That plan could yield a sustainable population of 100 wolverines in the next three or four decades, according to survival rate information from Sweden, where biologists have studied wolverines for 30 years.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo agency has attempted this so we are on the cutting edge, I think,\u201d wildlife researcher scientist Jake Ivan told the commissioner at the Montrose meeting. \u201cWe have done what we can to prepare ourselves for this but everything really is unknown to a degree at this point. I think our success will likely require our ability to adapt and roll with the punches.\u201d<\/p>\n
The legislation sets aside $103,000 to help cover the costs of increased staffing and workload connected to the reintroduction. Wolverine attacks on livestock are rare, but Utah wildlife officials in March 2022 captured and collared a 4-year-old male after it attacked and killed a rancher\u2019s sheep.<\/p>\n
The last wolverine confirmed in Colorado was in 2009, when a collared male traveled south from the Teton Range in Wyoming and hung out around Rocky Mountain National Park for several years. The wolverine eventually headed up to North Dakota, where it was shot in 2016 by a rancher who said it was threatening his cows.<\/p>\n
Colorado House co-sponsors Tisha Mauro, a Democrat from Pueblo and Rep. Barbara McLachlan, a Democrat from Durango, made sure to tell fellow lawmakers that \u201cthese are weasels, not wolves.\u201d<\/p>\n
McLachlan, during discussion on the Colorado House floor on May 2, said she spoke with cattlemen who were wary of the legislation \u201cbecause wolverines sound too much like wolves.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWolverines are much smaller. They are scavengers,\u201d she said. \u201cThey do not eat cattle. They do not eat sheep. They do not eat people.\u201d<\/p>\n House Assistant Minority Leader Ty Winter, a Republican from Trinidad, voted against the legislation but said on the House floor May 2 that the lawmakers sponsoring the bill \u201care doing it right\u201d and doing \u201ceverything that should have been done with wolf reintroduction.\u201d<\/p>\n Even though wolves were reintroduced in December in northern Colorado, far from Winter\u2019s southern Colorado district, he said his constituents feel wolves arrived \u201cwith no real plan \u2026 and they\u2019ve got heartburn from this still.\u201d<\/p>\n Rep. Richard Holtorf, a Republican from Akron, also opposed the legislation, saying \u201cthe agriculture community has not recovered from the introduction of the last predator species.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI think it\u2019s better if we are going to do this to take time and not just try to rush the introduction of these animals that are not very compatible with so much of what is Colorado,\u201d Holtorf said on the House floor May 2. \u201cI fear the wolverine will not like it here.\u201d<\/p>\n The lack of a deadline for CPW to return wolverines to Colorado and the requirement for FWS to permit an experimental population addressed concerns for both ranchers and the resort industry. Ski areas expressed some concern that the endangered status of wolverines would complicate operations without that 10(j) rule exemption from the federal government. It\u2019s expected that mining, agriculture, logging and ski industry representatives will be involved in the reintroduction effort and the 10(j) designation review.<\/p>\n \u201cThe 10(j) rule is the way to really address those concerns and make sure ski area operations can continue without major regulatory burdens,\u201d said Megan Mueller, a conservation biologist with Rocky Mountain Wild. \u201cI think Colorado Parks and Wildlife worked hard to include stakeholders in the wolf reintroduction and they are doing the best they can, but with legislation, stakeholders have real guarantees that their concerns will be addressed.\u201d<\/p>\n