03-27-25 *INTERVIEW* Rachel Gable of The Fence Post Magazine on Wolf Reintroduction in Colorado

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Joining us is Rachel Gable, and Rachel is assistant editor
of the Fence Post magazine, and she writes weekly for
the Denver and Colorado Springs Gazettes and Colorado Politics, part
of the same family of papers. They are about ag
and rural issues, and she raises cattle as well in
northeastern Colorado. And I read a piece at Colorado Politics

(00:23):
that really one actually I read too, one by Rachel
and one kind of about Rachel that surprised me a
little bit, and so I wanted to have Rachel on
in the bottom line is this. We've talked a bit
on the show about this potential ballot measure to repeal
the previous ballot measure that required wolfree introduction into the
state of Colorado. So there's a move afoot to repeal

(00:45):
it with another ballot measure. And what surprised me were
these stories about how ranchers and elected officials in rural
counties are not necessarily or simply not on board with it.
I'm very surprised, and Rachel seems like she probably knows
more about it than anybody else. So with that overly
long introduction, Rachel Gable, welcome to Kowa.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
Well, thank you, good morning, Thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
Did I say anything wrong there? Just as a starting punt, Okay, No,
we're all good. Okay, So just let's jump right in.
Why since a lot of ranchers and people who do
what you do for a living are displeased with the
forced reintroduction of wolves, why are many people who are
in that line of work or politicians who represent people

(01:30):
in that line of work against the ballot measure to
repeal the previous ballot measure. Sure?

Speaker 2 (01:37):
Well, you know this dates back to twenty twenty when
the effort to reintroduce or introduce wolves to Colorado began,
and it was at that point that stakeholders, so farmers, ranchers, landowners,
rural communities, outfitters, hunters, pro wolf advocates, all of those
stakeholders began engaging with Colorado Park and Wildlife and with

(02:01):
the groups that they started to receive that technical advice,
that stakeholder advice. And so this has been an ongoing
conversation with all of these stakeholders dating back almost well
five years. And this is kind of a Johnny Coom
Lately sort of initiative efforts, and it's led by you know,

(02:24):
it's led by someone who has a lot of political
experience but not a lot of familiarity with the stakeholders.
So the stakeholders have gone through the process, They've gone
through the avenues that CPW and the Commission has and
the legislature has presented so that they can be a
part of that conversation. And then this new ballot initiative

(02:46):
is seeking to originally repeal the entire thing, which would
have also repealed the Colorado Wolf Plan. Part of that
was the management, all of the different phases of management,
and the compensation plan for ranchers who suffer losses. So
if all of that went away, then all we would

(03:06):
be left with was wolves and no way to manage
them and no way to be compensated. So they did
tweak it a bit, so it wasn't a complete repeal.
But right now, what it does is it sets a
hard end date for the releases. Now, in one pin fourteen,
it wanted the fifty or so thirty to fifty wolves

(03:28):
three to five years, so we would have wrapped up
in twenty seven twenty eight, depending on the numbers. So
this puts a hard stop at twenty twenty six, and
of course that's when it would be on the ballot.
So while I appreciate the spirit of it, they don't
have the support of the stakeholders because it tries to

(03:50):
circumvent all of the work that's been done over the
last five years and it's frankly just a little bit
too late.

Speaker 1 (03:56):
Interesting, So conceptually, do you support the idea idea of,
you know, putting a stop to more wolves being forcibly
reintroduced at the end of twenty twenty six.

Speaker 2 (04:09):
I like the idea of having an end date that
three to five years is a little a little loosey
goosey for me. And you know, if you asked what
it asked, one fourteen wanted a sustainable population, but it
never defined what a sustainable population is. And you know,
Colorado was constantly compared to Yellowstone, which we are not.

(04:32):
There are six million people in the state, and between
the tribal lands that had to have a buffer, the
Mexican wolf population to the south and to the west
that needed a buffer, Wyoming, which obviously does not appreciate
our wolves coming and eating their livestock. Between all of
those things, it's a very shrinking habitat. So I'm not

(04:54):
sure what a sustainable population is in Colorado, and I'm
sure if you ask Governor Jared Polis would be one number.
If you ask an actual wildlife biologist, it might be
a much different number. So I like things that are
black and white and well defined. So I like having
that end date. But that sustainability, that sustainable piece of

(05:18):
what number that is? What is a sustainable wolf population?
That's that remains a little bit loose. So I mean, I.

Speaker 1 (05:27):
Don't want to I don't want I don't want to
assume that I understand something I don't understand. So I'll
put this more as a question than than a statement.
Would it would it be? Would it be reasonable for
me to think that there's a bigger impact on ranchers
going from zero wolves to twenty wolves than from twenty

(05:50):
wolves to forty wolves or is that impact the same?
It's twenty every time, so they're both twenty, so it's
the same. Like, I don't know. For me, I feel
like there's been an enormous impact from this and that
adding more wolves later. I'm not saying I'm for it,
but I'm saying, you know, probably the stuff to deal
with now is not oh, how many wolves later? But

(06:11):
what do we do now that we have wolves? Sure?

Speaker 2 (06:15):
Well, you know it's different because that first twenty wolves,
we didn't have any of the tools in place. We
didn't have the range riders in place. We didn't have
the non lethal deterrence that they wanted ranchers to be using.
They didn't have an agreement with CPW to be sharing
caller data to let folks know when wolves are in
their their area. So it's hard to compare apples oranges

(06:39):
those first twenty wolves. And honestly, those first twenty wolves
released were not the first ones in the state. Right,
we already had naturally migrating wolves. We saw that with
the North Park pack and they caused lots of trouble
up in that walls, the North Park area.

Speaker 1 (07:00):
I mean, you've got about one minute left if you
were if you were queen for a day and you
could automatically implement let's say two things, Well, you could
give me three if you want, or one if you
want for wolf policy that would become policy immediately as
soon as you snap your fingers. What would those things be?

Speaker 2 (07:21):
Well, I think we need to stop shooting holes in
the existing wolf plan. That needs to stop from both sides.
The second thing would be more communication from Colorado Parks
and Wildlife to ranchers as far as location and movement.
And the third thing would be a less hospitable environment

(07:42):
from Denver for some of these ideas that ought to
be left in the hands of biologists.

Speaker 1 (07:49):
Very good. There's gonna be a lot more to talk about,
so we'll get you back on the show when it
makes sense, if there is a ballot measure and all
that kind of thing. Rachel Gable is assistant editor of
The Fence Post, which is a great adnewssource Defencepost dot com.
You can also find her writing at coloradopolitics dot com,
Gazette dot com, which is the Colorado Springs Gazette, and

(08:10):
Denver Gazette dot com. Rachel, thanks for making time for us.
We'll definitely do this again.

Speaker 2 (08:16):
Thanks for having me