farmers have made it one of the state’s most agriculturally productive areas. ey grow potatoes and watermelons but especially corn and other plants fed to cattle and hogs. is is Colorado without mountains, an ocean of big skies and rolling sandhills.

According to Niemeyer, authorities must respond as if they were investigating a crime scene — checking out dead livestock within 24 hours to prevent losing evidence from tissue decomposition or scavengers.

Only when a cause is determined, based on evidence, should information be made public. If wolf recovery is going to be successful for both wolves and people, everyone involved — livestock producers, wolf advocates, agencies — must work together. What happened in Meeker has been a valuable lesson in what not to do.

Story Warren is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonpro t dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. She is a program manager in wildlife protection for the Humane Society of the United States.

Republican River farmers face two overlapping problems. One is of declining wells. Given current pumping rates, they will go dry. e

LINDA SHAPLEY Publisher lshapley@coloradocommunitymedia.com

MICHAEL DE YOANNA Editor-in-Chief michael@coloradocommunitymedia.com

LINDSAY NICOLETTI Operations/ Circulation Manager lnicoletti@coloradocommunitymedia.com

DONNA REARDON Marketing Consultant dreardon@coloradocommunitymedia.com only question is when. Some already have.

More immediate is how these wells have depleted ows of the Republican River and its tributaries into Nebraska and Kansas. ose states cried foul, citing a 1943 interstate compact. Colorado in 2016 agreed to pare 25,000 of its 450,000 to 500,000 irrigated acres within the basin.

Colorado has a December 2029 deadline. e Republican River Water Conservation District has been paying farmers to retire land from irrigation. Huge commodity prices discourage this, but district o cials said they are con dent they can achieve 10,000 acres before the end of 2024.

Last year, legislators sweetened the

KRISTEN FIORE West Metro Editor kfiore@coloradocommunitymedia.com

DEB HURLEY BROBST Community Editor dbrobst@coloradocommunitymedia.com

RUTH DANIELS Classified Sales rdaniels@coloradocommunitymedia.com pot with an allocation of $30 million, and a like amount for retirement of irrigated land in the San Luis Valley, which has a similar problem. Since 2004, when it was created, the Republican River district self-encumbered $156 million in fee collections and debt for the transition.

It’s unclear that the district can achieve the 2030 goal. e bill unanimously approved by the Colorado House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee will, if it becomes law, task the Colorado Water Center at Colorado State University with documenting the economic loss to the region – and to Colorado altogether – if irrigated

Columnists

Columnist opinions are not necessarily those of the Courier.

We welcome letters to the editor. Please include your full name, address and the best number to reach you by telephone.

Email letters to kfiore@coloradocommunitymedia.com

Deadline Wed. for the following week’s paper.