The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants public input on how Colorado is managing its wolf reintroduction — a notice that both pro- and anti-wolf groups are treating as a pivotal moment. Here's what Coloradans should know before the June 5 deadline.
COLORADO — The federal agency that oversees the Endangered Species Act has opened a public comment period on how Colorado is implementing its two-year-old wolf reintroduction program, and advocates on both sides of the issue are already mobilizing to respond.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a request for information in the Federal Register on April 6, seeking public input on the rule that gave Colorado the authority to manage gray wolves as a "nonessential, experimental population" under federal law. Comments are due by June 5, 2026.
The notice lands at a complicated moment for Colorado's wolf program. Just over two years in, more than half of the 25 wolves translocated from Oregon and British Columbia have died, depredation claims from ranchers exceeded the state's annual compensation budget by more than double in 2025, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife paused new translocations for the 2026 release season. The program's future now depends, in part, on what the public tells federal regulators over the next seven weeks.
What the 10(j) Rule Actually Does
To understand why this comment period matters, it helps to understand the rule at the center of it.
When Colorado voters narrowly passed Proposition 114 in 2020 mandating wolf reintroduction, the state ran into a legal complication: gray wolves remained federally protected under the Endangered Species Act. Standard ESA protections would have made it nearly impossible for ranchers or wildlife officers to lethally control wolves that were killing livestock. So in 2023, USFWS issued what's called a Section 10(j) rule, designating Colorado's reintroduced wolves as a "nonessential, experimental population." The designation preserves federal protection while giving CPW and producers meaningful flexibility — including the ability to kill wolves in the act of attacking livestock on public or private land, and for agency officers to remove wolves that repeatedly depredate.
The 10(j) rule is the legal framework that makes Colorado's entire program possible. That's why a federal request for information about how it's being implemented is not a minor procedural matter.
What USFWS Is Actually Asking
The agency's notice is focused on a specific set of questions, with livestock conflict at the center. Per the Federal Register, USFWS is seeking information on:
- How CPW is implementing the 10(j) rule overall
- How Colorado is addressing conflicts between wolves and livestock
- Whether the experimental wolf population is affecting wild elk, deer, or other ungulate herds, including on tribal lands
- How nonlethal and lethal management procedures are being applied
- How CPW tracks wolf conflict risk and activities to minimize it
- The allowable forms of "take" (killing or removing) wolves under the rule
- How Colorado's livestock loss compensation program is working
Notably absent: the notice does not explicitly propose changing the 10(j) rule. It's a request for information, not a rulemaking. But the reasons it was opened — and what USFWS does with the responses — are what both camps are watching closely.
Where the Program Actually Stands
The numbers tell a story of a program under real strain, though how strained depends on the lens you use.
On the biological side, CPW confirmed in February that 12 of the 25 translocated wolves have died, pushing the six-month survival rate of the 2025 British Columbia cohort below the 70% threshold CPW's own plan had set as a review trigger. Causes include legal hunting in Wyoming, lethal removal after chronic depredation, illegal poaching, a vehicle collision, a coyote trap, and one death during a recent collaring operation. Four breeding packs produced pups in 2024, which CPW says could meaningfully offset the mortality numbers once this spring's litters are counted.
On the livestock side, the CPW Commission approved more than $706,000 in depredation claims for 2025 — more than double the $350,000 the state legislature appropriates to the Wolf Depredation Compensation Fund each year. CPW's database recorded 32 depredation events in 2025 involving more than three dozen dead cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, and a dog. Itemized claims under Colorado's unusually generous program (which also compensates for reduced cattle weights, lower conception rates, and missing animals in open-range settings) can run into six figures for a single producer.
Meanwhile, the political environment around the program has shifted significantly. Former CPW Director Jeff Davis resigned in lieu of termination in late 2025. Wolf Program Manager Eric Odell announced his retirement in late March 2026. USFWS, under the current administration, reversed a Biden-era approval for Colorado to source additional wolves from British Columbia. And every other Western state with a wolf population has so far declined CPW's requests for transfer animals.
Where the Two Camps Are
Unsurprisingly, reaction to the federal notice has split along the same lines as every other wolf debate in Colorado.
Conservation and pro-reintroduction groups view the request with suspicion. The Endangered Species Coalition called the notice politically motivated, framing it as groundwork for broader attacks on wolf protections. Rob Edward of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Foundation told the Colorado Sun his organization is planning a robust response and described the notice as puzzling given the program's stated goals. Several conservation nonprofits are reportedly coordinating a joint response.
Ranching and anti-reintroduction groups see an overdue acknowledgment that the program is not working as promised. Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, which has opposed ballot-box wildlife policy since Prop 114 passed, is mobilizing its members to submit comments. The Colorado Cattlemen's Association has consistently argued that pauses in wolf releases must be paired with stronger conflict-mitigation tools on the ground, and the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union has called for agencies to use all available tools — including lethal take — to protect producers.
CPW itself has taken a diplomatic posture. Agency spokesperson Luke Perkins told the Colorado Sun that CPW will continue to honor its memorandum of agreement with USFWS, work with producers on conflict minimization, and wait to see what next steps the agency requests once the comment period closes.
Colorado voters, meanwhile, appear to have shifted. A late-March poll from the nonpartisan Colorado Polling Institute found 50% of likely 2026 voters support suspending reintroduction, with 39% opposed and 12% undecided — a notable change from the 54-46 margin that passed Prop 114 in 2020.
What's Actually at Stake
It's worth being clear about what the comment period can and cannot do.
It cannot, on its own, undo Proposition 114, which is state law. It cannot directly change the 10(j) rule without a separate formal rulemaking process. And it does not, as written, propose any specific policy change.
What it can do is build the administrative record USFWS would use if it later moved to modify, narrow, or revoke the 10(j) rule — any of which would have major downstream effects on how Colorado manages the program. A more restrictive rule could limit when producers can kill depredating wolves. A looser rule could expand state authority to remove problem animals. And if the agency ultimately revoked the rule entirely, Colorado's wolves would revert to full ESA protection, which would likely make the program far harder to continue in its current form.
In other words: the comment period is an input to a future decision that hasn't been made yet. Which is precisely why both sides are treating it as important.
How to Comment Before June 5
Submitting a public comment takes about five minutes.
Online (recommended): Go to Regulations.gov and search for docket number FWS-R6-ES-2026-0958. Click "Comment" on the notice. You can attach documents or write directly in the text box.
By mail: Send comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Policy and Regulations Branch, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
Deadline: All comments must be received on or before June 5, 2026. Comments become part of the public record.
If you want your comment to land well, be specific: explain who you are, what your direct experience is with the program (as a hunter, rancher, backcountry recreationist, neighbor, or observer), and what outcome you'd like to see. Generic "I support/oppose wolves" comments carry much less weight than specific, first-person accounts.
Why TNS Is Covering This
The Next Summit's mission is to help Coloradans engage thoughtfully with the mountain landscapes we share. That includes the wildlife that lives on them, the ranching operations that border them, and the policy decisions that shape them — even when those decisions are contentious.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants public input on how Colorado is managing its wolf reintroduction — a notice that both pro- and anti-wolf groups are treating as a pivotal moment. Here's what Coloradans should know before the June 5 deadline.
COLORADO — The federal agency that oversees the Endangered Species Act has opened a public comment period on how Colorado is implementing its two-year-old wolf reintroduction program, and advocates on both sides of the issue are already mobilizing to respond.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a request for information in the Federal Register on April 6, seeking public input on the rule that gave Colorado the authority to manage gray wolves as a "nonessential, experimental population" under federal law. Comments are due by June 5, 2026.
The notice lands at a complicated moment for Colorado's wolf program. Just over two years in, more than half of the 25 wolves translocated from Oregon and British Columbia have died, depredation claims from ranchers exceeded the state's annual compensation budget by more than double in 2025, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife paused new translocations for the 2026 release season. The program's future now depends, in part, on what the public tells federal regulators over the next seven weeks.
What the 10(j) Rule Actually Does
To understand why this comment period matters, it helps to understand the rule at the center of it.
When Colorado voters narrowly passed Proposition 114 in 2020 mandating wolf reintroduction, the state ran into a legal complication: gray wolves remained federally protected under the Endangered Species Act. Standard ESA protections would have made it nearly impossible for ranchers or wildlife officers to lethally control wolves that were killing livestock. So in 2023, USFWS issued what's called a Section 10(j) rule, designating Colorado's reintroduced wolves as a "nonessential, experimental population." The designation preserves federal protection while giving CPW and producers meaningful flexibility — including the ability to kill wolves in the act of attacking livestock on public or private land, and for agency officers to remove wolves that repeatedly depredate.
The 10(j) rule is the legal framework that makes Colorado's entire program possible. That's why a federal request for information about how it's being implemented is not a minor procedural matter.
What USFWS Is Actually Asking
The agency's notice is focused on a specific set of questions, with livestock conflict at the center. Per the Federal Register, USFWS is seeking information on:
Notably absent: the notice does not explicitly propose changing the 10(j) rule. It's a request for information, not a rulemaking. But the reasons it was opened — and what USFWS does with the responses — are what both camps are watching closely.
Where the Program Actually Stands
The numbers tell a story of a program under real strain, though how strained depends on the lens you use.
On the biological side, CPW confirmed in February that 12 of the 25 translocated wolves have died, pushing the six-month survival rate of the 2025 British Columbia cohort below the 70% threshold CPW's own plan had set as a review trigger. Causes include legal hunting in Wyoming, lethal removal after chronic depredation, illegal poaching, a vehicle collision, a coyote trap, and one death during a recent collaring operation. Four breeding packs produced pups in 2024, which CPW says could meaningfully offset the mortality numbers once this spring's litters are counted.
On the livestock side, the CPW Commission approved more than $706,000 in depredation claims for 2025 — more than double the $350,000 the state legislature appropriates to the Wolf Depredation Compensation Fund each year. CPW's database recorded 32 depredation events in 2025 involving more than three dozen dead cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, and a dog. Itemized claims under Colorado's unusually generous program (which also compensates for reduced cattle weights, lower conception rates, and missing animals in open-range settings) can run into six figures for a single producer.
Meanwhile, the political environment around the program has shifted significantly. Former CPW Director Jeff Davis resigned in lieu of termination in late 2025. Wolf Program Manager Eric Odell announced his retirement in late March 2026. USFWS, under the current administration, reversed a Biden-era approval for Colorado to source additional wolves from British Columbia. And every other Western state with a wolf population has so far declined CPW's requests for transfer animals.
Where the Two Camps Are
Unsurprisingly, reaction to the federal notice has split along the same lines as every other wolf debate in Colorado.
Conservation and pro-reintroduction groups view the request with suspicion. The Endangered Species Coalition called the notice politically motivated, framing it as groundwork for broader attacks on wolf protections. Rob Edward of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Foundation told the Colorado Sun his organization is planning a robust response and described the notice as puzzling given the program's stated goals. Several conservation nonprofits are reportedly coordinating a joint response.
Ranching and anti-reintroduction groups see an overdue acknowledgment that the program is not working as promised. Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, which has opposed ballot-box wildlife policy since Prop 114 passed, is mobilizing its members to submit comments. The Colorado Cattlemen's Association has consistently argued that pauses in wolf releases must be paired with stronger conflict-mitigation tools on the ground, and the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union has called for agencies to use all available tools — including lethal take — to protect producers.
CPW itself has taken a diplomatic posture. Agency spokesperson Luke Perkins told the Colorado Sun that CPW will continue to honor its memorandum of agreement with USFWS, work with producers on conflict minimization, and wait to see what next steps the agency requests once the comment period closes.
Colorado voters, meanwhile, appear to have shifted. A late-March poll from the nonpartisan Colorado Polling Institute found 50% of likely 2026 voters support suspending reintroduction, with 39% opposed and 12% undecided — a notable change from the 54-46 margin that passed Prop 114 in 2020.
What's Actually at Stake
It's worth being clear about what the comment period can and cannot do.
It cannot, on its own, undo Proposition 114, which is state law. It cannot directly change the 10(j) rule without a separate formal rulemaking process. And it does not, as written, propose any specific policy change.
What it can do is build the administrative record USFWS would use if it later moved to modify, narrow, or revoke the 10(j) rule — any of which would have major downstream effects on how Colorado manages the program. A more restrictive rule could limit when producers can kill depredating wolves. A looser rule could expand state authority to remove problem animals. And if the agency ultimately revoked the rule entirely, Colorado's wolves would revert to full ESA protection, which would likely make the program far harder to continue in its current form.
In other words: the comment period is an input to a future decision that hasn't been made yet. Which is precisely why both sides are treating it as important.
How to Comment Before June 5
Submitting a public comment takes about five minutes.
Online (recommended): Go to Regulations.gov and search for docket number FWS-R6-ES-2026-0958. Click "Comment" on the notice. You can attach documents or write directly in the text box.
By mail: Send comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Policy and Regulations Branch, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
Deadline: All comments must be received on or before June 5, 2026. Comments become part of the public record.
If you want your comment to land well, be specific: explain who you are, what your direct experience is with the program (as a hunter, rancher, backcountry recreationist, neighbor, or observer), and what outcome you'd like to see. Generic "I support/oppose wolves" comments carry much less weight than specific, first-person accounts.
Why TNS Is Covering This
The Next Summit's mission is to help Coloradans engage thoughtfully with the mountain landscapes we share. That includes the wildlife that lives on them, the ranching operations that border them, and the policy decisions that shape them — even when those decisions are contentious.
Related Reads