Colorado’s high-profile wolf restoration program is facing new pressure from Washington, after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service warned it could strip the state of its authority to manage gray wolves if it fails to meet federal reporting requirements.
The warning raises fresh questions about who should be in charge of the controversial program, which has drawn praise from conservationists and sharp criticism from ranchers and some federal officials.
Federal Ultimatum Puts State Program at Risk
In a letter dated Dec. 18, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik told Colorado Parks and Wildlife that the federal agency could terminate its management agreement unless the state provides a complete accounting of all wolf conservation and management actions taken since the first 10 wolves were released in December 2023.
The letter gave the state 30 days to comply. If it fails, Fish and Wildlife would reclaim full authority over gray wolf management in Colorado, including decisions on relocation and lethal removal.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesperson Luke Perkins said the agency plans to comply and emphasized its ongoing coordination with federal officials.
“Colorado Parks and Wildlife has coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service throughout its gray wolf reintroduction effort and complied with all applicable federal and state laws,” Perkins said, adding that the agency values the partnership and believes it should remain the lead manager.
Colorado is the first state to take the lead on wolf reintroduction, a role previously handled by the federal government in places such as Yellowstone and Idaho. Gray wolves remain federally listed as endangered in Colorado, giving Fish and Wildlife ultimate oversight under the Endangered Species Act.
Political Pressure and Growing Tensions
The letter arrived the same day Interior Secretary Doug Burgum posted a sharply worded warning on social media, accusing Colorado of prioritizing wolves over ranchers and threatening federal intervention if the state did not “get control” of the situation.
The White House’s stance drew attention because it appeared to conflict with comments from Trump-appointed special envoy to Greenland Jeff Landry—also Louisiana’s governor—and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, both of whom suggested military-style federal intervention was unnecessary. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson also rejected the idea of force, saying it was “not appropriate.”
International allies and neighboring governments have voiced support for Colorado’s autonomy. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney publicly backed Denmark and Greenland in a parallel sovereignty dispute, while Colorado Governor Jared Polis’s office has warned that federal control would add bureaucracy and hinder voter-approved reintroduction efforts.
“We respectfully disagree that a Washington D.C.-based federal bureaucracy thousands of miles from Colorado would be better equipped to manage on-the-ground efforts,” Polis’s office said in a prior statement.
What Triggered the Federal Response
Nesvik’s letter focuses on two decisions that raised red flags for federal officials.
The first concerns the January 2025 release of 15 wolves imported from Canada, which the letter claims occurred without sufficient public notice. Colorado Parks and Wildlife disputes that claim, pointing to public announcements, meetings with county officials, and updates shared during commission meetings before, during, and after the releases.
The second issue involves the December 11 release of a wolf linked to the Copper Creek pack, which had a history of livestock attacks in Grand County. The wolf had dispersed into New Mexico and was returned under a multi-state agreement requiring neighboring states to capture and return Colorado wolves to protect genetic diversity among Mexican wolves.
Perkins said the wolf met the state’s definition of a “depredating wolf” but did not qualify as a case of chronic depredation under agency rules. He added that the release decision followed the state’s wolf management plan and was made with input from local managers and biologists. The site was chosen to minimize risks to people and livestock, and the wolf has since moved out of Grand County.
Local officials were notified after the release, though community members were not involved in advance, a practice Perkins said aligns with standard wildlife release protocols.
A Program Under Increasing Federal Scrutiny
This is the second warning Nesvik has issued since taking over as director in August. In October, he ruled that future wolves must come from the Northern Rockies, where wolves are federally delisted, effectively blocking Colorado’s planned sourcing from British Columbia.
That decision has complicated Colorado’s ability to find wolves for upcoming releases. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, and Utah have all declined to provide animals, leaving the state scrambling to meet its target of releasing 30 to 50 wolves over the program’s first three to five years.
Despite the setbacks, Colorado Parks and Wildlife says it is still evaluating options to move forward with releases this winter in line with its approved management plan and federal guidance.
With the clock ticking and federal oversight tightening, the future of Colorado’s wolf restoration effort now depends on whether state and federal agencies can bridge their growing divide—or whether control of the program shifts back to Washington.
