U.S. Congresswoman Boebert Calls on Haaland to Update RMPs, Pause Additional Colorado Wolf Releases
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 16, 2024 – In a letter sent Dec. 13, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert insisted that the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and other offices that operate under Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) proceed to update all Resource Management Plans for Colorado to include consideration of the wolves now artificially imported to the state.
In a letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, Boebert said the failure of the federal agencies to update RMPs on the basis that the wolves were not released on federal lands, thereby evading federal jurisdiction is unprecedented and urged Haaland to halt any additional importation of wolves into the state.
“This illegal importation has to be stopped,” Boebert told The Fence Post magazine. “Wolves do not obey arbitrary boundaries — they’re not aware of them — and it’s ridiculous to think the federal government would be exempt from an update to the RMPs which currently don’t take into account the presence of gray wolves.”
Boebert said coordination and communication with critical stakeholders have been replaced by a growing sense of urgency by Colorado Parks and Wildlife to release additional wolves.
“These bureaucrats, they’re putting wolves ahead of our ranchers and farmers which is unacceptable,” she said.
NEGLECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
Boebert said in February of 2023, under Haaland’s direction, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged the federal government’s oversight obligation related to wolf management in Colorado necessitated by the narrow passage of a referendum and said Haaland’s department has neglected their responsibilities.
The Congresswoman said USFWS made only minimal efforts to conduct in-person federal-level meetings in Colorado and none of the four hosted were related to federal Resource Management Plan updates. The Congresswoman also said USFWS meetings were conducted to propose a 10(j) rule, establishing an experimental population of gray wolves. However, Boebert alleges that only 17 days after the close of the public comment period, Colorado Parks and Wildlife published the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan, calling into question whether public comments to USFWS were considered.
Boebert said USFWS has failed to clarify how a 10(j) developed for a state-land action would void the need to evaluate the impacts of artificially escalated wolf activity on Colorado’s federal lands. The federal component of Colorado’s wolf activities has not been treated as a nexus for planning, even though most potential wolf habitat in Colorado is on federal lands. USFWS asserts their cooperative agreement under Endangered Species Act Section 6, Partnership with the states, provides permission for CPW’s action; however, CPW’s wolf plan doesn’t reference ESA Section 6 or a cooperative agreement with the federal government. Even with a cooperative agreement, Boebert said the obligations of federal agencies are not dismissed and the RMP remains a federal mandate.
She said the release of wolves exposes the need for a full National Environmental Policy Act, which she said the federal agency has neglected. With additional wolves nearing importation from Canada, she said the need for a full NEPA is further increased.
“All of the multiple uses on federal lands are impacted by the presence of gray wolves,” she said. “We have not had full transparency with the wolves that are in Colorado.”
COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES
Boebert said a decrease in funding for the fraught program is not what the voters were promised and it is vital that producers are paid the compensation owed for losses they didn’t ask for.
Boebert reiterated the federal agency’s obligation related to the Brunot Treaty area, where the Colorado Ute tribes exercise treaty-protected reserved hunting rights. CPW, she said, has asserted the Brunot Treaty area is protected because no wolves will be released inside the treaty area boundary, or adjacent buffer zone. However, CPW cannot guarantee that the wolves will avoid the treaty area, and restricting the areas for wolf release doesn’t address the impact imported wolves will have on ungulate herds that the Colorado Ute tribes expect to hunt. She said unless the state of Colorado guarantees imported wolves won’t access the Brunot Treaty Area, or until the Tribes offer their explicit written approval of Colorado’s importation of wolves, it is the federal government’s duty to uphold its treaty obligations and prevent a state government from creating conflict with a federal treaty.
“This was not fully thought out,” she said. “It’s unfortunate that Denver and Boulder are deciding this for the rest of our state and even our neighboring states.”
Boebert made reference to a letter from Colorado Conservation Alliance to Canadian officials outlining potential legal implications of sourcing wolves from outside the U.S. In the letter, CCA formally demands the Bureau of Land Management, USFS, NPS, and USFWS update relevant RMPs, general management plan (GMP), Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and associated management plans to include analyses and management actions resulting from gray wolf presence due to the introduction of an apex predator that has been “functionally extinct for 75 years in the state.” In the letter, counsel for CCA said the agencies cannot simply ignore the introduction of an apex predator in Colorado in violation of federal law and to the detriment of Colorado’s environment and the stakeholders who utilize and depend on it.
She also referred to CCA’s letter to Randene Neill, Minister of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship in British Columbia asking the agreement to be paused.
Source: Rachel Gabel, The Fence Post Magazine and Western Ag Network
