Ranchers, hunters and state wildlife officials crammed into a Western Slope barn earlier this summer to discuss wolves, swatting mosquitoes as they introduced themselves and shared their experiences. 

When it was Jeff Davis’ turn, the director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife girded himself for criticism over the controversial wolf reintroduction process. Standing just outside the barn’s doors, he acknowledged one of the most common complaints his agency hears these days: the deterioration of trust.

“I hear that our local people are amazing,” he said, while also adding that cynicism about Parks and Wildlife’s upper management is trickling down to his foot soldiers.

---

---

At the end of his introduction, a Grand County commissioner joked about hitting Davis with his walking stick. The room chuckled.

“If you’re gonna do it, like, don’t maim me,” Davis joked back.

---

---

The exchange, though lighthearted, was emblematic of how fraught the relationship between ranchers and the state has become since voters narrowly approved wolf reintroduction in 2020.

The “local people” Davis referenced, the on-the-ground CPW employees, are now charged with repairing it. And it’s taking a toll. 

“It weighs on our staff,” said Travis Black, the northwest regional manager for Parks and Wildlife. “They live in these communities. Their kids go to school with the ranchers’ kids. They shop at the same grocery stores. They see each other at the gas station.”

At least one on-the-ground Parks and Wildlife employee has gone on a mental health leave due in part to stresses related to wolf reintroduction, a Parks and Wildlife official confirmed.

Marie Haskett, a member of the Parks and Wildlife commission, said some employees have told her they want to retire as early as possible — though the agency says there hasn’t been an increase in retirements.

“Several great staff members have left or are leaving,” Haskett said. 

Outside of trying to repair the precarious relationships with ranchers, the field employees also have new tasks associated with reintroduction, like investigating wolf attacks on livestock and helping ranchers deploy nonlethal deterrence tools. That’s all in addition to their previous duties. 

The added stress and hostility also impacts their ability to do other wildlife work, according to interviews with CPW employees. 

Black, who has worked with Parks and Wildlife since 1994, said his region hasn’t seen employees requesting to move because of wolf reintroduction — yet. 

“Does the potential exist? Probably,” he said. “I wouldn’t blame somebody.”

Secrets and transparency

Ranchers, who are growing increasingly frustrated as wolves kill their livestock since the first wolf release in December, have a consistent refrain when asked how the agency could begin to rebuild trust: more transparency.

“I wish we could have more information,” said Tim Ritschard, president of the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association. “It’s just so secretive right now”

But ameliorating that concern is difficult for the local CPW employees, who feel constrained in what comments they can make publicly, especially on the topic of wolves. 

Black, who oversees dozens of Parks and Wildlife employees in the region most impacted by wolves, has urged his team to provide information to ranchers when possible, he said. Concerns came up from some employees regarding when ranchers can kill a wolf.

While intentionally killing wolves, which is a federally protected species, is illegal, there is an exception for when a rancher catches a wolf in the act of attacking their livestock. Some employees were afraid to clarify for ranchers what “in the act” even means, Black said.

“They’re afraid if they say the wrong thing, it will impact them and their jobs,” he said. 

Under the state’s wolf management plan, “in the act” is defined as “biting, wounding, grasping or killing livestock or working dogs.” Landowners who kill a wolf must be able to prove their livestock was harassed, wounded or killed. 

Ranchers, many of whom sympathize with the local Parks and Wildlife employees even while criticizing the agency as a whole, say they can see how stressed the staff are about making public comments regarding wolves. 

“Our local guys are constantly telling me they’re afraid to step over the line,” said Adam VanValkenburg, a Jackson County rancher.

Multiple on-the-ground employees declined to be interviewed about the impact of wolf reintroduction on their jobs for this article. When asked to provide employees to discuss the impacts, CPW officials said no one was available.

“If it was a bear, they can talk to the press, no problem,” said Don Gittleson, a Jackson County rancher. “But when it comes to wolves, they are scared to death.”

Davis, the director of the agency, said he’s told his employees they don’t need to be fearful about sharing what they know, as long as they follow internal policies. 

“Quite frankly, it is my job to protect people in the organization,” he said. “What I’ve said internally is that their jobs are not at risk.”

Davis pushed back on the idea that his agency isn’t forthright. 

“What does transparency mean to the people that are saying that word?” he said. “If you talk to some ranchers, transparency means I want to know exactly where the wolves are in the moment that you’re talking to me.”

He emphasized the importance of security for the wolves’ and employees’ safety and added that he believes the agency is improving its openness overall.

Ranchers close their gates

The strained relationships with private landowners also risks putting Parks and Wildlife’s other work in jeopardy.

Several ranchers have threatened to stop allowing the agency’s employees onto their land to do routine tasks like putting tracking collars on elk or moose and monitoring sage grouse populations.

“Now we can’t manage (sage grouse) as well as we should have,” Black said. “There’s all sorts of those little impacts that really are because of wolves.”

In February, the Yuma County Cattlemen’s Association on the Eastern Plains penned a letter saying their members would be closing their gates to the agency. Davis said there have been other examples of the same thing happening on the Western Slope. 

In June, a Grand County rancher who recently lost a calf told the Parks and Wildlife commission that while he appreciated his past relationship with the agency, he didn’t want to continue participating in a collaborative habitat program run by the state.

“I think it’s in my best interest, not only legally but for all intents and purposes, I need to get off the habitat partnership immediately and for at least an extended period of time,” Dave Hammer said. 

In May, the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association wrote an eight-page letter to Davis, asking the agency to kill a wolf that has repeatedly attacked livestock in the region. The association, along with many ranchers, have asked Parks and Wildlife to define when a wolf is “chronically” attacking livestock, also known as “depredating.” The state can kill a wolf that is considered to be “chronically depredating.”

Davis responded to the association’s letter a few days later, saying lethal control was “not appropriate.” In June, the Parks and Wildlife commission created a committee to help weigh in on the “chronically depredating” definition. The group was set to meet three times over the summer. 

Local employees are also tasked with investigating suspected wolf attack cases and ruling whether a rancher will get any compensation. That added wolf work not only adds to the strain with ranchers, it also constrains the time employees have for their other duties. 

“It dominates my time,” Black said. 

Davis said the best way to improve conditions for Parks and Wildlife employees is to make sure their workloads don’t continue to increase. 

CPW, which is an enterprise agency that must fund itself almost entirely through fees, has only hired two additional employees in the northwest region to help with depredation investigations since reintroduction, according to a spokesperson for the agency.

The agency has to get approval from elected officials in the General Assembly to hire more. 

Until that happens, wildlife employees in the northwest region — which number more than 40 — will have to continue balancing their new workload and added stress with preserving rancher relationships.

Davis said this arrangement is vital for “the agency’s entire mission.”

“There are definitely some pressures there on our local staff to maintain those relationships,” he said. “There is no way we will ever be successful in perpetuating wildlife in the absence of that cooperation.”