By Jen Schumann | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
Late last year, five wolves were airlifted from Oregon to Colorado under a plan voters narrowly approved—but few knew one of them came from a pack with a history of livestock attacks.
Fewer still knew the move may have violated federal law.
At the center of the controversy is a growing belief that Colorado’s wolf reintroduction bypassed environmental law and public transparency.
And a federal lawsuit now threatens to unravel the entire plan.
The lawsuit that could reset the rules
The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, is one of the country’s cornerstone environmental laws — meant to ensure that federal actions don’t proceed without full environmental review and public input.
But when it came to Colorado’s wolf plan, the Colorado Conservation Alliance (CCA) says NEPA was never triggered — despite the involvement of federal money, federal coordination and federal agencies from the beginning.
The Colorado Conservation Alliance (CCA), formed in 2023, is a coalition of ranchers, landowners, outfitters, energy advocates, wildlife experts and litigators who came together to challenge “ballot-box biology” and defend Colorado’s rural industries through science, education and — when needed — legal action.
Mike Clark, a chemical engineer and CEO of Petrox Resources Inc. in Meeker, Colorado, is also actively involved in the CCA’s legal efforts to hold federal and state agencies accountable for wolf reintroduction policy.
Clark said the law required a NEPA study before wolves were released — one that would have evaluated impacts on habitat, wildlife and human activity.
“When you have any major federal impact – it triggers NEPA,” he said. But no Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was done. Instead, wolves not considered endangered in Oregon were brought to Colorado, where they would automatically be classified as such.
“They reverse-engineered it,” Clark explained. “Colorado Parks and Wildlife, supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife captured wolves in Oregon where the species is delisted. But when they crossed the Oregon state line for transport to Colorado those wolves became listed and classified as an endangered species, triggering the obligation for U.S. Fish and Wildlife to comply with NEPA, which didn’t happen.”
Making matters worse, the release happened without any prior notice to the people living and ranching in the target zone — those most at risk.
“US Fish and Wildlife has been hip to hip with CPW since day one,” said Mike Clark, chair of CCA, in an exclusive interview with RMV. “They had weekly calls with them. That shows a federal nexus.”
That nexus was underscored in a motion CCA filed last November, asking the court to take judicial notice of a state-published report confirming that the US Fish and Wildlife Service provided Colorado Parks and Wildlife with a $109,000 Wolf Compensation and Conflict Mitigation Grant.
If the reintroduction were solely a state-led initiative, no such federal grant — or the weekly coordination Clark described — would have occurred. This ongoing involvement was further outlined in a Memorandum of Agreement for the 10(j) EIS on post-introduction wolf management between the state and federal agencies.
According to CCA, this financial and procedural involvement by a federal agency is central to why NEPA should have been triggered.
The lawsuit, filed on December 14, 2023, asks the court to block any further wolf releases until a full environmental study is conducted. Clark said the state and federal agencies coordinated behind the scenes to keep the wolf introduction within a legal gray zone.
By first drafting the plan in a way that fit within Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, and then fast-tracking its approval, officials avoided a NEPA-triggering federal environmental impact statement.
On November 25, 2024, CCA also sent a formal letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management asserting that no meaningful Resource Management Plan updates had been made for managing wolves on federal land — an omission they claim violates multiple environmental laws.
Days later, Rep. Lauren Boebert sent a letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, urging an immediate halt to wolf releases and calling for federal Resource Management Plans to be updated before any further action.
Both letters reinforce the broader legal and legislative pressure now converging on the agencies at the center of the conflict.
A new threat to a way of life
The reintroduction of wolves — apex predators that endanger rural livelihoods and rancher safety — has had devastating consequences. “They cut those tendons [of a cow], and it’ll take her three or four days to die,” said Linda O’Dell, La Plata County Farm Bureau Secretary and member of the Protecting Our Way of Life Committee. “It isn’t quick. It’s very painful.”
O’Dell also shared how the presence of wolves has changed her family’s way of life. “She used to take off on her mule and go exploring,” she said of her granddaughter. “That’s not gonna happen anymore… because I’m afraid.”
And when livestock are killed, ranchers often aren’t fairly compensated. “There is no depredation money,” O’Dell said. “You have to get an attorney to get compensated.”
Clark said CCA had proposed a $20 million financial insurance bond placed with an independent trustee, including oversight from a balanced panel, to ensure ranchers were made whole for losses. But instead, the current system offers the “bottom-dollar” value for livestock.
“You’ve got a horse worth $15,000 today, but over its lifetime it’s worth $30,000 due to future offspring,” Clark said. “You’ll never get net present value – you’ll be lucky if CPW gives you the full fifteen grand.”
As of April 1, wolf-related livestock losses in Colorado have led to more than $900,000 in approved or pending claims, including two major 2024 payouts totaling $343,415.37. An additional $135,000 is still under review.
Ranchers say the system is slow, inconsistent and rarely reflects the true financial impact.
How NEPA was bypassed
The wolf reintroduction sidestepped NEPA through a combination of maneuvers, CCA argues.
First, wolves were designated as a nonessential “experimental” population under Section 10(j), which reduces the required environmental scrutiny.
Then, because the plan was advanced through a state ballot initiative, CPW and federal agencies framed the effort as a state-led action, despite regular coordination between the two.
Finally, with no single agency taking full ownership, the fragmented responsibilities allowed each entity to avoid the legal requirement of a federal review process.
When regulation becomes evasion
This case is unfolding just as NEPA itself faces existential change.
On January 20, President Trump signed an executive order to overhaul environmental regulation and “expedite permitting approvals.” It calls on agencies to suspend or rescind rules that delay domestic energy development and even proposes rescinding the NEPA regulations themselves.
Clark paints the stark regulatory reality that has choked the oil and gas industry in Colorado for years. And says the wolf issue only makes it worse.
“You cannot have an endangered species on federal leases and expect to even bid,” Clark said, referencing the regulatory gridlock energy producers face. “You’re gonna be hung up in court most of the time.”
Clark, who also works in energy development, said the reintroduction of wolves only compounds the problem. “I tell people not to do [oil and gas] business in Colorado,” he added. “You can’t make it work with this kind of legal mess.”
Congress pushes back
At a March 25 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries, multiple lawmakers pushed for federal reform. H.R. 845—the Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025, sponsored by Rep. Lauren Boebert and supported by Rep. Tom Tiffany — aims to shift wolf management authority back to the states and shield local industries from federal overreach.
“The federal government shouldn’t be in the business of unleashing apex predators without state support,” Tiffany said. “Colorado is Exhibit A for what goes wrong.”
Rep. Lauren Boebert pointed to her home state as the national flashpoint. “Colorado is at the center of the wolf battle,” she said.
The science is very clear on this issue: gray wolves should no longer be an endangered species!
— Rep. Lauren Boebert (@RepBoebert) March 25, 2025
My Pet and Livestock Protection Act fixes this problem by protecting the ranchers and farmers in Colorado who depend on the safety of their livestock to provide for their communities… pic.twitter.com/EAGnEbZ20D
Rep. Harriet Hageman added that years of litigation have turned the Endangered Species Act into a political weapon. “The endless litigation surrounding the delisting of a recovered species like the gray wolf only proves the point that the ESA must be reformed.”
The urban-rural divide, made real
When Proposition 114 passed in 2020, it was by fewer than 57,000 votes—driven mostly by Front Range and urban support. Western Slope counties, where the wolves were actually released, overwhelmingly voted no.
Frustration is building in rural communities over urban support for policies they won’t feel. “Let’s drop 75 wolves in downtown Denver,” O’Dell said. “You people asked for them. Here you go.”
Clark noted that the process was driven by politics — not wildlife science. “This wasn’t CPW’s idea,” he said. “They were handed the plan by Governor Polis and told to make it work.”
A 50.91% majority
Proposition 114 passed by a margin of just under 57,000 votes — 1,590,299 in favor (50.91%) and 1,533,313 opposed (49.09%). The outcome was decided almost entirely by voters along the Front Range.
The counties where wolves would be released had overwhelmingly rejected the measure.