On July 7, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioners will discuss the real possibility of killing the entire Copper Creek wolf pack, including pups birthed last spring.
Why?
Because killing seems to be the default of what defines “management” here in the West, especially when it comes to predators.
But in 2025, can’t we do better? Can’t we be the smarter, more humane species that we are designed to become?
Yes, we can. We can follow science, and humane ethics in policy, while upholding agriculture and advocates quite equally. There’s no reason to devalue anyone, including Colorado’s intrinsically and ecologically valuable wolves.
The Copper Creek pack has been tied to livestock deaths, but no one is reporting that the pack was attracted by an open carcass pit, initially. The rancher eventually complied and closed it off. It’s common sense that any predator will be attracted to easy prey, and an open carcass pit is a ready-made buffet on the ranch.
The adult male wolf was then killed by officials, and there have not been any predations since, according to wildlife commissioners. But some folks are clamoring for the deaths of the remaining adult female and her four yearlings in Pitkin County. I prefer to listen to levelheaded scientists, and people with ethical, humane values on what to do, next.
A good example is Delia Malone, a Colorado working field ecologist and wildlife expert, who explains there is evidence that wolves who predate on livestock can and do learn to stop.
That makes sense. Wolves are smart, probably the smartest of the predators. They come from domestic dogs, who are also smart (well, many of them anyway). And one thing wild wolves do not like to be around is us humans.
And, quite succinctly, a dead wolf learns nothing.
We just have to work harder and be smarter as large-brained, kinder human beings. For these wolves, and for the future. By turning to killing, we are in essence saying that wolves are smarter than us, and that we are refusing to seek alternatives that are and have been proven to work.
For instance, Glenn Elzinga, a rancher in Idaho, who works with Colorado State University, has used range riding to deter predation for decades. Range riding is where hired hands move with the herds. Glenn has not had to kill one wolf, nor has he lost any cattle (including calves) to predation.
We know that Colorado ranchers and wolf advocates are already working together to prevent conflict, but those voices are not being heard.
Delia, for one has been working with her kind neighbor ranchers in Pitkin County and even bought fox lights and fladry (a nonlethal predator deterrent) out of her own pocket. She is just one among dozens of advocates who have spent tens of thousands of dollars to buy conflict prevention equipment for ranchers – their neighbors and friends in Colorado.
You know what this means? Ranchers and wolf advocates are working together, engaged in a common cause. To protect livestock and keep wolves, alive. Especially pups so we can have a sustainable population.
But do you hear about this in the media? No, of course not, it’s not sexy to hear about people working together. It’s easy to demonize wolves, as well as advocates. Even though we are smart, and levelheaded, too.
Also not widely reported: The No. 1 threat to cattle and calves in Colorado, and throughout the West, is not wolves or any predator, but weather. My colleague, Dr. Jim Keen, DVM, once worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and explains that when calves catch pneumonia from the cold, they get diarrhea and die.
As a young reporter, I once spent a year in the life of the Hogans – the largest cattle operation in my county – for a feature article, and not once did I hear Babe or Leo worry about predators. Their concern was always about making certain to get to a newborn calf in the chill of spring, to keep her warm, and connect calf to mom for nursing.
I remind our commissioners that decades ago, when I worked at the Colorado Division of Wildlife, staff presented a peer-reviewed study that showed decline in mule deer was weather-related, and predators were very low on the long list of threats.
So what did our esteemed commission do?
They called to kill coyotes.
Why? Because you cannot control the weather, so it was the easiest thing to do. But science showed that killing actually exacerbates predation, so we were doing the opposite of managing for sound wildlife policy or for supporting agriculture.
What is easy is not always right, or moral. And certainly not science-based.
It is high time, in 2025, for the commission to stop taking the easy route of killing, and realize Colorado is a smart state, full of levelheaded, kind and compassionate people who want both agriculture and wildlife to exist together. We are up to the task, just please lead the way.
Julie Marshall is director for Western Wildlife and Ecology at the Center for a Humane Economy, and Colorado State director for Animal Wellness Action.
