Colorado Proposition 114, Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative (2020)

Colorado Proposition 114
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Forests and parks and Environment
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Colorado measuresColorado Amendment 76Colorado Amendment 77Colorado Amendment BColorado Amendment CColorado Proposition 113Colorado Proposition 114Colorado Proposition 115Colorado Proposition 116Colorado Proposition 117Colorado Proposition 118Colorado Proposition EESubmit

Colorado Proposition 114, the Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative, was on the ballot in Colorado as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported requiring the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to create a plan to reintroduce and manage gray wolves on designated lands west of the continental divide by the end of 2023.

A "no" vote opposed creating a plan to reintroduce and manage gray wolves on designated lands west of the continental divide by the end of 2023.

Aftermath

Status of reintroduction efforts and management

On December 18, 2023, five wolves were released in Grand County at an undisclosed location after being captured and brought in from Oregon. Two juvenile males, two juvenile females, and one adult male wolf were released with radio tracking collars. Colorado Parks and Wildlife planned to repeat the process until 10 to 15 wolves are released by the middle of March 2024.

Information about the status of reintroduction efforts and management can be found at the Colorado Parks and Wildlife's website, which is available here.

Status of gray wolves on the endangered species list

On October 29, 2020, United States Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt announced that the gray wolf would be delisted from the Endangered Species Act. On November 5, environmental groups including the Sierra Club, which supported Proposition 114, notified the Interior Department of their intent to sue over the delisting. Joint Budget Committee analyst Justin Brakke wrote that if the legal challenge is successful in keeping wolves on the endangered species list, Colorado Parks and Wildlife would not be able to reintroduce wolves without U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval. With gray wolves removed from the list, Colorado Parks and Wildlife could implement the reintroduction plan without federal approval.

Election results

Colorado Proposition 114
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,590,299	50.91%
No		1,533,313	49.09%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Proposition 114 do?

See also: Measure design

The measure was designed to require the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to create and carry out a plan to reintroduce and manage gray wolves (Canis lupus) by the end of 2023. Under the measure, wolves were set to be reintroduced on Colorado lands west of the continental divide. The exact location of wolf reintroductions was set to be determined by the commission. The commission was set to manage any distribution of state funds that are made available to "pay fair compensation to owners of livestock for any losses of livestock caused by gray wolves." The measure directs the state legislature to make appropriations to fund the reintroduction program.

What was the status of gray wolves in Colorado?

See also: Background information

Gray wolves were present throughout the U.S., including Colorado, before the arrival of Europeans in North America. By the 1930s, gray wolves were eradicated from most of the western U.S, mainly due to predator control programs and habitat degradation. The last gray wolves in Colorado were killed around 1940. The gray wolf was classified as a federally endangered species in 1978 (except in Minnesota, where the species was classified as threatened). Gray wolves were reintroduced in Idaho and Montana in 1995 and Yellowstone National Park in 1996. In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the gray as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the Northern Rocky Mountains. In March 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting the gray wolf as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act across the continental U.S. The Fish and Wildlife Service wrote that the wolves "are no longer in danger of extinction or at risk of becoming so in the foreseeable future." The Rocky Wolf Mountain Action Fund said removing wolves from the endangered species list would result in losing restoration progress that has been made.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 114?

See also: Support and Opposition

The campaign supporting the initiative raised $2.4 million in contributions. Opponents of the initiative raised $1.06 million.

The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund (RMWAF), associated with the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Wolf Project, is leading the support campaign for the initiative. The campaign raised $2.4 million. The largest donors were Richard Pritzlaff and the Tides Center that gave $583,775 and $402,756, respectively. RMWAF said that the reintroduction of wolves would restore natural balance to ecosystems. RMWAF President Rob Edward said, "Gray wolves are the ecological engines of the northern hemisphere." Edward said, "Since the 1940s, when Colorado's last wolf was killed, our ecosystem has suffered, knocked out of balance. Without wolves keeping them alert and moving around, elk and deer strip away vital streamside vegetation, leading to erosion and the disruption of habitat, threatening beavers, songbirds, and even native trout."

Coloradans Protecting Wildlife and Stop the Wolf PAC are leading the campaign in opposition to the initiative. Together, the campaigns had raised $1.06 million. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Colorado Farm Bureau were the top two donors. The Colorado Farm Bureau's Vice President of Advocacy, Shawn Martini, said, "We remain skeptical that you can introduce wolves into Colorado and not create significant problems. Not only to our way of life here in the state which is based on outdoor recreations but also on livestock production in the western part of the state and to the ecosystem. Colorado is home to a number of endangered species that could be potentially be preyed upon by an apex predator like the Canadian gray wolf. So we’re skeptical that these kinds of decisions should be put in the hands of voters through a ballot initiative."

Measure design

Proposition 114 was designed to require the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to create a plan to reintroduce and manage gray wolves on designated lands west of the continental divide by the end of 2023. Under the measure, the commission was directed to do the following:

• develop a plan to reintroduce gray wolves "using the best scientific data available";
• hold hearings across the state to gather information to be used in developing the plan;
• update the plan after obtaining public input periodically; and
• reintroduce wolves on designated lands by December 31, 2023.

Under the measure, the commission was tasked with paying "fair compensation to owners of livestock for any losses of livestock caused by gray wolves." The commission is not able to impose any restrictions on private landowners regarding land, water, or resource use in furtherance of the plan.

The reintroduction plan must comply with Colorado Revised Statutes § 33-2-105.7, which outlines reporting requirements. Under the measure, the commission must prepare a report with data on the potential economic and ecological impacts of reintroduction, projected survival rates of the animals being reintroduced, and the potential impacts of not reintroducing the animal. The report must be submitted to the general assembly within 30 days of its completion. For five years, the commission must prepare an annual report with data on the status of the reintroduction effort, survival rates of the reintroduced animal, and goals and timelines of the reintroduction program.

The measure directed the state legislature to make appropriations to fund the reintroduction program and authorizes the legislature to adopt legislation to further the goals under the initiative to reintroduce gray wolves to Colorado.

According to the fiscal impact statement prepared for the initiative by the Colorado Legislative Council Staff, implementation of the measure for the first two years would require state expenditures of about $344,400 in the fiscal year 2021-22 and about $467,400 in FY 2022-23. According to the statement, expenditures would increase as the reintroduction plan is implemented and wolves are reintroduced.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 114 is below:

“

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the restoration of gray wolves through their reintroduction on designated lands in Colorado located west of the continental divide, and, in connection therewith, requiring the Colorado parks and wildlife commission, after holding statewide hearings and using scientific data, to implement a plan to restore and manage gray wolves; prohibiting the commission from imposing any land, water, or resource use restrictions on private landowners to further the plan; and requiring the commission to fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves?

”

Summary and analysis

The summary and analysis provided for this measure in the 2020 State Ballot Information Booklet are available on page 37 at this link.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“ State spending. Proposition 114 increases state spending by approximately $300,000 in state budget year 2021-22 and $500,000 in state budget year 2022-23 for public outreach and development of a gray wolf reintroduction plan. Beginning in state budget year 2023-24, spending will increase to about $800,000 per year for the implementation of the wolf reintroduction plan. Implementation costs will only be incurred if federal approval is received, or gray wolves are no longer listed as endangered and the state is able to begin its reintroduction plan. Costs will be paid primarily from hunting and fishing license fees or appropriations made by the state legislature. Actual state spending will depend on the details of the plan developed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and the amount of livestock losses caused by wolves. ”

Full text

The full text of the measure can be read below.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Colorado Title Board wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 25, and the FRE is 1. The word count for the ballot title is 94, and the estimated reading time is 25 seconds.

Support

The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund (RMWAF) led the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Former Officials

• former USFWS lead on the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program Dave Parsons
• former Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission chair Jim Pribyl
• Former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter (D)
• Former U.S. Senator Mark Udall (D)

Organizations

• Global Indigenous Council
• Progress Now Colorado
• Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
• Sierra Club Colorado

Individuals

• Tim Ferriss - author, podcaster, entrepreneur

Arguments

• Erika Moore of the Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center: "Bringing back wolves is hopefully going to have the same effect it did in Yellowstone where it actually revived the ecosystem. We do believe that wolves are necessary for the ecosystem. The ecosystems cannot support how many elk and deer we have, and over time we’re going to start to see a degradation of ecosystems due to that."
• Tim Ferriss: Tim Ferriss, an investor, entrepreneur, and author, donated $100,000 to the support campaign as a matching donation after his readers and listeners donated $117,578 on August 28, 2019. Ferriss said, "I’m making a $100K bet on a time-sensitive opportunity: reintroducing wolves to Colorado, and, in doing so, reconnecting wolves from Canada to Mexico. Western Colorado is the missing piece. As ecologists have told me, and as far as I know, this is the only clear opportunity in the world to reestablish a major carnivore at a continental scale."
• Rob Edward, president of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project: "Since the 1940s, when Colorado's last wolf was killed, our ecosystem has suffered, knocked out of balance. Without wolves keeping them alert and moving around, elk and deer strip away vital streamside vegetation, leading to erosion and the disruption of habitat, threatening beavers, songbirds, and even native trout. This November, Coloradans can Restore the Howl by voting Yes on Prop 114.”
• The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund: The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund wrote that actions taken after the gray wolf was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act "have led to the restoration of roughly 6,000 wolves in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington, as of 2016. However, recent lobbying efforts have attempted to remove the gray wolf from the protections of the ESA, putting them at risk of losing the progress made to restore them to their natural habitats. It's on us to bring them home for good."
• Gary Skiba, forner wildlife biologist at the Colorado Division of Wildlife: "We know that wolves strongly and positively affect ecosystems wherever they live. The restoration of wolves to Yellowstone National Park is informative. ... The bottom line is that wolves helped improve ecological conditions throughout the northern Rockies, and they will do the same in Colorado. ... Proposition 107 provides an outstanding opportunity for Colorado’s public to set public policy. When the measure passes, the people will have made their desires clear, and the wildlife professionals in Colorado Parks and Wildlife will then use their well-respected expertise and knowledge to implement that direction and restore a native species."
• Jim Pribyl, former chair of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission: "By voting yes on Proposition 114, we are taking politicians out of the picture and instead directing Colorado Parks and Wildlife to develop, with public input, a science-based plan to safely reintroduce wolves across 17 million acres of public land in a manner that respects ranchers and begins the process of restoring Colorado's natural balance for this and future generations. In the mid-1990s, about 40 wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park, and we expect that CPW will follow that model and reintroduce roughly the same number in Colorado."
• Bill Ritter, Jr., former Colorado Governor: "Colorado’s economy depends both on agriculture and on maintaining healthy and robust mountain ecosystems where people come from all over the country to watch wildlife, hunt, and fish, and recreate. Wolves can help restore the natural balance of western Colorado’s vast public lands and improve the health, diversity and resilience of our mountain ecosystems to climate change."

Official arguments

• Official Blue Book argument: "1) Gray wolves perform important ecological functions that impact other plants and animals. Without them, deer and elk can over-graze sensitive habitats such as riverbanks, leading to declines in ecosystem health. Leftover prey can also provide food for other scavengers such as birds and smaller mammals. Reintroducing gray wolves can help support a healthy environment upon which Coloradans depend. 2) Reintroduction is necessary to ensure that a permanent gray wolf population is restored to western Colorado. Through eradication efforts such as bounty programs, gray wolves were eliminated in Colorado by the 1940s. While there have been sightings in Colorado, it is uncertain gray wolves will establish a permanent population on their own. The measure aligns with other states’ successful recovery efforts while considering Colorado’s interests."

Opposition

Coloradans Protecting Wildlife (Rethink Wolves) and Coloradans Defending Our Wildlife led the campaign in opposition to the initiative. Rethink Wolves provided a full list of endorsements, which can be found here.

Opponents

Officials

• Utah State Representative Logan Wilde (R)

Former Officials

• Rick Enstrom (R) -

Political Parties

• Republican Party of Colorado

Government Entities

• El Paso County Commission

Organizations

• Colorado Cattlemen's Association
• Colorado Farm Bureau
• Colorado Stop the Wolf Coalition
• Colorado Wool Growers Association
• Rocky Mountain Farmers Union
• Rocky Mountain Farmers Union
• The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Individuals

• Ted Nugent -

Local governments

• El Paso County, Colorado

Arguments

• Stop the Wolf Coalition: "Forced wolf introduction is not only a disastrous idea that will impact our wildlife, livestock, and Colorado's growing population, but it's also not fair to the wolves."
• Colorado Farm Bureau Vice President of Advocacy Shawn Martini: "We remain skeptical that you can introduce wolves into Colorado and not create significant problems. Not only to our way of life here in the state which is based on outdoor recreations but also on livestock production in the western part of the state and to the ecosystem. Colorado is home to a number of endangered species that could be potentially be preyed upon by an apex predator like the Canadian gray wolf. So we’re skeptical that these kinds of decisions should be put in the hands of voters through a ballot initiative."
• Colorado Farm Bureau Executive Vice President Chad Vorthmann: After a pack of wolves was reported in northwestern Colorado in October, Colorado Farm Bureau Executive Vice President Chad Vorthmann said, "Just as predicted, wolves are making their way into Colorado on their own. This measure is pointless and will only lead to wasted taxpayer dollars and increased bureaucracy. The proponents should let mother nature work its magic, stop trying to impose their will on the natural world, and retract their ballot measure."
• Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Chief Conservation Officer Blake Henning: "A forced introduction of wolves to Colorado would cost untold amounts of taxpayer dollars, redirect already limited wildlife management resources and would have a significant negative economic impact to the state. In Colorado, you are dealing with about a third of the land mass of the Northern Rockies’ states but almost double the human population. A forced reintroduction would trigger the potential for real issues in the state."
• Former state wildlife commissioner Rick Enstrom: "There are two issues. One is the effect on the people in the pickup trucks doing the Lord’s work for the Forest Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, who are in short supply on both sides. The other big problem is that the funding structure is predicated on the sale of big game licenses. That’s the money we [use to] manage everything, from greenback trout to Prebles meadow jumping mice to stocking trout, to the establishment of state wildlife areas and their management. Any time you do anything to a budget they just start taking it out of other budgets because there is no extra money."
• Former Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologist and wildlife manager Al Trujillo: "The last time a wildlife-related ballot measure was voted on we ended up with an abundance of black bears in our cities, our neighborhoods, our homes and in our cars. I’ve often wondered what Colorado looked like 300 years ago when wolves, buffalo and grizzly bear thrived across our great state; but after spending one-half of my life managing human/wildlife conflicts, I’m brought back to reality having concluded that in year 2020 there are nearly 6 million reasons why a wolf introduction is not a good idea."
• Ted Nugent: "The wolf is a liability wherever they are found. They destroy livestock, they destroy quality of life and they destroy the livestock populations that the conservation families of Colorado have brought back to excellent, thriving conditions."

Official arguments

• Official Blue Book argument: 1) The presence of gray wolves can cause conflict with humans and animals that live in Colorado now. Gray wolves are known to prey on livestock. Deer herds in some areas have fallen below population goals established by state wildlife managers, and introducing another predator would put further pressure on these herds. In addition, many people live and recreate in areas being considered for gray wolf habitat. 2) Gray wolves from neighboring states have been observed in Colorado, including a wolf pack in northwest Colorado in 2020. This suggests that wolves may be establishing a presence in the state on their own, making a reintroduction program unnecessary. Allowing wolves to come back on their own, rather than through an intentional reintroduction, could give Coloradans more time to adapt to their presence."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through November 30, 2020.

Two committees registered to support the initiative: Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund (RMWAF) and Sierra Club- Elect the Wolf. The committees reported $2.4 million in contributions and $2.4 million in expenditures. RMWAF paid a total of $1.12 million to Landslide Political for signature gathering.

Two committees registered to oppose the initiative: Stop the Wolf PAC and Coloradans Protecting Wildlife. The committees reported $1.06 million in contributions and $1.05 million in expenditures.

All committees except Coloradans Protecting Wildlife had filed their final reports on December 3, 2020, which covered information through November 30, 2020. A report is due from Coloradans Protecting Wildlife on April 15, 2021, covering information from December 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$2,203,344.01	$199,735.00	$2,403,079.01	$2,203,089.62	$2,402,824.62
Oppose	$970,184.14	$90,000.00	$1,060,184.14	$959,595.67	$1,049,595.67

Support

Committees in support of Proposition 114
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund	$2,188,232.01	$196,325.00	$2,384,557.01	$2,188,428.93	$2,384,753.93
Sierra Club-Elect the Wolf	$15,112.00	$3,410.00	$18,522.00	$14,660.69	$18,070.69
Total	$2,203,344.01	$199,735.00	$2,403,079.01	$2,203,089.62	$2,402,824.62

Donors

The following are the top donors to the support campaign.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Richard Pritzlaff	$583,775.00	$0.00	$583,775.00
Tides Center	$402,756.07	$0.00	$402,756.07
Defenders of Wildlife	$275,600.00	$73,000.00	$348,600.00
Tim Ferriss	$0.00	$122,500.00	$122,500.00
Association of Zoos and Aquariums	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Proposition 114
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Coloradans Protecting Wildlife	$797,613.97	$73,000.00	$870,613.97	$796,765.50	$869,765.50
Stop the Wolf PAC	$172,570.17	$17,000.00	$189,570.17	$162,830.17	$179,830.17
Total	$970,184.14	$90,000.00	$1,060,184.14	$959,595.67	$1,049,595.67

Donors

The following are the top donors to the opposition campaign.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation	$307,500.00	$62,000.00	$369,500.00
Colorado Farm Bureau	$107,700.00	$0.00	$107,700.00
Buffalo Horn Ranch	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Safari Club International	$70,800.00	$0.00	$70,800.00
Kent Stevinson	$54,200.00	$0.00	$54,200.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• Durango Herald Editorial Board: "The anxiety and delirium around returning wolves are misplaced. Wolves are good for a restored ecosystem and even essential but their reintroduction is not by itself going to work miracles. And when we talk about putting apex predators back in an ecosystem, back to when? Before wild lands were replaced with pasture, where a wolf today will find its enemy as well as an easy meal? That is what it means to do this over the objections of people with livestock. If you want to return wolves, get them on board. There are people who work to minimize human-predator conflicts, like the group People and Carnivores. They can help. It will be tricky – but humans are good with stuff like that."
• Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Gray wolves are large predatory canines that live in packs. Up until four decades ago, such wolves were found throughout the Rocky Mountain West. Because of human activities, including widespread hunting and trapping, these wolves are no longer in our state. This carefully written measure would allow Colorado to join other states in helping bring back the gray wolf, once an apex species in our state. Vote Yes on Prop 114."
• Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: "A ballot measure may not be the best way to achieve reintroduction, but given the historic reluctance of both the CPW commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake such a plan, it may be the only way forward."
• Denver Post Editorial Board: "Colorado voters are fully capable of parsing complicated information to determine if wolves would be a net benefit or a net cost to the state, and whether ranchers would be so adversely impacted that state and federal restitution efforts cannot make them whole. ... After mulling the healthier ecosystems in states with wolf populations against the fairly limited (although not insignificant) livestock kills in those states, The Denver Post editorial board, lands on the side of supporting the gradual reintroduction of wolves called for by Proposition 114 beginning by Dec. 31, 2023."

Opposition

• Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board: "We urge voters to decline to support the petition. Wolf reintroduction may or may not be a good Colorado. But we think that's for the experts to decide. Other states have made that determination based on the judgment of federal and state wildlife managers. Why should Colorado be any different?"
• Journal-Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "We are not convinced reintroduction can be accomplished without damage to the ecosystem, and prefer to have nature take its course as the means of whether or not reintroduction occurs."

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2020 ballot measure polls

In a poll conducted by Colorado State University and survey company Qualtrics in August 2019, it was found that 84% of Coloradans would vote in favor of gray wolf reintroduction and 16% would vote against. Analysts of the survey wrote, "Voting intentions were similar across the different regions of Colorado: 84.9% of sampled respondents in the Front Range, 79.8% on the Western Slope, and 79.3% on the Eastern Plains would vote for wolf reintroduction. The proportion that would vote in favor of wolf reintroduction was relatively similar among residents in cities, towns, or rural areas and individuals with and without children. Pet owners were more likely to vote for wolf reintroduction (88.3%) than those that did not own pets (76.4%). Voting intentions were broadly consistent across demographic categories, including gender, age group, income, and education." Poll results are displayed below.

Colorado Proposition 114, Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative (2020)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Margin of error	Sample size
Colorado State University/Qualtrics poll August 2019	84%	16%	+/-7	734
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Gray wolves in Colorado

The U.S. Department of Justice wrote, "The gray wolf (Canis lupus) once occupied nearly all of North America. Wolves, like other large predators in North America, were persecuted shortly after colonization by Europeans began and throughout the settlement period. Gradually, wolves were extirpated from the contiguous 48 states except Minnesota." According to Stephen Guertin, a deputy director for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, "extensive predator control programs, magnified by the use of bounties, and combined with habitat degradation and a declining prey base, resulted in the extirpation of wolves from most of the lower 48 states early in the 20th century, with the exception of only a few hundred remaining wolves in northern Minnesota and Isle Royale in Michigan." According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the last gray wolves in the state were killed around 1940. In December 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that there were 1,782 wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains region, including 333 in one of Colorado's neighboring states—Wyoming. There were no wolves recorded in Colorado. The following map from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service illustrates the historic and current (published in 2019) range of the gray wolf:

Gray wolf listed as an endangered species

The gray wolf was classified as a federally endangered species in 1978 (except in Minnesota, where the species was classified as threatened). Gray wolves were reintroduced in Idaho and Montana in 1995 and in Yellowstone National Park in 1996. In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the gray wolf as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the Northern Rocky Mountains (Idaho, Montana, eastern Washington and Oregon, and north-central Utah).

2019 proposal to delist gray wolves from federal endangered species list

In March of 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting the gray wolf as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service wrote, "The finding of our review was clear – the gray wolf has recovered by any and all measures required under the ESA. Gray wolves are no longer in danger of extinction or at risk of becoming so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of the species’ range. Once the science indicates a species has recovered, it is the obligation of the Service to delist it and return management authority to the states so that we can focus our limited resources on those species that still require conservation attention."

Zack Strong, an attorney for environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council, said, "In our view, this proposal is premature because wolf recovery in the lower 48 states is not yet complete. Wolves have not yet returned to significant areas where they once existed historically and where there is still suitable habitat." Collette Adkins, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, said, "[T]he Act defines an endangered or threatened species in terms of significant portions of its range. If you just ignore all those areas where [wolves] once lived and look at the few places where they’re doing well and say 'Oh, well, they’re doing well here. We can remove the protections,' then you never will really get to true conservation and recovery."

Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is a governor-appointed board of 11 citizens that oversees Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). The 11 voting members of the commission include three sportspersons (one of whom must be an outfitter); three agricultural producers; three recreationalists (one of whom must be from a nonprofit, non-consumptive wildlife organization); and two at-large members. At least four commissioners must be from west of the continental divide. Ex-officio members include the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Agriculture. The mission of Colorado Parks and Wildlife is to "[Balance] the conservation of our wildlife and habitat with the recreational needs of our state."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The state process

In Colorado, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado secretary of state in the preceding general election. For initiated constitutional amendments, signature gathering must be distributed to include signatures equal to 2 percent of the registered voters who live in each of the state's 35 senate districts.

State law provides that petitioners have six months to collect signatures after the ballot language and title are finalized. State statutes require a completed signature petition to be filed three months and three weeks before the election at which the measure would appear on the ballot. The Constitution, however, states that the petition must be filed three months before the election at which the measure would appear. The secretary of state generally lists a date that is three months before the election as the filing deadline.

Constitutional amendments in Colorado require a 55% supermajority vote to be ratified and added to the state constitution. This requirement was added by Amendment 71 of 2016.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2020 ballot:

• Signatures: 124,632 valid signatures
• Deadline: August 3, 2020

The secretary of state is responsible for signature verification. Verification is conducted through a review of petitions regarding correct form and then a 5 percent random sampling verification. If the sampling projects between 90 percent and 110 percent of required valid signatures, a full check of all signatures is required. If the sampling projects more than 110 percent of the required signatures, the initiative is certified. If less than 90 percent, the initiative fails.

In Colorado, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado secretary of state in the preceding general election. Petitioners have six months to collect signatures after the ballot language and title are finalized.

Signatures for this initiative were due on December 13, 2019.

Details about this initiative

• CEO of the Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center (CWWC) Darlene Maria Kobobel and Gail Bell filed two versions of the initiative: #107 and #79.
• Version #107 of the initiative was approved for circulation on June 21, 2019.
• Proponents submitted 215,370 signatures on December 10, 2019.
• The Colorado Secretary of State's office announced the measure made the ballot on January 6, 2020, after finding through a random sample that proponents submitted about 139,333 valid signatures.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Landslide Political to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,122,630.00 was spent to collect the 124,632 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $9.01.

Potential compromise legislation

On January 24, 2020, state Senator Kerry Donovan (D) introduced Senate Bill 20-121, which would authorize the management and possible reintroduction of gray wolves, as a possible compromise bill with initiative proponents. SB 121 would set wolf reintroduction to begin in 2025, two years later than the date set by the initiative. Under SB 121, reintroduction could not begin until "a new source of revenue becomes available to pay for damages caused by gray wolves," and would be canceled if the gray wolf population in Colorado becomes self-sustaining.

Donovan said, "This initiative allows for a certain amount of conversation. But with an issue as complex as this, which seems to be in flux with a pack moving into the northwest, I think it’s appropriate to take the deliberative process the general assembly allows and apply it to wildlife management in Colorado."

Rob Edwards, president of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund, which led the campaign in support of the initiative, said, "There are provisions in there that are just poison pills for us. So there’s a lot of work to be done." Edwards said the date for reintroduction would need to be sooner and a definition would need to be given for "self-sustaining population."

If a compromise bill was agreed upon between legislators and initiative proponents, initiative proponents have until September 4, 2020, to withdraw their measure from the ballot. More information on Senate Bill 121 can be found here.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Colorado

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Colorado.

How to cast a vote in Colorado

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times In Colorado, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time for those who choose to vote in person rather than by mail. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration requirements Check your voter registration status here. In Colorado, an individual can register to vote if he or she is at least 16 years old and will be 18 by Election Day. A voter must be a citizen of the United States who has lived in Colorado at least 22 days prior to Election Day. Colorado voters can register to vote through Election Day. However, in order to automatically receive a mail-in ballot, a voter must register at least eight days prior to Election Day. A voter can register online or submit a form in person or by fax, email, or mail. Automatic registration Colorado automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Colorado has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Colorado allows same-day voter registration for individuals who vote in person. Residency requirements Colorado law requires 22 days of residency in the state before a person may vote. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Colorado does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. Verifying your registration The site Go Vote Colorado, run by the Colorado Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Colorado requires voters to present non-photo identification when voting in person. If voting by mail for the first, a voter may also need to return a photocopy of his or her identification with his or her mail-in ballot. Click here for more information. The following list of accepted forms of identification was current as of April 2023. Click here for the most current information, sourced directly from the Office of the Colorado Secretary of State. “ The following documents are acceptable forms of identification: A valid Colorado driver’s license or valid identification card issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Note: documents issued to not lawfully present and temporarily lawfully present individuals under Part 5 of Article 2 of Title 42, C.R.S. are not acceptable forms of identification.) A valid U.S. passport. A valid employee identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. government or of Colorado, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of Colorado. A valid pilot’s license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the U.S. A valid U.S. military identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector. A copy of a current (within the last 60 days) utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector. A Certificate of Degree of Indian or Alaskan Native Blood. A valid Medicare or Medicaid card issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate for the elector. Certified documentation of naturalization. A valid student identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by an institute of higher education in *Colorado, as defined in section 23-3.1-102(5), C.R.S.. A valid veteran identification card issued by the U.S. department of veterans affairs veterans health administration with a photograph of the eligible elector. A valid identification card issued by a federally recognized tribal government certifying tribal membership. Any form of identification listed above that shows your address must show a Colorado address to qualify as an acceptable form of identification. The following documents are also considered acceptable forms of identification for voting: Verification that a voter is a resident of a group residential facility, as defined in section 1-1-104(18.5), C.R.S. Verification that a voter is a person committed to the department of human services and confined and eligible to register and vote shall be considered sufficient identification of such person for the purposes of section 1-2-210.5, C.R.S. Written correspondence from the county sheriff or his or her designee to the county clerk indicating that a voter is confined in a county jail or detention facility. ” }}

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Forests and parks on the ballot
• Environment on the ballot
• Hunting and fishing on the ballot
• 2020 petition deadlines

Colorado

• Colorado ballot measures
• Colorado initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Initiative 107 full text
• Colorado Ballot Information Booklet (Blue Book)
• Colorado Secretary of State: Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results
• Initiatives filed with the Legislative Council Staff

Support

• Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund campaign website
• Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund Facebook page
• Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund Twitter page

Opposition

• Rethink Wolves/ Coloradans Protecting Wildlife campaign website
• RethinkWolves Facebook page