Thanks for the link and I did submit comments. It just blows my mind that no entity is holding CPW's feet to the fire about releasing on private and state land when everyone knows that the wolves will immediately travel onto surrounding public lands and have impacts, likely significant impacts. Because the nature of this action is highly controversial and likely to have significant impacts, we, as owners of the public lands, should be at least entitled to a full disclosure of the impacts (i.e., EIS) instead of short narratives of what has occurred in other States that are unlike CO. CPW stating that they don't have the resources to conduct NEPA is a lame excuse-how much would such an upfront combined NEPA and planning effort cost compared to the potential years and years of taxpayer expenditures monitoring and managing the wolf packs? A NEPA analysis that includes potential economic impacts would disclose estimated short-term and long-term costs. Usually actions initiated by the feds on federal lands are flagged by environmental stakeholders, and for an action that is highly controversial, these groups would immediately be clamoring for an EIS and preparing their protest letters. Ironic isn't it? Normally I am a big supporter of CPW's efforts, but unfortunately I suspect that they simply don't have as much say as they would like in this effort-it stinks of politics and is a huge disservice to taxpaying Coloradans (i.e., an unnecessary misuse of taxpayer $) and recreation users everywhere who use these public lands.
Folks, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do have a fair amount of experience with the wolf issue. If I may be so bold, I would like to offer some thoughts that may help navigate this highly charged issue.
1. Recognize that the authority to manage wildlife, in any particular State, is delegated to that State by the Federal Government. Under the Federal Endangered Species Act, when the sustainability of a given species is determined to be in peril, The Feds retract management authority for that species from the States and place it upon the Endangered Species list.
2. With the exception of (I believe) Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and parts of Oregon and Washington, the wolf has been on the Endangered Species list since 1974. It is not on the list for those areas listed above because of a rider, attached to a 2011 Federal budge bill, that exempted the “Northern Rocky Mountain” population. In the rest of the contiguous US, except Minnesota, the wolf is listed as endangered or extirpated. In Minnesota it is listed as threatened.
3. For a State to get management authority back for an endangered species that occurs within their borders, they must develop a recovery and management plan, they must implement that plan and demonstrate (through monitoring) that the plan is successful. Unfortunately, very little -if any- Federal Dollars are allocated for this process.
4. There is a problem with the wording in the Federal Endangered Species Act in that removal from the list requires the species to be recovered over a significant portion (I don’t have the exact wording) of its original range.
5. The Grey Wolf was historically found across nearly the entire nation.
6. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota all have substantially exceeded the requirements for delisting, and maintained those levels for the past 20 years. Under both the Obama and Trump administrations, The USFWS has attempted to delisted the Great Lakes wolf population at least four times. Each time they have been sued and lost for extraneous reasons, but the requirement for recovery over a significant part of the range looms large.
7. I suspect that a breeding population of wolves has been documented in Colorado. If this is true, then the agency is pretty much forced to come up with a plan to recover the population to sustainable levels.
8. Your State agency is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The only way they can gain management authority which will allow them to effectively deal with issues such as livestock depredation, pet depreciation, etc. is to develop and implement a recovery plan. With the animal listed as endangered, the only time ANYONE, including agency personnel, can legally kill a wolf is when human safety is at risk. When the animal is upgraded to Threatened, the law allows for problem animals to be removed from the population.
9. Getting angry and “blowing off” in the face of your State agency personnel will accomplish nothing. Rather, recognize what they are dealing with, read the plan, and make pertinent and concise recommendations to make it better.
10. Finally, the solution to the issue is at the Federal level. The Endangered Species Act is really a good thing, BUT it does need to be modified and modernized such that it appropriately protects and sustains our native wildlife without being used as a political tool to stymie our heritage as a hunting community.
I apologize for the long-winded post, but the only way you can impact the process is to come at it from a position of knowledge and understanding as to what is driving the system.
I hope this helps.