Colorado Wolves FAQ

What was Ballot Proposition 114 (formerly 107)?

Ballot Proposition 114 (formerly 107) was a citizen-initiated measure scheduled for the Colorado ballot on November 3 2020.¹ A Proposition is proposed legislation that is voted on by the public. If approved by voters, the Proposition becomes law.

Under the Proposition, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is required to:

Develop a plan to restore gray wolves in Colorado using the best scientific data available.
Hold statewide hearings to obtain public input.
Take the steps necessary to begin reintroduction of wolves by December 31, 2023 on designated lands west of the Continental Divide.
Oversee gray wolf restoration and management.
Distribute state funds to assist livestock owners in preventing and resolving conflicts between wolves and livestock.
Distribute state funds to pay fair compensation to livestock owners for losses caused by wolves.
Not impose any restrictions on private landowners regarding land, water, or resource use.

The Commission is a governor-appointed board of 11 citizens that oversees Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), a state agency.

Proposition 114 was approved for circulation on June 21, 2019. On December 10, 2019 proponents of the Proposition submitted 215,370 signatures of registered Colorado voters to the office of the Colorado Secretary of State to place wolf restoration on the Fall 2020 statewide ballot. The Colorado Secretary of State's office announced on January 6, 2020 that the measure received enough signatures to make the November 2020 ballot. On November 3 2020, the ballot was approved by 50.9% of Colorado voters.

Colorado Ballot Proposal 2019-2020 #107 - Restoration of Gray Wolves.

For more detail see Wolf Policy Information Sheet.

What are the basics of gray wolf biology?

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are the largest wild members of Canidae, the dog family.^1-3 Coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs are other species in that family. Female wolves typically weigh 60 to 100 pounds, and males 70 to 115 pounds. Wolves are social and live in groups called packs, which typically include a breeding pair, their offspring, and other adults that may or may not be breeders. In the Rocky Mountains, packs average about 10 wolves in areas with little human impact, such as National Parks. Outside of parks, pack size is often less due to legal hunting, poaching, and livestock depredation control. Wolf packs live within territories, which they defend from other wolves. Territory sizes range from 50 to over 1,000 square miles, depending on factors such as prey availability and human presence on the landscape.

Wolves sexually mature at age two and can reproduce most of their lives. Under natural conditions, average wolf lifespan is about 5-6 years in areas. In human-dominated landscapes, lifespan is less, with most mortality due to humans.⁴ Wolves can live up to 14 years, although this is rare.

Wolves typically mate in January through March and sometimes mate for life. After a gestation period of about 2 months, four to six pups are born in early spring and are cared for by the entire pack. By seven to eight months, pups are almost fully grown and begin traveling with adults. A maturing wolf may stay with the pack and attempt to gain a breeding position. More often, it may leave to try to find a mate and start a new pack.

Gray wolves use many different habitat types, from Arctic tundra to forests, grasslands, and deserts. They can persist wherever there is enough prey and where they are tolerated by humans (see FAQ Can Colorado still support wolves?). In the western United States, the best habitat for wolves is on public lands where both these needs are met. In the Rocky Mountains, wolves feed on a variety of prey, primarily elk, but also deer and occasionally moose. In Yellowstone National Park, elk make up about 90% of their diet. Wolves also eat small mammals, insects, and berries.

For more detail see Wolf Taxonomy and Biology Information Sheet

What is the taxonomy of gray wolves?

Taxonomy is the hierarchical naming and grouping of living organisms based on their physical and genetic characteristics. Taxonomy is a system invented by people. The taxonomy of gray wolves (Canis lupus) is complicated and the subject of ongoing debate among scientists.^1-5 Since 1993, five subspecies have been recognized in North America.⁶

Subspecies are the taxonomic rank below species. Typically, a subspecies lives in a separate area than the rest of the species and has different physical or genetic traits. Subspecies have a third part added to their scientific name. For instance, the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), which lives in the southwest United States, is the rarest subspecies of gray wolf.⁷ (see Mexican gray wolf FAQ).

The number and geographic boundaries of gray wolf subspecies in North America have not been fully resolved. For example, some scientists consider wolves in parts of the eastern Great Lakes into Canada as a distinct species – the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon).^8-9 Others think these wolves are not a distinct species but rather hybrids between gray wolves and coyotes.¹⁰

The red wolf (Canis rufus) lives in the southeastern United States.¹¹ Genetic evidence suggests red wolves are more closely related to coyotes than gray wolves.³ But, red wolves living in the wild today are considered distinct from both coyotes and gray wolves (notice the different species name – rufus versus lupus). Current evidence supports red wolves as a distinct species.

Chambers, S.M., Fain, S.R., Fazio, B. and Amaral, M., 2012. An account of the taxonomy of North American wolves from morphological and genetic analyses. North American Fauna, 77(1), pp.1-67.
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. Review of proposed rule regarding status of the wolf under the Endangered Species Act. NCEAS. Santa Barbara, CA.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluating the Taxonomic Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf and the Red Wolf. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Atkins North America, Inc. May 2019. Summary Report of Independent Peer Reviews for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gray Wolf Delisting Review.
Nowak, R.M., 1995. Another look at wolf taxonomy. In Carbyn, L. N., Fritts, S. H., and Seip, D. R. Eds. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world (Vol. 35, pp. 375-398). Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Canada.
S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Mexican Wolf.
Heppenheimer, E., Harrigan, R.J., Rutledge, L.Y., Koepfli, K.P., DeCandia, A.L., Brzeski, K.E., Benson, J.F., Wheeldon, T., Patterson, B.R., Kays, R. and Hohenlohe, P.A., 2018. Population genomic analysis of North American eastern wolves (Canis lycaon) supports their conservation priority status. Genes, 9:606.
Hohenlohe, P.A., Rutledge, L.Y., Waits, L.P., Andrews, K.R., Adams, J.R., Hinton, J.W., Nowak, R.M., Patterson, B.R., Wydeven, A.P., Wilson, P.A. and White, B.N., 2017. Comment on “Whole-genome sequence analysis shows two endemic species of North American wolf are admixtures of the coyote and gray wolf”. Science Advances, 3(6), p.e1602250.
vonHoldt, B.M., Cahill, J.A., Fan, Z., Gronau, I., Robinson, J., Pollinger, J.P., Shapiro, B., Wall, J. and Wayne, R.K., 2016. Whole-genome sequence analysis shows that two endemic species of North American wolf are admixtures of the coyote and gray wolf. Science Advances, 2(7), p.e1501714.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Red Wolf (Canis rufus).

For more detail see Wolf Taxonomy and Biology Information Sheet

How many wolves live in the wild?

Historically, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was the most widely distributed land mammal on earth, other than humans.^1,2 They lived through most of the Northern Hemisphere. Due to habitat loss and predator control programs, wolves were eliminated through much of their former range. Today, they inhabit parts of North America, Europe, and Asia. About 300,000 wolves occur globally.¹

In North America, gray wolves once occupied much of North America. Wolves were eliminated from the lower 48 U.S. states, except in northeastern Minnesota and Isle Royale National Park, Michigan.² Wolves have since recovered in some areas. Today, they occupy only 15% of their historic range in the lower 48 states.³

Currently, over 60,000 wolves live in Canada and 7700-11,200 live in Alaska.⁴ About 6000 inhabit the lower U.S. This includes about 4000 wolves in the western Great Lakes states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. About 2,000 live in the northern Rocky Mountain states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Smaller numbers of wolves live in the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, and Northern California.⁵

In Colorado, a group of up to 6 wolves was confirmed in northwest corner of the state in 2020.^6-7 Some of these wolves were subsequently killed after crossing into Wyoming and the current status of any remaining wolves in Colorado is unknown. An additional pair of wolves with pups was confirmed in central Colorado near Walden in summer 2021.⁷ (See History and status of Colorado wolves FAQ)

The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), the rarest subspecies of gray wolf in North America, was reintroduced to Arizona, New Mexico, and northern Mexico starting in the late 1990’s. At least 160 Mexican gray wolves now live in the wild in the U.S.⁸ A small and unknown number of Mexican wolves are free-ranging in northern Mexico (see Mexican Wolf FAQ).

The red wolf (Canis rufus) is a different species and one of the world’s most endangered large carnivores.^9,10 Red wolves were reintroduced into eastern North Carolina starting in the late 1980’s. Currently, about 40 red wolves live in the wild.

For more detail see Wolf Taxonomy and Biology Information Sheet

Are gray wolves still protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act?

The gray wolf was listed as an Endangered Species under the U.S. Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and legally protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.¹ The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for the management and eventual recovery of threatened and endangered species, including wolves. To help recover the gray wolf, the USFWS and the National Park Service reintroduced them into Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s. The reintroduction was successful and the wolf population grew and expanded. Over the past decade, gray wolves were removed (“delisted”) from the endangered species list in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, eastern Oregon and Washington, and parts of Utah. Due to their abundance, wolves in Alaska were never added to the endangered species list. But in many other states - including Colorado and the Great Lakes states - wolves were not remained listed as endangered under the ESA.

In March 2019, USFWS proposed to remove all gray wolves (except for the Mexican gray wolf) in the continental United States from protection under the ESA.² The rationale for the proposal was that USFWS considered wolf populations stable and healthy throughout their current range.¹ They concluded that the gray wolf is not in danger of extinction and thus has recovered from endangered status. This policy decision was finalized in January 2022, which then removed gray wolves from the ESA and turned management authority to individual state wildlife agencies, including in Colorado. In February 2022, however, the U.S. District Court vacated the USFWS delisting rule. As a result, gray wolves in the lower 48 were relisted as endangered under the ESA, except for the Northern Rockies Mountain wolf population, which still remain under state management authority.

The USFWS proposal to delist gray wolves does not include the separate listing of the subspecies of Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) under the ESA (see Mexican gray wolf FAQ). Because of their rarity, Mexican gray wolves are protected as a separate subspecies and remain listed under the ESA. Similarly, the red wolf (Canis rufus), a distinct species that lives in the southeastern United States, also remains listed as endangered under the ESA.³

The USFWS proposal to delist the gray wolf in the continental U.S. was reviewed by an independent panel of scientists that provided comments and criticism on USFWS’s assumptions, arguments, and conclusions.⁴

For more detail see Wolf Policy Information Sheet

What is the Mexican gray wolf and how does it relate to wolf recovery in Colorado?

The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is the rarest subspecies of gray wolf in North America.¹ Mexican wolves differ from other gray wolves in genetic and physical traits.² The Mexican gray wolf was included in the initial listing of the gray wolf under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 2015, it was listed and protected separately from the rest of gray wolves as an endangered subspecies.

The historical range of Mexican gray wolves includes Mexico, southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and parts of western Texas.³It does not include Colorado.³ Mexican gray wolves were reintroduced to Arizona, New Mexico, and northern Mexico starting in the late 1990’s. Recovery efforts are ongoing. As of January 2020, a minimum of 160 wild Mexican gray wolves now live in the Southwest United States.¹ The subspecies may be removed from the endangered list when there is an average of at least 320 wolves in the U.S. and 200 in Mexico over an eight-year period.

Some scientists have warned against recovering the Mexican gray wolf outside its historical range.⁴ If Mexican wolves disperse north, including into Colorado, it would likely lead to interbreeding with other subspecies of gray wolves recolonizing southward. Such hybridization could make it more difficult to preserve the unique Mexican gray wolf subspecies, as directed under the ESA. This is especially true as long as the Mexican gray wolf population is small because interbreeding could more easily swamp their unique genetic traits. Also, because northern subspecies are typically larger, they might dominate breeding opportunities and further increase the odds of hybridization. To keep Mexican gray wolves within their historical range, federal policy mandates that if animals leave the reintroduction zone in Arizona and New Mexico, they are recaptured and returned to the area.

However, once the Mexican wolf population is large enough to accept new genetic material, occasional genetic interchange with northern subspecies could be beneficial.^2,5 Wolves can travel long distances and there was almost certainly some interbreeding between Mexican wolves and other subspecies in the past. Once the Mexican wolf populations is sufficiently large, limited genetic exchange can help increase genetic diversity. This can improve population health and allow adaptation to changing environments.

For more detail see Wolf Policy Information Sheet

What is the history and current status of wolves in Colorado?

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is native to Colorado.^1-3Historically, wolves were distributed in Colorado throughout all major habitat types. During the latter half of the 1800s, hunters decimated wolf prey such as bison, elk, and deer. At the same time, domestic livestock were increasing in numbers, providing an alternative prey source for wolves. Because wolves killed livestock and big game, by the mid-1940’s wolves were eliminated from Colorado by shooting, trapping, and poisoning.⁴Similarly, government sponsored predator control eliminated wolves throughout most of the western United States. Wolves were restored to Yellowstone National Park in the mid 1990’s and over the ensuing decades Colorado Parks and Wildlife is aware of a few lone wolves that have made it to Colorado.⁵ None of these wolves established self-sustaining populations. These wolves died from vehicle collisions, shooting, or poisoning, or they simply disappeared. It is possible, if not likely, that other wolves have made their way into Colorado and have not been observed.

More recently, a group of up to 6 wolves was confirmed in northwest Colorado in 2020.^5-6 These wolves likely migrated from a nearby state, perhaps Wyoming. Some of these wolves were subsequently killed after crossing into Wyoming and the current status of any remaining wolves in Colorado is unknown. An additional pair of wolves with pups was confirmed in central Colorado near Walden in summer 2021.⁵

Gray wolves in Colorado were protected under federal law, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), until gray wolves were delisted from the ESA in January 2021 (see ESA FAQ). However, gray wolves are still listed as an endangered species under state law, Colorado’s Nongame, Endangered, or Threatened Species Conservation Act. Given the removal of the gray wolf from the ESA, management authority for wolves is now with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (see Management Authority FAQ).⁵ Given Colorado still lists wolves as endangered under state law, it is unlawful to kill a wolf, except if there is an immediate threat to human safety.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Wolves.
Cary, M. 1911. A biological survey of Colorado. North American Fauna No. 33. Government Printing Office. 256pp
Armstrong, D. 1972. Distribution of Mammals in Colorado. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History, the University of Kansas. Number 3. 415pp.
Carhart, A., 2017. The Last Stand of the Pack: Critical Edition. University Press of Colorado.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Wolf Management.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. February 13 2020 Colorado Parks and Wildlife News Release: Genetic tests confirm presence of wolves in Colorado.

For more detail see Wolves in Colorado Information Sheet

Who has management authority over wolves in Colorado?

Curently, any wild gray wolves in Colorado are considered endangered under the ESA (see ESA FAQ). Consequently, USFWS and not Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has management authority of Colorado wolves.¹ If wolves remain listed as endangered under the ESA, a permit for reintroduction will be required from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If the permit is secured, CPW will be able to implement the reintroduction and mangaement plan they are currently developing.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Wolf Management.

For more detail see Wolf Policy Information Sheet

What is the current policy of Colorado Parks and Wildlife towards wolves in Colorado?

In 2004, a collaborative working group convened by CPW provided recommendations for managing wolves that migrate into Colorado.^1,2The resulting document dealt exclusively with natural recolonization and did not address the potential for active reintroduction by wildlife managers. The working group recommended that naturally migrating wolves be able to live “with no boundaries” where they find habitat in the state. The group also recommended that wolves be managed with both lethal and non-lethal methods to avoid conflicts with people, livestock, and big game. In 2005, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission affirmed its support of the working group’s recommendation.³ In 2016, the Commission considered the issue of wolf reintroduction and adopted a formal resolution opposing intentional release of wolves into Colorado.^1,3 Neither the Commission nor CPW adopted a formal resolution or position on Ballot Proposition 114 (formerly 107; see Ballot Proposition 114 FAQ).⁴ Given the passage of Proposition 114 in November 2020, CPW is now developing a restoration and managment plan for gray wolves in Colorado, as mandated by the Proposition.

For more detail see Wolf Policy Information Sheet

Can Colorado still support wolves?

Although wolves were eliminated from the state in the 1940s, Colorado still retains suitable habitat for wolves.^1-4Wolves can live in a variety of habitat types and can persist where there is enough prey and they are tolerated by humans. In the western United States, the best habitat for wolves is on public lands where both these needs are met.

Prey abundance is one of the best predictors of where wolves can live, and Colorado supports a sufficient prey base for wolves.¹If wolves re-establish in Colorado, either naturally or through reintroduction, it will likely initially be on the Western Slope. As such, elk and mule deer would be the primary prey. Over 430,000 mule deer live in the state.⁵Colorado also supports over 280,000 elk, the largest elk population of any state.⁵ The largest big game herds occur on the Western Slope (see Big Game and Hunting FAQ).

Colorado also has over 24 million acres of public lands, mostly federally owned, including 3.5 million acres of wilderness.^6,7 Most of these lands are in western Colorado. Because public lands, especially wilderness areas, have less human disturbance, these areas would likely serve as important habitat for wolves.

Ultimately, people will determine where wolves can live.¹ As long as people tolerate them, wolves can persist in regions with many people.^1,3 For example, over 2,300 wolves live in Minnesota⁸, a state with 5.6 million people and an average population density of 71 people per square mile.⁹ About 850 wolves live in Wisconsin⁸, a state with 5.8 million people and an average population density of 107 people per square mile.⁹For comparison, Colorado has 5.8 million people and an average population density of 56 people per square mile, heavily concentrated in the Front Range.⁹ As another comparison, over 11,000 wolves now live in Europe, including near large cities. This is about twice as many wolves as the 6000 wolves that now live in the lower 48 U.S. states.¹ Europe is half the area of the lower U.S. with twice the average human population density.¹⁰

In Colorado, the best habitat for wolves would be public wildlands where there is abundant prey and open space and less potential for conflict with people. Much of the more remote public land is at higher elevations. Where prey and wolves seasonally migrate to lower elevations, including private lands in valley bottoms, this would increase the risk of conflict with people and livestock. Conversely, grazing of livestock on public land where wolves reside would also increase the risk of conflict.

Mech, L.D., 2017. Where can wolves live and how can we live with them?. Biological conservation , 210 , pp.310-317.
Bennett, L.E., 1994. Colorado Gray Wolf Recovery: Biological Feasibility Study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Carroll, C., Phillips, M.K., Schumaker, N.H. and Smith, D.W., 2003. Impacts of landscape change on wolf restoration success: planning a reintroduction program based on static and dynamic spatial models. Conservation Biology, 17(2), pp.536-548.
Carroll, C., Phillips, M.K., Lopez-Gonzalez, C.A. and Schumaker, N.H., 2006. Defining recovery goals and strategies for endangered species: the wolf as a case study. BioScience, 56(1), pp.25-37.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Hunting statistics for elk and deer
Congressional Research Service. Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data.
Congressional Research Service. Wilderness: Overview, Management, and Statistics.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2020. Gray Wolf. Current Population in the United States.
United States Census Bureau. State Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010-2019.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J.D., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-Bao, J.V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O. and Balčiauskas, L., 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. science, 346(6216), pp.1517-1519.

For more detail see Wolves in Colorado Information Sheet

Wolves currently live in Colorado, so why do some people still want to reintroduce more wolves?

In January 2020, a group of up to 6 wolves was confirmed in northwest Colorado in 2020.^1,2 Some of these wolves were subsequently killed after crossing into Wyoming and the current status of the remaining wolves from this group in Colorado is unknown. An additional pair of wolves with pups was confirmed in central Colorado near Walden in summer 2021.¹ (see History and status of Colorado wolves FAQ).

Although wild wolves in Colorado are no longer protected as an Endangered Species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act as of January 2021 (see ESA FAQ), the gray wolf is still considered an endangered species under Colorado’s Nongame, Endangered, or Threatened Species Conservation Act. An important conservation goal for endangered species is that they recover to form a self-sustaining and viable population.³ A viable population has sufficient numbers and geographic distribution such that it can persist over the long-term. The few wolves currently in northern Colorado are not a sustainable viable population over the long-term. These wolves are at risk. They might be killed or disappear, as has happened to other wolves that have migrated to Colorado.⁴Also, while protected in Colorado, wolves that cross into Wyoming have no legal protection in most of the state.⁵ Further, unpredictable events like disease can quickly eliminate such a small group of wolves, and these few animals contain a limited gene pool which can reduce the chance of long-term persistence.

Thus, it is uncertain if the wolves currently in Colorado will grow to form a viable population in the state. It is also unclear if and when a viable population would arise from continued colonization from nearby states. Reintroducing wolves would greatly reduce both sources of uncertainty.

For more detail see Wolves in Colorado Information Sheet

Are wolves dangerous to humans?

The risk of wolves attacking or killing people is low. Wolves typically avoid humans and encounters are rare.¹ For example, a study published in 2002 reviewed wolf-human interactions in Alaska and Canada, where over 60,000 wolves live.²Between 1900-2000, a 100-year period, the study found only 16 cases where wild wolves bit people. In six cases bites were severe and no bites were life-threatening. Another 12 cases involved aggression by known or suspected rabid wolves. In North America, there are no documented accounts of humans killed by wild wolves between 1900-2000.^2-4

There also have been recent reports of wolves attacking people.⁵ Wolves may have killed a Canadian man in 2005.⁶Wolves killed a woman jogging alone in a remote part of Alaska in 2010.⁷In summer 2019, a wolf attacked a tent camper in Banff National Park.⁸ Such encounters foster the perception that wolves are far more dangerous to humans than they are.⁵ Attacks are still exceedingly rare. For example, no wolf has attacked a human in Yellowstone National Park since wolves returned in 1995.⁹ Yellowstone receives 4 million visitors per year, including tent campers.¹⁰ About 100 wolves live in Yellowstone and are exposed to people, with few issues.⁹

Overall, wolves represent little threat to humans, unless people habituate them by providing them with food.^2-5,9 As with other wildlife, it is best not to feed wolves and to keep them at a respectful distance.

Carricondo-Sanchez, D., Zimmermann, B., Wabakken, P., Eriksen, A., Milleret, C., Ordiz, A., Sanz-Perez, A. and Wikenros, C., 2020. Wolves at the door? Factors influencing the individual behavior of wolves in relation to anthropogenic features. Biological Conservation, 244, p.108514.
McNay, M.E., 2002. Wolf-human interactions in Alaska and Canada: a review of the case history. Wildlife Society Bulletin, pp.831-843.
Mech, L.D., Fritts, S.H., Radde, G.L. and Paul, W.J., 1990. Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf?. Audubon, 92(2), pp.82-85.
Linnell, J., Andersen, R., Andersone, Z., Balciauskas, L., Blanco, J.C., Boitani, L., Brainerd, S., Breitenmoser, U., Kojola, I., Liberg, O. and Loe, J., 2002. The fear of wolves: A review of wolf attacks on humans. NINA Oppdragsmelding: 731:1-65.
Mech, L.D., 2017. Where can wolves live and how can we live with them?. Biological conservation, 210, pp.310-317.
McNay, M. E. 2007. A Review of Evidence and Findings Related to the Death of Kenton Carnegie on 8 November 2005 Near Points North, Saskatchewan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Butler, L.G., Beckmen, K.B., Dale, B.W. and Farley, S.D., 2011. Findings related to the March 2010 fatal wolf attack near Chignik Lake, Alaska. ADF&G, Division of Wildlife Conservation.
Aug 13 2019. Survivors of rare wolf attack in Banff recount how animal tried to drag man from tent in middle of night.
National Park Service. Gray Wolf.
National Park Service, 2020. Overnight Stays by Category and Year for Yellowstone NP: 1979 to 2019.

For more detail see Wolves and Human Safety Information Sheet

Are wolves dangerous to pets?

Wolves may kill pets if they encounter them, as can other large carnivores such as mountain lions and coyotes. The most common conflicts between wolves and pets involve domestic dogs.^1-6 Like other wild carnivores, wolves will guard their territories. Unleashed dogs that roam into wolf territories might be considered as intruders or competitors. Wolves are likely most aggressive near their den or rendezvous (“meeting”) sites and when protecting recent kills.

Wolves killing dogs, however, is infrequent.¹ Typically, most dogs killed by wolves are hunting dogs in pursuit of wildlife such as bears, mountain lions, and wolves themselves.^1-4 In some areas, the risk of wolf attacks on dogs is a source of conflict between wolves and hunters and can be an important motivation for illegal killing of wolves. Wolves typically avoid residential areas and are thus less of a threat to dogs there. The risk of wolves transmitting diseases to dogs is also low (see Wolf and Dog Disease FAQ)

There are ways to reduce the chance of conflict between wolves and dogs.^5-7 Wolves are generally afraid of people and will avoid them.⁸So, staying as close to dogs as possible will make it less likely that wolves will attack dogs. Hunting with dogs is inherently risky in wolf country. Avoidance of wolves is the best way to minimize conflict. If you hunt with dogs in wolf country, learn to recognize wolf sign such as scat, tracks, and howls. If you see or hear sign, don’t turn your dogs loose. Bells or beepers on dogs might also help protect dogs. For hikers in wolf country, dogs should be leashed or under strict voice control. This will not only protect dogs, but also protect the wildlife that dogs might chase, disturb, or kill.⁹

Butler, J.R., Linnell, J.D., Morrant, D., Athreya, V., Lescureux, N. and McKeown, A., 2014. Dog eat dog, cat eat dog: social-ecological dimensions of dog predation by wild carnivores. In M.E. Gompper (Ed.) Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation, pp.117-143.
Lescureux, N. and Linnell, J.D., 2014. Warring brothers: The complex interactions between wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) in a conservation context. Biological conservation, 171, pp.232-245.
Olson, E.R., Treves, A., Wydeven, A.P. and Ventura, S.J., 2015. Landscape predictors of wolf attacks on bear-hunting dogs in Wisconsin, USA. Wildlife Research, 41(7), pp.584-597.
Tikkunen, M. and Kojola, I., 2019. Hunting dogs are at biggest risk to get attacked by wolves near wolves’ territory boundaries. Mammal Research, 64(4), pp.581-586.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Dog depredations by wolves in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Guidance for hunters and pet owners: reducing conflict between wolves and dogs.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. Frequently asked questions about wolves in Oregon: How can I protect my dogs against wolves?
Carricondo-Sanchez, D., Zimmermann, B., Wabakken, P., Eriksen, A., Milleret, C., Ordiz, A., Sanz-Perez, A. and Wikenros, C., 2020. Wolves at the door? Factors influencing the individual behavior of wolves in relation to anthropogenic features. Biological Conservation, 244, p.108514.
Young, J.K., Olson, K.A., Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S. and Berger, J., 2011. Is wildlife going to the dogs? Impacts of feral and free-roaming dogs on wildlife populations. BioScience, 61(2), pp.125-132.

For more detail see Wolves and Human Safety Information Sheet

What are the ecological effects of wolves?

In short, it’s a complicated story with no simple answers.^1,2 Predators at the top of the food chain are known as apex predators. They can cause ecological effects that ripple through an ecosystem called “trophic cascades”.^3,4 Multiple scientific studies have suggested that wolves, as apex predators, can have substantial ecological effects.^1,2,5-8Most such studies have been conducted in national parks such as Yellowstone and Isle Royale in the U.S. and Banff and Jasper in Canada. These studies indicate that wolves have likely contributed to willow and aspen recovery and overall habitat diversity by reducing overbrowsing by elk. In turn, this can improve habitat quality for animals such as songbirds or beavers.

However, some researchers have questioned if wolves are solely responsible for the changes evident in the Yellowstone ecosystem since wolves were reintroduced 25 years ago.^1,2,9,10They conclude that additional factors such as drought, harsh winters, other predators (bears and mountain lions), and human hunting also contributed to the decline of the Yellowstone elk herd (see Big Game and Hunting FAQ). Experimental studies also have not found strong evidence that wolves alone are driving regrowth of willow and aspen by changing elk behavior.

Overall, such studies emphasize that understanding trophic cascades in large complicated ecosystems is challenging.^1,2 Although loss of predators can cause ecosystem-level impacts⁴, reintroduction of carnivores, including wolves, doesn’t always fully restore degraded ecosystems.¹¹ In general, sweeping claims about trophic cascades caused by wolves are context-dependent and sometimes exaggerated.

The ecological effects of wolves are difficult to predict, particularly outside of national parks.^1,2 In parks such as Yellowstone, wolves and their prey are typically protected from many human disturbances, such as hunting, predator control, and habitat loss. Within parks, wolves are more likely to occur in abundant, stable populations. This likely increases their ecological effects. Outside of parks, wolves are often more heavily impacted by people and their density is often lower. This might lessen their ecological effects.

Ultimately, if restored to Colorado, wolves might generate ecological effects where they occur in high enough densities for long enough time. Wolves are more likely to cause ecological effects when they contribute to local reductions in prey populations, working in concert with other factors that also limit prey. In other areas with lower densities of wolves, the ecological effects of wolves will be less evident.

Mech, L.D., 2012. Is science in danger of sanctifying the wolf?. Biological Conservation, 150(1), pp.143-149.
Peterson, R.O., Vucetich, J.A., Bump, J.M. and Smith, D.W., 2014. Trophic cascades in a multicausal world: Isle Royale and Yellowstone. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, pp.325-345.
Ripple, W.J., Estes, J.A., Beschta, R.L., Wilmers, C.C., Ritchie, E.G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M.P. and Schmitz, O.J., 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science, 343(6167), p.1241484.
Estes, J.A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J.S., Power, M.E., Berger, J., Bond, W.J., Carpenter, S.R., Essington, T.E., Holt, R.D., Jackson, J.B. and Marquis, R.J., 2011. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. science, 333(6040), pp.301-306.
Hebblewhite, M., White, C.A., Nietvelt, C.G., McKenzie, J.A., Hurd, T.E., Fryxell, J.M., Bayley, S.E. and Paquet, P.C., 2005. Human activity mediates a trophic cascade caused by wolves. Ecology, 86(8), pp.2135-2144.
Hebblewhite, M., Smith, D.W., 2010. Wolf community ecology: ecosystem effects of recovering wolves in Banff and Yellowstone National Park. In: Musiani, M., L. Boitani, L., Paquet, P.C. (Eds.), The world of wolves: new perspectives on ecology, behaviour.
Beschta, R.L. and Ripple, W.J., 2007. Wolves, elk, and aspen in the winter range of Jasper National Park, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37(10), pp.1873-1885.
Ripple, W.J. and Beschta, R.L., 2012. Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: the first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation, 145(1), pp.205-213.
Kauffman, M.J., Brodie, J.F. and Jules, E.S., 2010. Are wolves saving Yellowstone's aspen? A landscape‐level test of a behaviorally mediated trophic cascade. Ecology, 91(9), pp.2742-2755.
Marshall, K.N., Hobbs, N.T. and Cooper, D.J., 2013. Stream hydrology limits recovery of riparian ecosystems after wolf reintroduction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1756), p.20122977.
Alston, J.M., Maitland, B.M., Brito, B.T., Esmaeili, S., Ford, A.T., Hays, B., Jesmer, B.R., Molina, F.J. and Goheen, J.R., 2019. Reciprocity in restoration ecology: When might large carnivore reintroduction restore ecosystems? Biological conservation, 234, pp.82-89.

For more information see Ecological Effects of Wolves Information Sheet

How might wolves impact big game and hunting in Colorado?

The impact of wolves on elk, deer, and other big game is complicated. Generalizations are difficult. Wolves chase down their prey and often target old and weak animals that might have otherwise died from starvation or disease.¹ Also, the hunting success rates for wolves are low. Typically, over 80% of hunting attempts end unsuccessfully.² Under such conditions, wolves alone are unlikely to reduce big game populations.

Under other conditions, such as when harsh weather, other predators (bears, cougars, coyotes), and human hunters also kill prey animals, wolves can contribute to local declines in the number of prey species.^1,3Wolves also can make big game more wary, move more, and use habitat differently by seeking greater cover.⁴This would make hunting more challenging in some areas.

In states with wolves, abundant big game and hunter harvests can still occur. Such is the case for many states with wolves, including in Alaska, the northern Rocky Mountains, and the Great Lakes. For example, at a statewide level, the overall population size of elk, and the number of elk harvested by hunters, has not declined over the past 20 years in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho despite increases of wolves in these states. Elk numbers are stable or increasing in many areas where wolves and elk interact.⁵This includes some areas around Yellowstone National Park where wolves live. However, in some other areas, elk numbers have declined due in part to wolf predation.

Colorado supports a sufficient prey base for wolves (see Can Colorado Support Wolves FAQ).⁶Over 430,000 mule deer and 280,000 elk live in the state, with the largest herds in western Colorado.⁷If wolves are fully restored to Colorado, we might expect local impacts on some herds and hunting opportunities. However, we would expect a relatively low impact on big game and hunting at a statewide level. Ultimately, wildlife managers have a variety of tools to manage predators, big game, and hunter harvest.

Mech, L.D., 2012. Is science in danger of sanctifying the wolf?. Biological Conservation, 150(1), pp.143-149.
Mech, L.D., Smith, D.W. and MacNulty, D.R., 2015. Wolves on the hunt: the behavior of wolves hunting wild prey. University of Chicago Press.
Peterson, R.O., Vucetich, J.A., Bump, J.M. and Smith, D.W., 2014. Trophic cascades in a multicausal world: Isle Royale and Yellowstone. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, pp.325-345.
Creel, S., Winnie Jr, J., Maxwell, B., Hamlin, K. and Creel, M., 2005. Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology, 86(12), pp.3387-3397.
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2020. Wolves and Big Game in Montana.
Mech, L.D., 2017. Where can wolves live and how can we live with them? Biological conservation, 210, pp.310-317.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2020. Hunting statistics for elk and deer

For more detail see Wolves, Big Game, and Hunting Information Sheet.

What are the potential impacts of wolves on moose?

Moose are relatively recent arrivals to parts of the U.S. Rockies.^1-7Moose likely immigrated from Montana and Idaho to Wyoming in the 1850’s. Restrictions on moose hunting, forest fire suppression, and predator control programs led moose to become abundant in the northern Rocky Mountains by the mid-late 1900s. Historically, moose were rare in Colorado, with only a few stray animals wandering in from Wyoming.^5-7 They were absent for decades until reintroduced into north-central Colorado in the late 1970s. Additional moose were reintroduced to the Creede area in south-central Colorado between 1991-1993, and to the Grand Mesa in west-central Colorado between 2005-2007.⁷Colorado moose populations have increased to nearly 3000 animals.

Moose populations through much of the United States have declined over the past 30-40 years. The exact causes are unknown. It is likely due to a variety of factors, including habitat loss and degradation, wildfires, human development, parasites, and predation. Climate may also limit moose. Moose are adapted for cooler climates. But, in the lower U.S., they are living in a warming climate at the southern edge of their natural range.

In the northern Rocky Mountains, predation of moose calves by grizzly bears, black bears, and wolves may sometimes contribute to moose declines. However, in Wyoming, low pregnancy rates and malnourishment, and not predation, were the primary limits on moose populations.⁴Also, moose are declining in areas where wolves are rare or absent. This includes southwestern Wyoming and other regions of the West. Wolves are not the primary cause of moose decline across their range. Declines in habitat quantity and quality, including healthy willow and aspen communities, strongly influence moose populations.³

Yellowstone National Park. Moose.
Wyoming Wildlife Federation. How are Wyoming’s Moose Doing?
Smith, M.A., Kilpatrick, S., Younkin, B., Work, L. and Wachob, D. 2012. Assessment of crucial moose winter habitat conditions in western Wyoming. Alces 47, pp.151-162.
Berger, J., Testa, J.W., Roffe, T. and Monfort, S.L., 1999. Conservation endocrinology: a noninvasive tool to understand relationships between carnivore colonization and ecological carrying capacity. Conservation Biology, 13(5), pp.980-989.
Bailey, A.M., 1944. Records of moose in Colorado. Journal of Mammalogy, 25(2), pp.192-193.
Duvall, A.C. and Schoonveld, G.S., 1988. Colorado moose: reintroduction and management. Alces, 24, pp.188-194.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Moose.

For more detail see Wolves, Big Game, and Hunting Information Sheet

How might wolves affect chronic wasting disease in elk and deer in Colorado?

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a contagious and fatal neurological disease found in deer, elk, and moose. It is caused by the transmission of an abnormal protein called a prion. CWD is relatively widespread in Colorado.

Wolves are predators that chase prey. Wolves tend to target slower, more vulnerable individuals, including sick and diseased animals.^1,2One study developed a mathematical model predicting that selective predation by wolves would result in a more rapid decline in CWD in deer compared to hunting by humans.³The model suggested that wolf predation may help limit CWD. There has been no field study to test this prediction. However, wolf predation has been shown to help control disease (tuberculosis) in wild boar in Spain.³

Insight can be gained from other predators. Studies in the Front Range of Colorado showed mule deer killed by mountain lions were more likely to be infected with CWD than mule deer killed by hunters.⁴This suggests that mountain lions select infected animals when targeting adult deer. Such selective predation by mountain lions, however, did not limit CWD transmission in deer populations with high infection rates.⁵Unlike wolves who run when hunting, mountain lions are considered “ambush” predators that sit and wait for prey to pass. Such predatory behavior might make them less likely to detect sick animals compared to wolves.⁵

When carnivores eat infected prey, CWD prions can remain infectious in carnivore feces.⁶But, canines appear to be naturally resistant to prions.⁷ We therefore would not expect the number of prions to increase in their digestive tracts.In fact, CWD prions may be degraded as they pass through the digestive system.⁶While predation may not eliminate CWD from deer or elk populations, predators that selectively prey on infected animals would be expected to reduce the number of infections. This would be more likely in areas where wolves are well-established.

For more detail see Wolves and Disease Information Sheet

What is hydatid disease and can wolves spread it to humans?

Hydatid disease is caused by tapeworms in the Echinococcus genus.^1-5 Echinococcus tapeworms require two hosts to complete their lifecycle. Definitive hosts support adult tapeworms. Canines such as wolves, coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs are the definitive host. Ungulates (hoofed animals) such as deer, elk, moose, and domestic livestock are intermediate hosts. Domestic dogs and wild canines (e.g., coyotes, foxes, and wolves) are definitive hosts. The adult tapeworm lives within the intestines of the canine and releases eggs into the environment via canine feces. The intermediate host then ingests the eggs by eating contaminated vegetation. The cycle is completed when a canine eats the infected organs of an intermediate host.

North America has multiple wild and domestic cycles of tapeworm infection. The wolf/ungulate wild cycle has been documented since the early 1900s.^1-3 The species of tapeworm most commonly found in wolves is Echinococcus canadensis. Recently, E. canadensis was confirmed as regularly cycling in wolves and wild ungulates in western North America, with infections present in 30-60% of wolves tested.^2,3 E. canadensis has been documented in Colorado.⁴ In 2017, a hydatid cyst was identified in a Colorado moose. This case occurred in the apparent absence of resident wolves, suggesting other canids may have been involved. In 2020, E. canadensis eggs were identified in feces from gray wolves that migrated into northwestern Colorado.⁴

Humans may be infected from accidentally ingesting tapeworm eggs. Infections are typically from the species of tapeworm (E. granulosus) in the domestic cycle between dogs and livestock (often sheep or pigs).^1,3,5 People are infected from interaction with working or companion dogs with eggs in their feces or on their paws or fur. However, human infection is rare in North America. There have been no documented human cases of hydatid disease originating from within the United States for several years, although some people have acquired infection traveling abroad.¹

Direct human infection from wolves is therefore extremely unlikely. Also, the hydatid disease caused by E. canadensis is considered relatively benign in comparison to those infections arising from the domestic cycle between dogs and livestock.^1,3

There are several basic precautions that can minimize the risk of human infection. Avoid touching or handling feces of wild canines. Hunters should wear gloves when field dressing carcasses and wash hands thoroughly. Contact with or consumption of the hydatid cysts in the organs of ungulates can be a source of infection to domestic dogs. To minimize risk of infection, dog owners should prevent their dogs from consuming ungulate carcasses and should regularly deworm their dogs.

For more detail see Wolves and Disease Information Sheet

Can wolves and domestic dogs transmit diseases to each other?

Dogs and wolves are closely related and can share many of the same parasites and diseases.¹Dogs are much more likely to infect wolves than vice versa. Dogs are the world’s most common carnivore² and typically greatly outnumber wolves.^3-4 Thus, diseases can be maintained in dog populations and can then spill over to wolves.¹ Also, diseases in wolves and dogs can occur in other wildlife, which often outnumber wolves too. So, the risk of dogs being infected by wolves is low.

Rabies, parvovirus, and distemper can be particularly impactful to wolves. Rabies is a fatal viral disease that infects the central nervous system.⁵ Rabies has occurred sporadically in wild wolves globally.¹ It is rare in North American wolves, with only sporadic accounts in Alaska and Canada.^6,7When rabies outbreaks do occur, it can result in local declines in wolf numbers.^1,6-8However, wolves are unlikely to be a long-term reservoir host for rabies.¹Most incidents of rabies occur in other wildlife such as raccoons, skunks, foxes, and bats.^1,5Wolves can contract rabies from other species, including dogs. For example, dogs appear responsible for transmitting rabies to endangered Ethiopian wolves, causing massive outbreaks.^2,9,10

Distemper and parvovirus (“parvo”) are contagious viral diseases that can infect both wolves and dogs.^11-12 Dogs can transmit these diseases to wolves.^1,13 For example, an outbreak of parvovirus in wolves in Isle Royale National Park likely came from dogs.^14-15 Distemper outbreaks in Ethiopian wolves also likely originated with dogs.^9,10Distemper and parvovirus also have been detected in wolves in Yellowstone, Banff, and Jasper National Parks.^16-18 However, dogs are likely not playing an important role in these areas. Rather, the diseases are likely circulating in other wild carnivores (e.g., raccoons, skunks, coyotes, and foxes) in and around the Parks.

External parasites can also infect both wolves and dogs.¹ Sarcoptic mange – a skin disease caused by parasitic mites - can affect both wolves and dogs. However, there is no indication of transmission of mange between dogs and wolves.¹ Rather, wolves are more likely to be infected from wild canids, such as foxes and coyotes, and other wolves.^19-21 Mange outbreaks can cause local declines in wolf populations.

For more detail see Wolves and Disease Information Sheet

What are the potential impacts of wolves on livestock?

Impacts to livestock from wolves creates costs borne by livestock producers. Calculating these costs is challenging. Part of the problem is not knowing exactly how many livestock are killed by wolves each year. For example, in the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) confirmed a total of 136 cattle (both adults and calves) and 114 sheep (adults and lambs) killed by wolves in 2014.¹ In contrast, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported 2,835 cattle and 453 sheep killed by wolves in the same region and year.^2,3 The USFWS data are underestimates because they don’t include livestock that are killed by wolves but are never found or reported.^4,5The NASS numbers are based on a self-reported survey of livestock producers and do not include verification of kills. This leaves the accuracy of the NASS data in question, and the reports likely overestimate the number of livestock killed by wolves.⁶

One way to estimate impact of wolves on the livestock industry is to calculate the proportion of livestock killed by wolves out of the total number of livestock in counties with wolves. Using USFWS data of confirmed wolf kills¹ and NASS data of number of cattle², the calculated percentage of cattle killed by wolves in the NRM states is under 1%. However, this calculation ignores livestock that are not vulnerable to predation (e.g., in feedlots or on range where wolves don’t occur) and thus likely underestimates the impact. Nonetheless, the available data suggest that mortality caused by wolves is a small economic cost to the livestock industry as a whole.⁷

However, in addition to mortalities, producers can also suffer indirect losses such as stress, sickness, and reduced weight gain and pregnancy rates when wolves scare, chase, or attack livestock.^8-11 Indirect losses are not well studied so estimating their extent is difficult. Costs could be considerably higher when including unseen deaths, indirect losses, and expenses for producers to deter wolves or to seek compensation.⁹ Indirect losses might be more likely on ranches where wolves are already killing cattle.¹⁰

Although wolf depredation on cattle and sheep accounts for less than 1% of the annual gross income from industry-wide livestock operations in the Northern Rocky Mountains, these costs are unevenly distributed and localized, with some producers suffering greater losses than others.^7,12For those impacted by wolf predation, the economic and emotional impacts can be substantial (see Economic Cost FAQ).

Understanding why some producers are more vulnerable to wolf predation and others are not is an active area of research.¹³The answer likely includes where livestock are grazed (some areas have more wolf activity than others); the type of livestock (sheep are more vulnerable than cattle); the type of operation (e.g., cow/calf versus stocker); range versus pasture operations; and how much the livestock are protected (see Management Tools FAQ).

For more information see Wolves and Livestock Information Sheet

Do wolves sometimes kill more prey than they can eat?

On rare occasions predators kill many animals in excess of their food needs and only eat a portion of what is killed. This is sometimes called surplus killing, excess killing, or partial prey consumption.^1-7 This behavior has been documented in a wide variety of predators, including wolves, foxes, weasels, bears, shrews, spiders, and insects.⁵

For wolves, this type of predation event can occur on native ungulates such as deer, moose, or caribou^3-5and livestock such as sheep.⁷ It is generally believed that the vulnerability of the prey plays a large role in excess killing. For example, a study in Minnesota found that after an unusually severe winter, white-tailed deer were in very weak condition and for a few weeks wolves killed deer at much higher rates than normal and only partially consumed the carcasses.⁴ Wolves were likely trying to maximize their energetic gain and taking advantage of a short period when their prey was vulnerable.

Surplus killing on livestock may be more frequent than on wild prey because livestock are typically more vulnerable to predation.⁷ One study found that in the Northern Rocky Mountains from 1987-2003, wolves excessively killed sheep but not cattle. On average there were about 3 surplus killing events on sheep per year and an average of 8.85 sheep killed per attack.⁷ Compared to cattle, sheep and goats are thought to be more vulnerable because of their smaller size, fewer defenses (e.g., horns), and their tendency to occur in flocks that can supply large numbers of concentrated prey. Another factor is that corrals and other enclosures for livestock can make it easier to catch multiple livestock.⁸

Although uncommon, such events can have negative economic impacts for producers. Such events can also be viewed as needless killing, reinforcing negative perceptions towards wolves. They are therefore important to minimize and prevent (see Management Tools FAQ).

For more detail see Wolves and Livestock Information Sheet

What management tools are available to reduce conflict with wolves?

A variety of strategies can be used to prevent or reduce livestock conflicts with wolves (see Livestock Impacts FAQ). For example, regulated hunting can help limit wolf populations.^1-4 Lethal removal of wolves in reaction to conflict, for instance killing livestock, can be effective if targeted to the correct individuals.^5-7 Some studies have suggested that lethal removal of wolves only temporarily reduces depredation and may increase conflicts,^8-10although some of these conclusions have been challenged.¹¹

Proactive non-lethal tools can help prevent conflict. Such tools often focus on modifying wolf, livestock, and/or human behavior to minimize encounters.^5,12-14For example, physical or psychological barriers or scare tactics can be established to try to ward off wolves and other predators. These include fencing, fladry (flagging), lights, and sound devices, which rely on novelty and are effective at least temporarily.¹⁵ Livestock guardian dogs also can deter wolves.¹⁶Wolves also tend to avoid humans, so people accompanying livestock (e.g., herders, range riders, or scouts) can reduce encounters and also help manage herds proactively.¹⁷Modifying livestock management practices can help,^5,12,18particularly during calving or lambing when animals are most vulnerable. For example, grazing strategies can be altered to avoid wolves. Removal of carcasses of livestock that have died can also be useful, as carcasses attract wolves and other predators.

For all of these strategies the scale and the context will determine whether or not they are effective. For example, fladry is only appropriate for small pastures, guard dogs are only effective if they are large enough or in a big enough group to deter wolves, and livestock that are spread widely across a landscape are more difficult to protect.

Local communities can apply combinations of strategies and tools. For example, the ranching community in the Blackfoot Valley of Montana uses a collaborative, grass-roots approach to reduce conflicts with predators through proactive strategies.¹⁸ They remove and compost livestock carcasses, fence calving areas, and employ wildlife technicians to monitor livestock and wolves. This has helped reduce both the number of livestock and wolves killed.

In addition, producers can be financially compensated for livestock lost to wolves (see Compensation FAQ).^19-22Such programs have been criticized for their high costs and burden of proof to verify kills, inadequate funding to fully compensate for losses, and lack of incentives to prevent conflict. Alternative incentive models, where producers are paid to coexist with carnivores, have been proposed.^19,23

For more detail see Wolves and Livestock Information Sheet

What is the economic benefit of wolves?

For natural resources, economists calculate three types of values: consumptive use, such as hunting; non-consumptive use, like tourism, photography, or wildlife viewing; and existence and bequest values that people hold even if the never are able to visit the resource on-site.^1,2 An example of a consumptive use would be wolf hunting, which is now allowed in much of the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) and generates revenues. For example, the sale of licenses for hunting and trapping wolves in Montana tops $400,000 per year.³Plus, hunters spend money for travel, housing, food, and equipment, generating income for hotels, restaurants, and hunting guides.²

The economic benefit from non-consumptive use, such as tourism to view wolves, can be very large. When first introduced into Yellowstone National Park in 1995, economists estimated that visitor use would increase by 5% for out-of-area residents and 10% for local.⁴ Ten years later, economists confirmed that visitation was as predicted and that wolf-related visitation produced $47 million annually in travel expenditures in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.^5,6 The benefit of wolf-related tourism in Colorado may be more limited than the unique wolf viewing opportunities in Yellowstone’s northern range, which has high wolf density, radio-collared wolves, outstanding viewsheds, and good access via paved year-round roads. However, Colorado is also a top tourist destination and many of its citizens would likely benefit from developing a wolf-related tourism industry.

Few studies have estimated the existence value of wolves. One study estimated that existence value from introducing wolves in northern Yellowstone was $11 million per year when adding together everyone’s willingness to pay in the United States.⁶ Existence values can be compared to the costs of introducing wolves, along with other benefits and costs, to help policy makers manage natural resources. If benefits outweigh costs, society gains by introducing wolves. Existence values will likely be important in Colorado too, but a specific study would be required to know how much.

More studies are needed, but based on past research, Colorado citizens would benefit substantially from consumptive use (e.g., hunting, if allowed), non-consumptive use (e.g., tourism related to viewing), existence value, and bequest values for future generations. Wolves will also impose costs, for example on livestock producers (see Economic Cost FAQ), but these costs have been lower than benefits in other studies. The benefits were estimated to be about twice the costs where wolves were first introduced into Yellowstone and northern Idaho,⁶ but could be different in Colorado. The distribution of who pays these costs, versus who gets the benefits, presents a significant social and political challenge.

Loomis J., Huber C., Richardson L. (2019) Methods of Environmental Valuation. In: Fischer M., Nijkamp P. (eds) Handbook of Regional Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Loomis, J., T. Kroeger, L. Richardson, and F. Casey. [accessed on April 24, 2020]. Benefit Transfer and Use Estimating Model Toolkit. Hunting value table (adjusted for 2020 value)
Inman, B., K. Podruzny, T. Smucker, A. Nelson, M. Ross, N. Lance, T. Parks, D. Boyd and S. Wells. 2019. Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2018 Annual Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Helena, Montana. 77 pages.
S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Duffield, J., Patterson, D. and Neher, C.J., 2006. Wolves and people in Yellowstone: Impacts on the regional economy. University of Montana, Department of Mathematical Sciences.
Duffield, John. 2019. Shopping for wolves: Using nonmarket valuation for informing conservation districts. Rasker, R., ed. People and Public Lands. Bozeman, MT: Headwaters Economics.

For more detail see Wolf Economics Information Sheet

What is the economic cost of wolves?

Although wolves provide economic benefits (see Economic Benefits FAQ), they also impose costs. Some costs are more difficult to value than others. Costs generally fall into three main categories: personal impacts, commercial production, and public management. Personal impacts occur when people’s lives are personally changed in some meaningful way. For example, although the risk of wolves attacking people is low¹, it is conceivable that fear of wolves might cause some people to recreate less. Such personal economic impacts have not been studied.

A potential commercial cost of wolves is for the hunting industry. At the statewide level, the number of elk harvested by hunters has not declined in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM), despite increases of wolves (see Big Game and Hunting FAQ). An economic analysis in Montana concluded that, overall, wolves have not had a significant economic effect on elk harvest in the state.²Rather, demand for hunting shifted from the southwest region near Yellowstone to areas farther away from where wolves were first introduced. Similarly, hunting-related benefits in Colorado are not likely to decline substantially overall at a statewide level. At a local level, where wolves contribute to declines in big game herds and hence hunting opportunities, this would result in a cost to those reliant on hunting to support their livelihoods.

The largest commercial cost is from wolves harassing and/or killing livestock. Counting these losses is difficult because the exact number of livestock killed by wolves is unknown. What is known is that the proportion of livestock killed by wolves is low, and mortality caused by wolves is a small economic cost to the livestock industry as a whole (see Livestock Impacts FAQ).³ For example, wolf depredation on cattle and sheep accounts for less than 1% of the annual gross income from livestock operations in the NRM.³However, these costs are unevenly distributed and localized, with some producers suffering greater losses than others. Also, costs are greater when including unconfirmed deaths and indirect losses such as lower market weights, reduced conception rates due to stress, and producer mitigation costs to deter wolves or to seek compensation.^3-6More research is required to know exactly how much producers might lose if wolf populations expand in Colorado.

The government also incurs costs to manage wolves. The USFWS estimated that, in 2015, almost $6.5 million was spent on managing wolves by state, federal, and tribal agencies in the Northern Rocky Mountains.⁷

Fiscal analysis of Ballot Proposition 114 (formerly 107) forecasted annual costs to the state of Colorado of $350,000-450,000 for the first 2 years of the planning phase of wolf reintroduction.⁸ Costs are expected to increase as the plan is implemented and wolves are reintroduced. Future costs will depend on the details of the plan developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. In summer 2021, state law HB21-1243 was signed by Colorado Governor Polis, appropriating General Fund dollars to support gray wolf reintroduction from sources other than hunting and fishing license fees.⁹. $1.1M was appropriated for FY 21-22.

For more detail see Wolf Economics Information Sheet

Are producers compensated for livestock lost to predators?

Government agencies and private organizations have offered a variety of programs to compensate producers for livestock lost to predators, including wolves.^1,2 Most states have created separate programs for wolves and receive federal grants to help with the cost. Wyoming paid about $170,000 in 2018 for livestock killed or injured by wolves³, which is a typical amount for western states. The USDA Farm Services Agency’s Livestock Indemnity Program will reimburse 75% of the value of killed livestock.⁴

Studies show that livestock producers underuse these programs and often do not like the way they are operated.^1,5-10Primary problems include high costs and burden of proof to verify kills. Producers that use the USDA Livestock Indemnity Program, for example, sometimes find that they receive only a portion of their costs and with a significant wait time. Another criticism is inadequate funding to fully compensate for unverified kills or indirect losses (see Livestock Impacts FAQ and Economic Costs FAQ). Some states do pay based on a compensation ratio meant to account for unverified kills and indirect losses. For example, Washington state pays 2 to 1 for confirmed damages¹¹, whereas Wyoming pays up to 7 to 1.¹²

Compensation programs also have been criticized because they do not necessarily increase tolerance towards carnivores.^1,9They also do not offer incentives for producers to take preventative measures to avoid conflict.^{6, 7,9,10}Alternative incentive models, where producers are paid to coexist with wildlife, including wolves, have been suggested.^6,13,14

Proposition 1114 (formerly 107) mandated that, if wolves are reintroduced, producers receive fair compensation for livestock depredation by wolves.¹⁵ Under the Proposition, costs for compensation were to be borne by CPW’s wildlife cash fund, derived from hunting and fishing licenses, unless the wildlife cash fund can’t fully pay for such expenses.¹⁵ The details of the compensation process are yet to be determined but will depend on the restoration plan developed by CPW, in cooperation with other governmental agencies, private citizens, and organizations.^16,17

Treves, A., Jurewicz, R.L., Naughton-Treves, L. and Wilcove, D.S., 2009. The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18(14), pp.4003-4021.
Defenders of Wildlife. Wolf Compensation Trust
Wyoming Gray Wolf Monitoring and Management 2018 Annual Report. Prepared by the Wyoming Game and Fish Service, USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, and Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribal Fish and Game Department, December 31, 2018.
Farm Service Agency-US Department of Agriculture. 2020. Livestock Indemnity Program, Fact Sheet, February 2020.
Muhly, T.B. and M. Musiani. 2009. Livestock depredation by wolves and the ranching economy in the Northwestern U.S. Ecological Economics 68: 2439-2450.
Lee, T., Good, K., Jamieson, W., Quinn, M. and Krishnamurthy, A., 2017. Cattle and carnivore coexistence in Alberta: the role of compensation programs. Rangelands, 39(1), pp.10-16.
Ravenelle, J. and Nyhus, P.J., 2017. Global patterns and trends in human–wildlife conflict compensation. Conservation Biology, 31(6), pp.1247-1256.
Niemiec, R.M., Berl, R.E.W., Gonzalez, M., Teel, T., Camara, C., Collins, M., Salerno, J., Crooks, K., Schultz, S., Breck, S., Hoag, D. 2020. Public Perspectives and media reporting of wolf reintroduction in Colorado. Peer J 8:e9074.
Nyhus, P., Fischer, H., Madden, F. and Osofsky, S., 2003. Taking the bite out of wildlife damage the challenges of wildlife compensation schemes. Conservation in Practice, 4(2), pp.37-43.
Nyhus, P. J., S. A. Osofsky, P. Ferraro, H. Fischer, and F. Madden. 2005. Bearing the costs of human– wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes. In: R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz [EDS.]. People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 107–121.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Compensation rules for depredation incidents.
Harris, R.B. 2020. Literature Review of Livestock Compensation Programs: Considering Ways to Assist Livestock Producers with Grizzly Bear Conservation Efforts in Montana. White paper for Western Landowners Association.
Dickman, A.J., Macdonald, E.A. and Macdonald, D.W., 2011. A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), pp.13937-13944.
Macon, D., 2020. Paying for the presence of predators: An evolving approach to compensating ranchers. Rangelands 42:43-52.
Colorado Ballot Proposal 2019-2020 #107 - Restoration of Gray Wolves.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Wolf Management.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Information on Wolves and QA Final.

For more detail see Wolf Economics Information Sheet

What are moral arguments for and against wolf reintroduction?

Moral arguments are arguments that something is “good,” “bad,” “right,” or “wrong,” and are often used to justify positions both for and against wolf reintroduction. A recent online survey of Coloradans found that respondents identified moral arguments as reasons for supporting wolf reintroduction. These included beliefs that: wolf reintroduction is the right thing to do; wolves deserve to live where they once thrived; reintroduction would make up for the past wrong of deliberately extirpating wolves from the state; and humans should fairly share the landscape with other animals like wolves.¹ Beliefs that link humans and other species are common in Native American worldviews. Native people in support of wolf restoration might argue that there is a balance in the natural world and reintroducing wolves would return some of that balance.² Many of these reported beliefs relate to Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, which advocates that people should respect their community and expands the definition of community beyond humans to include other parts of the Earth, such as animals, plants, and water.^3,4 Leopold argues that an action is morally right when it preserves the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. Wolf reintroduction is therefore often justified using this land ethic, as it is seen by some as an effort to enhance the integrity of the biotic community.⁴ Environmental philosophers have also made the moral argument that reintroducing wolves to their native habitat is right because it would enhance the wilderness character of an area, promoting connections between people and wilderness.⁵ Finally, some use the moral argument that the ballot initiative in Colorado to reintroduce wolves is good because it is a democratic process for ensuring the majority of the public’s values are adequately considered in decision-making about wildlife.¹

Moral arguments have also been used to oppose reintroduction. Some people argue that reintroducing wolves is not ethical if individual reintroduced wolves would be hunted or die from human-wolf conflicts.⁶ Additionally, media coverage of wolf reintroduction in Colorado often includes the moral argument that the ballot initiative for wolf reintroduction wrongly imposes the will of the urban majority on the rural minority in the state, who would have to live with the potential negative impacts of wolves (e.g., livestock depredation).¹ There is opposition to reintroduction on moral grounds among Indigenous people, too. Native Americans have always been active stewards of the land, but some believe that we should not directly interfere with nature. These people might say we should support the land's healing and natural processes, but we don't have the right to decide when or how the land heals, or what comes back.²

Niemiec, R.M., Berl, R.E.W., Gonzalez, M., Teel, T., Camara, C., Collins, M., Salerno, J., Crooks, K., Schultz, S., Breck, S., Hoag, D. 2020. Public Perspectives and media reporting of wolf reintroduction in Colorado. Peer J 8:e9074.
Personal communication from tribal members of the Chocktaw Nation, the Chochiti Pueblo, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians.
Leopold, A. 1989. A Sand County almanac, and sketches here and there. Outdoor Essays & Reflections.
Rolston, H. 2015. Rediscovering and rethinking leopold’s green fire. Environmental Ethics, 37(1), pp.45-55.
Vucetich, J.A., Nelson, M.P. and Peterson, R.O. 2012. Should Isle Royale wolves be reintroduced? A case study on wilderness management in a changing world. The George Wright Forum, 29(1), p. 126. George Wright Society.
Animal rights uncompromised: predator reintroduction programs.

For more detail see Moral Arguments Related to Wolf Restoration and Management Information Sheet

What are moral arguments for and against various wolf management strategies?

Regulated hunting of wolves and the killing of “problem” wolves that come into conflict with people are often used as strategies to manage wolf populations. Moral arguments (i.e., arguments about what is “right” or “wrong”) have been used to justify positions in favor and against such management actions. Some argue that killing native predators such as wolves may not be ethically justified.^1,2 Instead, they advocate for the use of preventative management strategies that minimize conflict between humans, livestock, and wolves, reserving killing wolves as a last resort.^1,2 Such people have been classified as “mutualists” or as having a “biocentric” view towards nature^3,4, a view that was both preceded by and informed by Native worldviews. They believe that animals have rights to respectful treatment and should not be managed solely as a resource to be used by humans.^4,5 A recent study found that approximately 35% of Colorado residents can be classified as mutualists and that the majority of Coloradans do not support killing wolves as a management tool.⁵ Those with more mutualist values often point to research suggesting that higher animals experience similar emotions to humans.⁶ They also feel that while the benefits of killing animals to populations, ecosystems, and society are often uncertain, the negative impacts of killing on the individual animal being targeted are certain.^2,7 Individuals with this perspective may also be skeptical of intensive wildlife management in general, believing that people should manage wild animals less and their own behavior more.⁸ Social science research suggests that modernization has led to a growing percentage of the U.S. population with this more “mutualist” view towards animals.^4,5

On the other hand, individuals with more “traditional” or “domination” views towards wildlife believe that wildlife should be used as a resource for humans.^4,5 They believe that killing and hunting wildlife are morally justified if they further human interests and enjoyment. Traditionalists also support wildlife management to maintain ecosystem balance and species diversity.^3-5 Individuals with this viewpoint argue that death and predation are natural components of ecosystems³ and that humans are morally justified in killing wildlife to maximize benefits for both humans^4,5 and ecosystems.³ Research finds that approximately 28% of Coloradans have these more traditional values towards wildlife.⁵

For more detail see Moral Arguments Related to Wolf Restoration and Management Information Sheet

What do Coloradans think about wolf reintroduction?

In Colorado, multiple studies have found an overall high level of public support for wolf reintroduction.^1-3 A 2019 online survey conducted by Colorado State University researchers found that 84% of the 734 Colorado residents surveyed would vote for wolf reintroduction.¹ This was an increase in support from prior surveys. A mail survey in 1994 found that 71% of 1,452 residents would vote for wolf reintroduction.² A phone survey in 2001 found that 66% of 500 Colorado residents surveyed supported reintroduction.³

Perceived positive impacts of wolf reintroduction mentioned by 2019 survey respondents include the ability of wolves to restore balance to ecosystems; the opportunity to view wolves in the wild; emotional and cultural connections to wolves; enhanced tourism opportunities; a reduction in pest populations; and a perceived moral obligation to restore species that once lived in the state.¹ Furthermore, in a February 2020 stakeholder workshop on wolf reintroduction, representatives of some environmental groups discussed how they supported wolf reintroduction because they believed it is the first time their values related to wolf conservation are being recognized in decision-making.⁴ They felt they had not received recognition in the past by the state legislature or state wildlife agencies.

Perceived negative impacts of wolf reintroduction mentioned by 2019 survey respondents include threats to people and pets, loss of hunting opportunities, and potential wolf attacks on livestock.¹ Similarly, the 1994 survey found that negative attitudes towards wolf reintroduction were associated with the beliefs that wolf reintroduction would result in ranchers losing money, wolves wandering into residential areas, and large losses in deer and elk populations.² During the February 2020 stakeholder workshop, those opposed to reintroduction indicated their belief that the effort to reintroduce wolves was part of a broader trend of society not recognizing their value and contributions to society as well as a pending threat to their economic viability.⁴

For more detail see Public Perspectives on Wolves and Wolf Reintroduction Information Sheet

To what extent do urban and rural residents differ in their views towards wolves?

A review of 38 quantitative public opinion surveys on wolves and wolf reintroduction conducted between 1972 and 2000 in the US, Canada, and Europe, found rural residents, including ranchers and farmers, generally had more negative attitudes toward wolves than urban residents.¹ Studies have also found that proximity to wolves influences attitudes. In particular, people living in areas with wolves tend to have more negative attitudes towards wolf conservation than people living outside these areas.^1,2

In Colorado this pattern of support/opposition is not as strong (see What do Coloradans think about wolf reintroduction FAQ) . Specifically, surveys reveal that while support for wolf reintroduction is highest among the urban and Front Range population, the majority of rural residents also support reintroduction. A 2019 online survey conducted by Colorado State University researchers found that 84.9% of Front Range residents, 79.8% of Western Slope residents, and 79.3% of Eastern Plains residents would vote in favor of wolf reintroduction.³ The 2019 survey also found that 82.8% of those from rural areas and 66.1% of those who strongly identified as hunters would vote for wolf reintroduction. Prior surveys in Colorado have found similar trends. A 1994 mail survey found that 73.8% of Eastern Slope residents would support wolf reintroduction compared to 65.1% of Western Slope residents.⁴ A 2001 phone survey of residents from Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona also found support was highest among urban residents (73%), but the majority of hunters (59%) and people from rural areas (60%) still supported wolf reintroduction.⁵

Evidence on rancher perspectives towards wolf reintroduction in Colorado is mixed. The 2019 online survey found that 69.5% of people who strongly identified as ranchers would vote for wolf reintroduction.³ The 2001 phone survey found that 44% of ranchers supported wolf restoration, with an increase to 52% after hearing arguments favoring restoration.⁵ During a stakeholder workshop on wolf reintroduction hosted by CSU researchers in February, 2020, ranchers attending indicated that they were opposed to wolf reintroduction because they felt wolves posed a threat to ranchers’ livelihoods.⁶ They also believed that the initiative to reintroduce wolves was failing to give recognition to their previous conservation efforts. Overall, further research is needed to fully understand the diversity and prevalence of various rancher perspectives towards wolves and wolf reintroduction.

For more detail see Public Perspectives on Wolves and Wolf Reintroduction Information Sheet

Why is the discussion over wolf reintroduction so contentious? How can we reduce conflict between people over wolves?

The topic of wolves is contentious and can create social conflict among ranchers, hunters, environmentalists, and other groups. Social conflict occurs when groups struggle over power and diverse values. The social conflict over wolves in Colorado is driven in part by different attitudes and beliefs about wolves and the effects they may or may not have on ecosystems and people. Social conflict is also driven in part by unresolved debates about natural resource management and the deeper values that wolves symbolize.^1-3 For example, long-standing conflicting views about public land management exacerbates the debate about wolves. Also, many environmental groups advocate so strongly for wolf reintroduction because wolves have become symbolic of the broader fight to preserve and make amends with wilderness.¹ On the other hand, interview-based research has found that opposition to wolves, particularly among many ranchers and rural communities, is driven in part by wolf conservation being symbolic of the many social trends perceived as economically and culturally threatening.^2,3

At a stakeholder workshop held in Glenwood Springs, Colorado in February 2020, participants from environmental NGOs, state agencies, a sovereign Native American nation, and ranching and hunting groups discussed the deeper values behind the social conflict over wolf reintroduction in Colorado.⁴ Participants shared that the debate goes beyond the pending ballot proposition to reintroduce wolves to the state. Rather, the debate includes deeper, more long-standing issues. These include conflicting views over how public lands should be managed, different cultural values of wildlife, and the impacts of changing demographics and values on more traditional ways of life.⁴

Traditional public engagement processes typically rely on public hearings and comment periods. These processes are insufficient for such value-based conflict and can exacerbate, rather than reduce, social conflict.⁵ Other approaches are needed. Participatory processes that involve diverse stakeholders with conflicting views in respectful dialogue and shared decision-making can lead to better, longer-lasting outcomes for all sides.⁶ These processes involve stakeholder workshops and meetings in which stakeholders share their diverse values and needs and help develop management plans that address these needs. To be effective, such workshops and meetings should be part of a multi-layered process that addresses the deeper-rooted value-based conflict, finds common ground, and creates mutually acceptable solutions.⁶ These processes can enhance empathy and build trust between groups with different perspectives. In doing so, they can facilitate the development of collaborative solutions that are more widely accepted by the public.^6,7

For more detail see Dialogue and Social Conflict about Wolves Information Sheet

How can we have respectful and productive conversations about wolves?

Talking with friends, neighbors, co-workers, land managers, and policy makers about critical issues, such as wolves in Colorado, is normal and necessary. Talking about sensitive topics with others can be difficult, however. Numerous cognitive biases we all have operating in our subconscious minds can limit our ability to learn and share new information that will lead to better decisions for ourselves and our communities.^1,2For example, one type of bias can cause us to favor information that conforms with our existing beliefs and ignore new information.¹ Most of us think of ourselves as moral and capable.³ When we hear something that threatens our self-image, we tend to ignore or fight the new information.³

For many of us, it can be challenging to be open to new information and viewpoints, so how can we engage in meaningful dialogue about wolves in Colorado? Social science research suggests that encouraging others to think about their important values before receiving new information can reduce their defensiveness and increase their acceptance.³So, before talking about wolves, try talking with the other person about land, water, home, family, recreation and other important values. Another approach is to frame an issue in terms of what the other person cares about about.⁴ When talking about wolves, consider that your audience may care specifically about wolves, or they may care more about wilderness, hunting, ranching, or recreation. Try asking how wolves relate to those things. Another strategy is to say something positive and respectful about the other person’s point of view before presenting new information or arguments.⁵ Finally, highlight the scientific consensus around an issue.⁶ For example, if someone is concerned about the threat of wolves to human safety, you could point out that data on wolf attacks indicates that risk of wolves attacking or killing people is very low.

For more detail see Dialogue and Social Conflict about Wolves Information Sheet

Colorado Wolves

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Like to learn more about wolves in Colorado?

People and Predator Series Home Page

CHCC’s research, education, and public resources are made possible through philanthropic support. Gifts help sustain our work on human-carnivore coexistence in Colorado and beyond.