By Brian Porter | Rocky Mountain Voice
Relief from a state reporting requirement on ranchers most impacted by the reintroduction of wolves could soon be on its way.
Senate Bill 25-038, introduced in the Senate by Western Slope Sens. Marc Catlin and Dylan Roberts, requires the confidentiality of personal information for anyone filing a claim related to wolf depredation or other damages. It sailed out of the House’s Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources Committee this week on a 13-0 vote and passed second reading on the House floor by voice vote. The bill earned a rare 35-0 vote of support in the Senate, before advancing to the House.
When a new batch of wolves were released in the state earlier this year, it was done so with secrecy, Republican Rep. Ty Winter notes.
“We think the ranchers and wool growers should have that same protection,” he said. “No rancher wants to wake up in the morning and have someone protesting in his backyard.”
Winter, a rancher in Southeastern Colorado, is a House sponsor of the bill with Democrat Rep. Julie McCluskie.
The reintroduction program has resulted in the loss of dozens of head of livestock, McCluskie notes.
“We want to provide a level of anonymity when they file those claims,” she says. “We want to protect our ranchers by keeping their information private.”
Bill sponsors note confidentiality in reporting could result in better data, and was a concern they sought to have the Colorado Press Association support.
“We’re in a contentious time right now,” Winter said.
Republican Rep. Dusty Johnson, who represents the leading ag production area of the state in Northeast Colorado, supported the bill on the floor. The counties she represents heavily opposed the wolf introduction measure.
“We don’t have the data because our ranching communities are scared to report these things happening,” she said. “They are afraid that as soon as their information is out there, they are going to be targeted.”
That is consistent with messaging provided by Western Slope ranchers in meetings with Colorado Parks & Wildlife.
“We have already hurt our ag community enough with this reintroduction,” Johnson added.
The bill would not require a financial appropriation. No amendments were added to the bill on second reading in the House, meaning it could be fast-tracked to the governor’s desk upon final passage if there are no amendments on third reading.