After Colorado voters passed Proposition 114 in 2020, Colorado Parks and Wildlife held statewide stakeholder meetings discussing what wolf reintroduction would look like. It was hard to predict then what reintroduction would exactly look like, but what came out of those meetings was that livestock producers would be under pressure and that wolves would move through the state as they followed prey through watersheds.
State wildlife officials said that while the initial wolves would be introduced in a northern part of the state west of Interstate 70, that eventually Colorado would see large movements of wolves.
As we’ve seen three years into introduction, wolves don’t recognize human-made borders and boundaries. With Taylor, the Mexican gray wolf that moved north of interstate 40 in New Mexico, and Gray Wolf 2403 that was captured 40 miles south of the Colorado border near Tres Piedras, wolves clearly live by a different set of rules.
While wildlife advocates are voicing opposition to political geography and the federal government is looking at potentially taking over wolf management in Colorado, wolves and Colorado residents are caught in the middle of a biological and political situation that seems to only be gaining unwanted steam.
To better understand where the San Luis Valley fits into the web of wolf policy and movement, Alamosa Citizen sent a series of questions to Luke Perkins, Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s statewide public information officer.
Here are Perkins’ responses:
Alamosa Citizen: Should residents of the SLV be prepared for wolves moving into the watersheds?
Luke Perkins: I would start by discussing how the watershed maps are generated and how we must be intentional about how we interpret where wolves have been in Colorado based on the maps.
CPW issues its Collared Gray Wolf Activity Map each month detailing Hydrology Unit Code (HUC) 10 level watersheds where there has been wolf activity. If a GPS collar from a wolf uploads a location within a watershed one time during that month, the entire watershed is lit up on the map regardless of where in the watershed that datapoint was gathered. In an area with unique geography like the San Luis Valley, this makes for large watersheds with boundaries that often cover multiple counties when viewed at the HUC 10 level.
That is the case with what we saw in the October Collared Gray Wolf Activity Map. A lone individual briefly traveled through the western-most portion of Rio Grande County in what is named the City of Alamosa-Rio Grande watershed on a HUC 10 map. That watershed spans the entire Rio Grande River from west of Del Norte across Rio Grande, Alamosa, Costilla and even into Conejos County.
As you can tell from the November wolf movement map, this individual has since moved back into the mountains to the west and north of the valley.
One of the best ways producers can prepare for wolf movement and localization is to have CPW conduct a site assessment. These voluntary and free site assessments are a critical chance to build relationships between producers and CPW staff and can be conducted either proactively or reactively to put plans in place to minimize potential, or ongoing, wolf-livestock conflict.
AC: How does CPW prepare for wolves moving into and out of watersheds?
LP: CPW continues to communicate and work with producers who have localized wolf activity near their operations. While we provide a monthly map showing general movements, these conversations with producers can provide much greater insight to the individuals who are most impacted by wolf restoration.
CPW has also been engaging with the public through a number of joint engagement events held in collaboration with the Colorado Department of Agriculture, Colorado State University, and USDA APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). These have been intended to provide a forum for CPW to hear the concerns of communities in the southwest region of the state in advance of translocations this winter.
These translocations are dependent on CPW securing a viable source population that aligns with the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan as well as recent guidance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
In addition to these public engagements CPW continues to be committed to our conflict minimization efforts across the western slope.
As you know, CPW has expanded our conflict minimization and depredation investigation assets in the last year in response to the anticipated needs of producers. This included bringing on our nine wildlife damage specialists (three of which are based in the SW region). These damage specialists supplement the efforts of district wildlife managers and other regional staff by investigating suspected wolf depredations among other types of damage such as that caused by bears, mountain lions, and various ungulates. Damage specialists also assist with conflict minimization efforts including deploying mitigation tools, and coordinating additional human presence and observations of livestock and wolf activity.
CPW also established our range rider program this year that hired 11 seasonally contracted staff in northwestern Colorado. We are currently working on implementation of the Range Rider program for the 2026 season, with an expanded number of riders, as we look to future releases in the southern zone and intend to open applications for range riding positions in January with announcements on this effort coming in December.
Regardless of if translocation proceeds in the southern release zone this year, CPW will continue to provide viable, reasonable, and effective responses for depredations and wolf-livestock conflict in the SW based on a case-by-case basis to best meet the needs of producers and potentially change the behavior of wolves that have localized near operations.
To assist with this, CPW’s regional staff in the SW are working in conjunction with our wolf conflict coordinator and wildlife damage specialists on strategically supplying a number of conflict minimization resource caches along the western slope that can be deployed at producer operations that have localized wolf activity. The goal is that these can be deployed to minimize wolf-livestock conflict on an as-needed basis and can be shifted around the western slope.
AC: If depredation were to occur in the SLV would the measures for conflict-reduction/conflict-mitigation implemented in other parts of Colorado be used here? i.e. range riders, mules, etc.
LP: CPW approaches conflict-minimization efforts on a case-by-case basis with a goal of addressing wolf behavior. This makes it hard to outline specific measures that may need to be taken in the SLV. It is safe to assume that CPW will utilize similar tactics and strategies that have been successful in other parts of the state while also considering unique factors that will be present in the Valley and at individual operations.
AC: Are CPW and SLV livestock producers already preparing for the event of depredation/increase in wolves within the watershed?
LP: I believe this question is answered in my responses above but I would re-emphasize the importance of requesting a site assessment from CPW to put plans in place to minimize potential, or ongoing, wolf-livestock conflict.
AC: With the recent capture of a Colorado gray wolf in New Mexico, can you shed any light on the event of a Colorado gray wolf and Mexican gray wolf meeting at the Colorado border?
LP: This sort of interaction has not been documented and CPW and New Mexico have a memorandum of understanding in place to help mitigate any adverse impacts on Mexican wolf restoration efforts by capturing and relocating any Colorado wolves that travel into New Mexico.
AC: When wolves establish a den or pack in a watershed, what does that mean for that area? How does CPW treat those areas compared to others?
LP: Wolf localization and establishment of defined territories helps inform the specific tactics and strategies used by CPW as part of its conflict minimization efforts. An example would be the decision of whether or not to deploy an extensive fladry build.
If wolves are merely moving through an area, the deployment of fladry may not be a viable, reasonable, and effective response for depredations and wolf-lifestock conflict based on the circumstances. On the other hand if wolves have localized their movements near an operation a case-by-case analysis might determine that fladry deployment would best meet the needs of producers and potentially change the behavior of wolves who have localized near operations.
AC: How does water play a role in wolf movement?
LP: As with all wild animals, wolves are dependent on having food and water sources and establish territories where it is available. This is part of the reason why wolf movements are tracked on a watershed basis as this is more representative of how wildlife looks at and interacts with the landscape rather than invisible county or state boundaries.
AC: What are common misconceptions about wolves? And how they’re managed?
LP: One of the most common misconceptions we have experienced is regarding the tracking of wolf movements. Because of how our radio collars function, we are able to know where wolves have been but not the exact path they took to get there, where they are currently, nor where they will go.
There is also a need to build an understanding that our knowledge of wolf movements will decrease as Colorado’s gray wolf population grows through natural reproduction and a lessened percentage of total wolves are equipped with radio collars.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife will strive to maintain at least two collars per established pack to help monitor wolves but will not be able to maintain nearly 100 percent collaring of adult wolves like we currently have.
AC: Can you give us a brief look in the day of a wildlife biologist/wildlife official in Colorado who is studying wolves?
LP: This will differ depending on the type of work our biologists and officers are currently pursuing and the needs of the wolf program. We’d also note that there is no typical day in the life for CPW employees. Every day can present a new challenge or task related to the management of more than 960 wildlife species in the state, which is part of what many of our staff love about our jobs.
Along with all the other species we manage, the local biologists are the lead on wolf population monitoring and management within their respective areas. For wolves, this includes working with the wolf program coordinators (Eric Odell and Dr. Brenna Cassidy) and our research staff to catch and radio-collar wolves within each pack as well as single individuals and then follow up with monitoring of those collars. Biologists also conduct surveys to get pack size estimates, verify pup production and survival, etc. This might include catching and radio-collaring wolves, conducting aerial telemetry flights, ground-tracking radio collars, and monitoring the status of wolf packs whose territories overlap with a biologist’s area of responsibility.
Biologists’ responsibilities also include working on collaborative projects to investigate wolf kill sites and determine wolf kill rates and kill composition (what they are eating and how often), as well as evaluating the impacts wolves have on local ungulate populations. This also certainly involves close coordination with area wildlife staff such as district wildlife managers and area wildlife managers as well as with federal agencies, private landowners and producers.
The days of a district wildlife manager or wildlife damage specialist who have wolves in their coverage areas might look very different. This can include responding to suspected depredations or meeting with producers to provide free site assessment and/or discuss the deployment of conflict minimization hard tools such as fladry and scare devices.
For our area wildlife managers with wolves in their areas, they are frequently connecting with the Ute Tribes, local producers and stock/woolgrowers associations regarding wolf movements and concerns as well as attending their meetings frequently to hear from the community and address their concerns.
