By Lindy Browning | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
Wolves arrived from British Columbia on Sunday, Jan. 12, and were released in Pitkin County; a county that actually voted to have them.
They have become residents of the affluent communities near Aspen and Snowmass.
Since CPW can only release the wolves on state or private lands, as long as they have the landowners’ permission, according to law, and since CPW has told audiences repeatedly in meetings this fall that Pitkin County does not have a large enough state-owned property to release, it is now clear that a private landowner has offered his privately owned large ranch to the wolf restoration effort.
Although CPW has not confirmed the wolves were released on private land about 6 miles south of Basalt, it became clear during a Joint Senate and House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee meeting held Wednesday, Jan. 15, when elected officials confirmed what many local residents suspected.
“This is a big deal,” said Sen. Marc Catlin, a Western Slope Republican in District 5.
He pressed CPW Director Dan Gibbs and Deputy Director Reid Dewalt about notifications being given to counties adjoining Pitkin County, particularly Gunnison County prior to the first release this week.
“In relation to Pitkin County, as related to Gunnison County, we expect them to be in Gunnison County right away,” Catlin said.
Responding to Catlin, Dewalt said, “Yes, wolves have arrived in Colorado and could be in your neighborhood soon.”
With an audible long sigh, indicating his frustration, Catlin said, “Well, they’re not really neighbors.”
He went on to chide CPW officials, saying they claim to want to be partners, but notification is part of being a partner.
“I think we ought to be doing a better job in letting people know where we are,” Catlin said. “I’ve got some people who are really not feeling like partners right now.”
Democrat Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, representing Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin counties in District 57, didn’t seem any more impressed, and also openly criticized CPW officials.
“I want to express my disappointment for not having any briefings at all about the wolf introductions, ” she said. “I have asked repeatedly for updates. I received a call only an hour before the press release (Jan. 11).”
She added: “I spoke to newly-elected Garfield County Commissioner Perry Will yesterday, and he is also expressing disappointment. Of course, we understand the importance of keeping stuff safe, keeping the animals safe and keeping the community safe. The public trust is being eroded and we believe the transparency is missing and the secrecy is becoming even a bigger issue than even the introduction of wolves themselves.”
Gibbs, in a conciliatory tone, told Velasco, “Our focus has been on county commissioners, since they are the ones who have land use authority.” Continuing, he promised that depending on the level of briefings the representative had in mind, they vowed to do better at briefing her.
Republican Rep. Matt Soper, the self-described Western Slope Stateman, told CPW that he is very concerned for his district in Delta and Mesa counties.
“While I was having a lengthy conversation with Jeff Davis on Saturday, (Jan.11) I was in Crawford, looking at the West Elks and thinking, that’s Pitkin County just over that mountain and they (the wolves) could easily be in Delta County,” he said.
He went on to say that he has several high-wire operations in his district, including elk and mule deer. He wanted to know how and if those operations would be compensated for loss just as the domestic livestock growers would be.
“We are trying to be extra generous with our ranchers for their losses,” the CPW official responded. “I would also like to point out that $15,000 is the highest compensation of any state in the nation. Colorado has set the bar.”
He never answered the question as to the highwire operations.
Soper then asked at what point CPW would say that the obligations concerning the number of wolves under Prop. 114 had been met.
Dewalt said that the current program bringing in 10 to 15 wolves a year for three to five years should be sufficient to achieve that goal.
“If we lose a lot of wolves for some reason, it will take longer, but no more than 5 years, hopefully,” Dewalt said.
Democrat Rep. Mathew Martinez, who represents eight south and south central Colorado counties in District 62, is also disappointed in the communication efforts of CPW.
“I have noticed that there is different messaging going out to groups pertaining to this, pro- and anti-wolf (groups). It seems like it’s not the same messaging in both groups,” he said, critical of CPW communication.
Finally, Republican Rep. Ty Winter, who represents nine counties in south and southeast Colorado in District 47 and who is the assistant minority leader in the Colorado House, wanted to know the size difference between the Canadian Wolves and the Mexican Grey wolf.
“It’s my understanding that the Canadian Grey Wolf is about 80 to 110 pounds, where the Mexican Grey Wolf is just a little larger than a coyote,” Dewalt said. “They weigh 60 to 70 pounds.”
Dewalt mentioned the Mexican Grey Wolf is not historically this far north in their range, and their historic range is further south.
Quick Internet searches of several different sources, including sources that advocate for wolves, tell a different story. The British Columbia wolves are the largest of the wolf species, coming in at 80 pounds for females up to 150 pounds for a large male. The same search results for the Mexican Grey Wolf shows that the females weigh about 60 pounds and a large male weighs up to 80 pounds.
According to the National Park Service: “The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is the smallest and most genetically distinct of the gray wolf subspecies. They historically were found roaming the Desert Southwest — New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and southern Utah and Colorado — in forested, high-elevation (above 4,500 feet) mountainous terrain.”
It’s interesting to note that at the beginning of the meeting with legislators, CPW officials opening salvo was to tell legislators that they are concerned about CPW employee safety.
DeWalt told legislators that CPW employees were being threatened, harassed and followed by people on a specific social media group and over the phone.
He said that people have been parked at airports waiting for the plane carrying the wolves, that people are taking photos of them in their vehicles as they leave airports and other locations, and that there are people parked near their offices that are watching from off property.
He also mentioned that CPW officers were being threatened and harassed by phone, but offered no evidence of those threats.
According to Colorado law, the public on public property watching CPW operations is not by any legal definition harassment, stalking or even defined as threatening behavior. Citing the public being on public roads, public parking areas, public property, even if they are watching and taking photos, is not a crime.
The people on the specific social media page that Dewalt referenced are transparent and out in the open about why they watched from public places, and their reasoning is in line with the members of the legislators who make up the committee.
The group posts constantly define their reasons for trying to find out more about where and when the wolves are coming.
Comments concerning a lack of communication, concerns that they are not being told the truth, and a notable lack of transparency lead these people to post comments concerning such as “…they won’t communicate and be transparent with the public and give people in the areas of release notice, so they can defend their property, their pets and their livestock.” And they say, “They have put us in a position of trying to find out so that our neighbors, friends and families have an opportunity to be aware that they are in the area.”