Will Colorado Bring Back Wolves? It’s Up to Voters
By Rebecca Niemiec and Kevin Crooks
Colorado voters will decide on Nov. 3 whether the state should reintroduce gray wolves (Canis lupus) after a nearly 80-year absence. Ballot Proposition 114 would require the state to develop and oversee a science-based plan to restore wolves, focused in Western Colorado and initiated by the end of 2023.
Restoring wolves is a contentious topic that taps into diverse values and passions. Indeed, much of the conflict surrounding wolves isn't human versus animal, but human versus human.
Creating environments that allow humans and carnivores to thrive and that minimize social conflict is a global challenge. Examples include black bears and grizzly bears in North America, pumas in North and South America, wolves in Europe, lions in Africa and tigers in India.
As researchers who study the social and ecological dimensions of human-carnivore coexistence, we see the vote on Proposition 114 as a catalyst for broader discussions about carnivore conservation and management. In our view, the best way to find workable solutions is to include people representing all sides of the issue in shared decision-making.
Back by Popular Demand?
For thousands of years before white settlers pushed west, gray wolves ranged throughout the area that is now Colorado, from the Western Slope and Front Range of the Rocky Mountains into the Eastern Plains. As the region was settled, government agencies started paying bounties for wolves and other predators that were seen as threats to livestock and game. By the 1940s, shooting, trapping and poisoning had systematically eradicated wolves from Colorado.
In recent decades a few lone wolves migrated to Colorado from adjacent states, but were killed or simply disappeared. Then, starting in 2019, a pack of up to six wolves and a separate lone wolf were sighted in northern Colorado. Recent media reports indicate that some of these wolves may have been shot and killed along the Wyoming-Colorado border.
Several scientific studies have concluded that Colorado can still support a self-sustaining, viable wolf population. Wolves can live successfully in many types of habitats where there is enough prey and where humans will tolerate them.
Today gray wolves are protected in Colorado as an endangered species. However, they have no legal protection in most of Wyoming, where they can be killed on sight. This makes it challenging for wolves to migrate from the Yellowstone region, where they were reintroduced in the mid-1990s, through Wyoming into Colorado.
The only other adjoining states with resident wolf populations are Arizona and New Mexico, where the endangered subspecies of Mexican gray wolf was reintroduced starting in the 1990s. But federal policy requires that wolves leaving the reintroduction zone be recaptured and returned to it. Ultimately, then, if Coloradans want to bring wolves back, having wildlife biologists reintroduce them is the most likely route.
Proposition 114 was placed on the ballot through a citizen initiative led by the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund. It asserts that gray wolves are endangered in Colorado; were historically an essential part of Colorado's wildlands, but were exterminated by humans; and will help restore ecological balance if they are reintroduced.
Wolves are predators at the top of the food chain. Studies from national parks suggest that wolves' presence can produce ecological effects that ripple through ecosystems. But science also tells us that such impacts are difficult to predict outside of national parks, including in Colorado.
Proposition 114 has strong support in Colorado. Statewide surveys conducted by phone, by mail and online over the past two decades have found that 66% to 84% of respondents supported reintroducing wolves. This support is consistent across different regions of the state and diverse demographic groups.
In a survey of Colorado residents that we conducted in 2019, the prospect that wolves could contribute to a balanced ecosystem was the most commonly cited reason for supporting reintroduction. Other arguments included people's cultural and emotional connections to wolves, and moral arguments that restoring a species humans had eradicated was the right thing to do.
While overall public support is strong, over half of Colorado's 64 counties have passed resolutions against restoring wolves. Many ranching and hunting associations are actively campaigning against the ballot measure.
In our 2019 study, we found that media coverage in the state focused more strongly on perceived negative impacts associated with wolf reintroduction than on beneficial effects. Surveys show that resident concerns include threats to human safety and pets; wolf attacks on livestock; and the potential for wolves to reduce deer and elk populations, threatening hunting opportunities.
This measure is the first giving voters in the U.S. an opportunity to weigh in on bringing back a native species. Addressing the issue through a ballot measure adds a unique twist to public and media discussions about wolves.
Supporters call it a democratic way to ensure that the public's values are recognized. They also argue that voters are deciding only whether wolves should be reintroduced, while allowing experts at the state wildlife agency to create a reintroduction plan based on the best available science.
According to a recent poll of 900 demographically representative likely voters, two-thirds supported “restoring wol… https://t.co/74LMG1PYtW— High Country News (@High Country News)1602706860.0
Opponents assert that wildlife management decisions should be left to state experts. As some critics note, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission has decided against wolf reintroduction four times, most recently in 2016. The commission is a citizen board appointed by the governor and made up of sportspersons, agricultural producers, recreationists and nonconsumptive wildlife organizations. Opponents also point out that people who do not support reintroducing wolves, such as ranchers, will bear a disproportionate share of the costs.
These arguments reflect deeper power dynamics that influence wildlife management across the U.S. Many wildlife agencies tend to represent people and organizations who believe wildlife should be managed for human benefit, particularly hunting and other consumptive uses.
These agencies receive much of their funding from hunting and fishing license fees. And people who believe wildlife should be managed to benefit humans tend to support using lethal methods to control wolves and other carnivores. They also are more likely to oppose reintroducing them where they have been eradicated.
However, support for this view is declining. A growing share of Americans believe humans should coexist with carnivores and oppose managing them primarily for human benefit. But because agency decisions don't always reflect these increasingly popular values, people who advocate coexisting with nature are seeking a greater say via the ballot box.
Studies suggest that ballot initiatives like 114 will become more common as public values toward wildlife change and more diverse groups seek to influence wildlife management. For us, the key question is how to recognize and incorporate these differing values as agencies make decisions.
Research drawing on insights from psychology, political science and sociology suggests that it is critical to run truly participatory processes that engage government agencies and people who have a stake in the issue in shared decision-making. Fostering dialogue between groups that value wildlife differently can build empathy and mutual understanding and foster compromise. Broadening the conversation in this way is essential for coexisting with carnivores with minimal impacts on predators and people.
Rebecca Niemiec is an Assistant Professor in the Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University.
Kevin Crooks is a Professor of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology and Director, Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence, Colorado State University.
Disclosure statement: Rebecca Niemiec has received funding from the National Geographic Society, USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Turner Endangered Species Fund, Sasei Foundation, a private philanthropist, and Colorado State University to support research, public engagement, and educational outreach on the potential restoration of wolves to Colorado. She previously served on the scientific advisory board of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project. Her outreach efforts are intended to educate the public and inform science-based policy but not to advocate for or against the ballot initiative.
Kevin Crooks has received funding from the USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Turner Endangered Species Fund, Sasei Foundation, a private philanthropist, and Colorado State University to support research, public engagement, and educational outreach on the potential restoration of wolves to Colorado. He previously served on the scientific advisory board of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project. His outreach efforts are intended to educate the public and inform science-based policy but not to advocate for or against the ballot initiative.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.
- Four Environmental Fights on the 2020 Ballot - EcoWatch ›
- Conservation Groups Challenge Kill-at-Will Policy for Wyoming ... ›
- Oppose Welfare Ranching, Not Wolves - EcoWatch ›
- Colorado Votes to Reintroduce Wolves, Approving Historic Ballot Initiative - EcoWatch ›
New fossils uncovered in Argentina may belong to one of the largest animals to have walked on Earth.
- Groundbreaking Fossil Shows Prehistoric 15-Foot Reptile Tried to ... ›
- Skull of Smallest Known Dinosaur Found in 99-Million-Year Old Amber ›
- Giant 'Toothed' Birds Flew Over Antarctica 40 Million Years Ago ... ›
- World's Second-Largest Egg Found in Antarctica Probably Hatched ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
- Pruitt Guts the Clean Power Plan: How Weak Will the New EPA ... ›
- It's Official: Trump Administration to Repeal Clean Power Plan ... ›
- 'Deadly' Clean Power Plan Replacement ›
By Jonathan Runstadler and Kaitlin Sawatzki
Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have found coronavirus infections in pet cats and dogs and in multiple zoo animals, including big cats and gorillas. These infections have even happened when staff were using personal protective equipment.
- Gorillas in San Diego Test Positive for Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
- Wildlife Rehabilitators Are Overwhelmed During the Pandemic. In ... ›
- Coronavirus Pandemic Linked to Destruction of Wildlife and World's ... ›
- Utah Mink Becomes First Wild Animal to Test Positive for Coronavirus ›
By Peter Giger
The speed and scale of the response to COVID-19 by governments, businesses and individuals seems to provide hope that we can react to the climate change crisis in a similarly decisive manner - but history tells us that humans do not react to slow-moving and distant threats.
A Game of Jenga<p>Think of it as a game of Jenga and the planet's climate system as the tower. For generations, we have been slowly removing blocks. But at some point, we will remove a pivotal block, such as the collapse of one of the major global ocean circulation systems, for example the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), that will cause all or part of the global climate system to fall into a planetary emergency.</p><p>But worse still, it could cause runaway damage: Where the tipping points form a domino-like cascade, where breaching one triggers breaches of others, creating an unstoppable shift to a radically and swiftly changing climate.</p><p>One of the most concerning tipping points is mass methane release. Methane can be found in deep freeze storage within permafrost and at the bottom of the deepest oceans in the form of methane hydrates. But rising sea and air temperatures are beginning to thaw these stores of methane.</p><p>This would release a powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, 30-times more potent than carbon dioxide as a global warming agent. This would drastically increase temperatures and rush us towards the breach of other tipping points.</p><p>This could include the acceleration of ice thaw on all three of the globe's large, land-based ice sheets – Greenland, West Antarctica and the Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica. The potential collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet is seen as a key tipping point, as its loss could eventually <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5929/901" target="_blank">raise global sea levels by 3.3 meters</a> with important regional variations.</p><p>More than that, we would be on the irreversible path to full land-ice melt, causing sea levels to rise by up to 30 meters, roughly at the rate of two meters per century, or maybe faster. Just look at the raised beaches around the world, at the last high stand of global sea level, at the end of the Pleistocene period around 120,0000 years ago, to see the evidence of such a warm world, which was just 2°C warmer than the present day.</p>
Cutting Off Circulation<p>As well as devastating low-lying and coastal areas around the world, melting polar ice could set off another tipping point: a disablement to the AMOC.</p><p>This circulation system drives a northward flow of warm, salty water on the upper layers of the ocean from the tropics to the northeast Atlantic region, and a southward flow of cold water deep in the ocean.</p><p>The ocean conveyor belt has a major effect on the climate, seasonal cycles and temperature in western and northern Europe. It means the region is warmer than other areas of similar latitude.</p><p>But melting ice from the Greenland ice sheet could threaten the AMOC system. It would dilute the salty sea water in the north Atlantic, making the water lighter and less able or unable to sink. This would slow the engine that drives this ocean circulation.</p><p><a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlantic-conveyor-belt-has-slowed-15-per-cent-since-mid-twentieth-century" target="_blank">Recent research</a> suggests the AMOC has already weakened by around 15% since the middle of the 20th century. If this continues, it could have a major impact on the climate of the northern hemisphere, but particularly Europe. It may even lead to the <a href="https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/39731?show=full" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cessation of arable farming</a> in the UK, for instance.</p><p>It may also reduce rainfall over the Amazon basin, impact the monsoon systems in Asia and, by bringing warm waters into the Southern Ocean, further destabilize ice in Antarctica and accelerate global sea level rise.</p>
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation has a major effect on the climate. Praetorius (2018)
Is it Time to Declare a Climate Emergency?<p>At what stage, and at what rise in global temperatures, will these tipping points be reached? No one is entirely sure. It may take centuries, millennia or it could be imminent.</p><p>But as COVID-19 taught us, we need to prepare for the expected. We were aware of the risk of a pandemic. We also knew that we were not sufficiently prepared. But we didn't act in a meaningful manner. Thankfully, we have been able to fast-track the production of vaccines to combat COVID-19. But there is no vaccine for climate change once we have passed these tipping points.</p><p><a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021" target="_blank">We need to act now on our climate</a>. Act like these tipping points are imminent. And stop thinking of climate change as a slow-moving, long-term threat that enables us to kick the problem down the road and let future generations deal with it. We must take immediate action to reduce global warming and fulfill our commitments to the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Paris Agreement</a>, and build resilience with these tipping points in mind.</p><p>We need to plan now to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, but we also need to plan for the impacts, such as the ability to feed everyone on the planet, develop plans to manage flood risk, as well as manage the social and geopolitical impacts of human migrations that will be a consequence of fight or flight decisions.</p><p>Breaching these tipping points would be cataclysmic and potentially far more devastating than COVID-19. Some may not enjoy hearing these messages, or consider them to be in the realm of science fiction. But if it injects a sense of urgency to make us respond to climate change like we have done to the pandemic, then we must talk more about what has happened before and will happen again.</p><p>Otherwise we will continue playing Jenga with our planet. And ultimately, there will only be one loser – us.</p>
By John R. Platt
The period of the 45th presidency will go down as dark days for the United States — not just for the violent insurgency and impeachment that capped off Donald Trump's four years in office, but for every regressive action that came before.
- Biden Announces $2 Trillion Climate and Green Recovery Plan ... ›
- How Biden and Kerry Can Rebuild America's Climate Leadership ... ›
- Biden's EPA Pick Michael Regan Urged to Address Environmental ... ›
- How Joe Biden's Climate Plan Compares to the Green New Deal ... ›