Gov. Jared Polis on Tuesday followed through after hinting a veto is coming on the proposal that would have required the state to have a federal ruling in place before reintroducing wolves on the Western Slope, which is slated for the end of the year.

It’s among three vetoes Polis issued Tuesday, the first for legislation from the 2023 session.

In his veto letter, Polis said Senate Bill 256 would prevent Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission from authorizing the release of gray wolves until after the effective date of the 10(j) rule. He called the bill unnecessary, that it undermined voters’ intent, as well as the commission’s work, and suggested it could interfere with the state “successfully receiving experimental population designation.”

Polis spokesman Conor Cahill added: “The governor shares the desire for Colorado wolves to receive a 10-J designation to allow for maximum state management flexibility. Unfortunately, the legal analysis of this bill is that it would likely delay or even prevent successful 10-J designation, which is why he is vetoing it.”

Polis also sent a letter Tuesday to Department of Natural Resources Executive Director Dan Gibbs, instructing him to continue working with U.S. Fish & Wildlife, the commission and CPW to obtain the 10(j) ruling.

Polis informed sponsors of Senate Bill 256 of the pending veto via a Zoom call on Tuesday morning.

Polis, in a post-session news conference, hinted his veto pen was at the ready for the proposal, telling reporters a week ago, “There shouldn’t be a lot of suspense on that one.”

He pointed out that DNR’s Gibbs testified against the bill.

“It’s certainty very clear where our agencies were,” Polis said. “I don’t think people will be surprised.” 

Polis claims to support the state’s efforts to obtain what’s known as a 10(j) ruling from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but he doesn’t support mandating the ruling be in place before reintroduction, which SB 256 sought to do.

The federal agency has been working for nearly a year on the process for granting Colorado the 10(j) ruling, which is a waiver tied to the Endangered Species Act, and has indicated it should be issued no later than mid-December, although that’s cutting it pretty close for those who will see wolves reintroduced in their counties.

SB 256 follows what every other state that has reintroduced wolves has done, which is to ensure they had a 10(j) ruling in place before paws went on the ground, according to Sen. Byron Pelton, R-Sterling, and co-sponsor Rep. Matt Soper, R-Delta.

The difference matters.

Under the 10(j) ruling, wolves would be classified as an nonessential experimental population. That would allow them to be managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, which worked for two years on the wolf restoration plan.

That plan was approved unanimously by the Parks and Wildlife Commission two weeks ago.

The plan was a collaboration between CPW and several groups, which included ranchers, local government and wildlife experts.

Soper told Colorado Politics that plan was also dictated by Proposition 114, which required the state to take the necessary steps to ensure wolves are reintroduced by December 31. The 10(j) ruling is one of those necessary steps, Soper said.

“It gets you landowner buy-in, and makes sure farmers and ranchers can protect their livestock and pets” and not wind up as felons, he said. 

Part of the CPW plan allows for “lethal takes,” which would grant a rancher limited permission to kill wolves that are preying on livestock. Without 10(j) rule – and with wolves remaining on the endangered species list in Colorado – killing a wolf, even if it is attacking livestock or pets, is a felony, punishable by up to a year in jail and up to a $50,000 fine.

And the potential for killing wolves, which is opposed by environmental groups that could sue to prevent 10(j) from being put in place, is also raising questions about whether Polis really supports the 10(j) ruling – or whether he’d rather see wolves released into the five central Western Slope counties under the protections of the Endangered Species Act.

Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Avon, a Senate co-sponsor of SB 256, said he is “incredibly disappointed” with the news of the governor’s veto.

SB 256, he said, was “very narrowly tailored to both ensure ranchers and farmers,” as well those who live around wolves, have the tools to manage livestock, and so that wolf reintroduction can be done well over the coming year.

“I don’t understand the reasoning behind the veto, and I’m disappointed for my constituents who asked for this flexibility. The process of reintroduction depends on 10(j) being in place,” Roberts said. 

Roberts added that he believes the governor understands the importance of the 10(j) rule, and noted that testimony from Department of Natural Resources officials said as much.

“The trouble with not signing this bill implies that they will put wolves on the ground with or without a 10(j). If 10(j) was a priority, then signing SB256 would have been an easy call,” Roberts said.

“It’s a slap in the face to agriculture and ranchers,” Pelton said.

SB 256 was a good compromise, he said, adding, “They’ll introduce the wolves with or without 10(j), but livestock producers need to protect their livestock.”

SB 256 “was insurance,” Soper added.

He called vetoing the bill akin to not having auto insurance because motorists don’t think they’re getting into a wreck on their way home.

Soper was part of the Tuesday Zoom call and learned the veto was coming.

“We are in agreement: CPW, legislators and the people wanted 10(j) in place. To say it usurps the will of the people is wrong,” he said. 

As to whether Polis really supports the rule, Soper said the governor reiterated his support for 10(j) on the Tuesday morning call.

“And I can only take him at his word. But he could have, at a minimum, allowed the bill to become law without his signature,” Soper said. 

Rep. Megan Lukens, D-Steamboat Springs, was the other House sponsor on SB 256. She said in a statement Tuesday she was also disappointed by the veto. “I have heard from ranchers and farmers consistently that it is absolutely imperative we have the 10(j) rule in place prior to state-orchestrated wolf reintroduction, and this bill was a direct request from Western Slope constituents who will be impacted most by wolf reintroduction.”

Four Western Slope lawmakers – two Republicans and two Democrats – sponsored SB 256, which also received support from every rural lawmaker in either caucus and in both chambers.

Colorado Farm Bureau, in a statement Tuesday, expressed its disappointment at the veto.

“This bipartisan piece of legislation was a great example of legislators responding to their constituents and working together to do what’s right for Colorado’s Western Slope ranchers and communities,” said Carlyle Currier, Farm Bureau president.

Testimony and input from stakeholder groups overwhelmingly fought for the management tools and support that this bill provided, Currier said, adding, “The governor’s disregard for those living in western Colorado and his direct rebuke of the legislature’s will is not how we protect ranchers and their livestock nor is it how to ensure successful wolf reintroduction.”

The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association echoed the sentiment, saying its members are also “extremely disappointed” by the veto. The bill, the group said, would have “provided much-needed flexibility in wolf management practices to protect the livestock industry.”

“This bill was carefully crafted with input from various stakeholders, including livestock producers and western slope community members, and had broad bipartisan support,” the group said. 

Gov. Jared Polis veto letter on SB 256, May 16, 2023Marianne Goodland
marianne.goodland@coloradopolitics.comMarianneGoodland, Colorado Politics
marianne.goodland@coloradopolitics.com
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/content/tncms/avatars/e/f4/1f4/ef41f4f8-e85e-11e8-80e7-d3245243371d.444a4dcb020417f72fef69ff9eb8cf03.pngGov. Jared Polis letter to DNR, May 16, 2023, regarding 10(j) rulingMarianne Goodland
marianne.goodland@coloradopolitics.comMarianneGoodland, Colorado Politics
marianne.goodland@coloradopolitics.com
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/content/tncms/avatars/e/f4/1f4/ef41f4f8-e85e-11e8-80e7-d3245243371d.444a4dcb020417f72fef69ff9eb8cf03.png