Over the weekend, the state of Washington denied Colorado’s request for up to 15 gray wolves to continue its wolf reintroduction program.

Kelly Susewind, director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the request was biologically possible, but the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission rejected it, citing a lack of public support and wolves’ endangered status in the state. 

Colorado turned to Washington after the newly appointed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik told Colorado Parks and Wildlife that Colorado could no longer source wolves from British Columbia. Parks and Wildlife received 15 wolves from the province in January and had signed an agreement to receive another 15 this winter. 

According to Nesvik, per Colorado’s 10(j) agreement with the federal agency, the state can only source wolves from northern Rockies states where gray wolves are not listed federally as endangered. This includes Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and portions of Oregon, Washington, and Utah. While Parks and Wildlife has reported that it has a different interpretation of the agreement, it is working to comply with Nesvik’s direction and source wolves from this region. 

Among the other eligible states, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming all declined in 2023 to participate in Colorado’s wolf restoration. When asked which states the agency is coordinating with, Luke Perkins, spokesperson for Parks and Wildlife, said Monday that the agency “​​continues to evaluate all options to support this year’s gray wolf releases.”  

Jeff Davis, director of Parks and Wildlife, told the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission on Saturday, Nov. 15, that Colorado’s successful implementation of its wolf recovery law — as mandated by voters in 2020 — requires “a healthy and diverse foundational wolf population, successful implementation of our coexistence programs, a strong livestock compensation program, and strong wolf prey populations.”

“We have all, with the exception of the healthy and diverse foundational population at this point,” Davis said. “Adding another year of relocations will be critical to get us over the minimum number of wolves our plan calls for and increase the likelihood of breeding pairs to put us on the trajectory that our state law requires and support recovery in the southern Rocky Mountains.”

Colorado’s wolf plan recommends that the state release 30 to 50 wolves in the first three to five years of the restoration program. So far, Parks and Wildlife has released 25 wolves in the first two years — 10 from Oregon in December 2023 and 15 from British Columbia in January.   

Less scrolling. More knowing.

Sign up for daily or weekly newsletters at SummitDaily.com/newsletter

Davis told the Washington commission that Colorado wildlife officials had time through February to relocate wolves this winter. 

Washington weighs in on Colorado wolf restoration 

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife co-manages the state’s wolf population — estimated at 230 wolves in 43 packs in December 2024 — in partnership with the state’s tribes, primarily the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. 

In 2024, the Coville Tribes agreed to supply Colorado with up to 15 wolves for its second release. However, they rescinded their offer eight months later, citing concerns over tribal relations between Colorado’s tribes and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Parks and Wildlife has reportedly been working to improve and grow its tribal relationships regarding wolves since the offer was rescinded.  

The Washington wildlife agency’s director, Susewind, told the commission that its staff felt that “biologically, we can accommodate (Colorado’s) request should you choose to go that way without interfering with our recovery efforts.” 

However, commissioners and Washington citizens pushed back, arguing the state’s wolves were not recovered enough to accommodate Colorado’s needs. 

“I think that probably it’s not a good policy to be removing 15 wolves from an endangered species population,” said John Lehmkuhl, vice chair of the Washington wildlife commission. “The definition of an endangered species in the rules is seriously threatened with extinction in the state.” 

Gray wolves in Washington are listed as endangered under state law and the federal Endangered Species Act in the western two-thirds of the state. 

Washington constituents at the meeting said the state’s wolf population was facing too many threats, was too fragile and had not recovered enough — many citing the 9% population drop last year, the first decline since it started estimating wolf populations — to give any to Colorado. 

“This is really not a biological issue; it is almost exclusively a policy issue,” said Lorna Smith, a Washington Wildlife and Fish commissioner. “We have heard over yesterday and this morning a rare and beautiful level of consensus across the spectrum of our stakeholders, that there is no support for translocating Washington wolves to Colorado.”

Opposition to the translocation also extends to Colorado communities and citizens, who were vocally against the request before and during the meeting. The Grand County commissioners sent a letter to Washington’s wildlife commission, requesting that the wolves remain in Washington “where they are most likely to survive and contribute to long-term recovery success.” 

“Colorado must first strengthen its own programs, ensure adequate mitigation measures and assess outcomes before any further releases occur,” wrote the Grand County commissioners, adding that it has been part of the counties, organizations, and individuals requesting that Colorado Parks and Wildlife take a year-long break in wolf releases.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife and its commission made it clear last week that they are working toward a third release this winter, despite challenges in finding a source for the wolves and repeated requests to pause reintroduction. 

The only support for the ask came from Coloradans who expressed support for Parks and Wildlife’s conflict-reduction efforts and said a third release was critical to support Colorado’s fragile, burgeoning wolf population. 

“Colorado’s nascent wolf population of about 25 or 30 wolves with four successful packs with pups is still simply too small with too little genetic diversity to be self-sustaining,” said Delia Malone, an ecologist living in the Roaring Fork Valley and wildlife chair of the Colorado chapter of the Sierra Club. “A vengeful federal interference has put Colorado’s wolves in an untenable situation.” 

This support was ultimately outmatched as the Washington commission voted that now was not the time to supply Colorado with wolves, but that it would reconsider should the wolves see a state delisting in the future.