A federal judge on Friday ruled in favor of Colorado’s plans to reintroduce gray wolves, denying a temporary restraining order sought by cattlemen and livestock growers.

In her order, federal district court judge Regina Rodriguez appeared sympathetic to plaintiffs’ worries, noting they have “lived and worked on the land for many years” and are “understandably concerned about possible impacts of this reintroduction.”

But their arguments ultimately failed to persuade her, she said.

The petitioners, the judge said, have “not presented evidence demonstrating that harm will occur if their requested relief is not granted, nor have they demonstrated such harm, if it did occur, would be irreparable,” she said, adding their concerns of “potential harm to livestock and to Gunnison sage-grouse are too speculative.”

Under the state’s plan, the wolves will be released in state lands in the Western slope. The state’s parks and wildlife agency hope to have the wolves released onto state lands as soon as Monday, Dec. 18. 

Rodriguez had listened to oral arguments Thursday in the lawsuit filed by the cattlemen and livestock growers, who sought the temporary injunction against Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

That injunction would have blocked the state’s Parks and Wildlife division from releasing wolves, the result of a 2020 ballot measure heavily backed by the state’s urban voters.

Voters in rural Colorado, including in the counties where the wolves would be released, voted overwhelmingly against the measure.

Colorado Assistant Attorney General Lisa Reynolds revealed the process for the Parks and Wildlife division to obtain wolves from Oregon starts on Sunday, and parks and wildlife officials hope to obtain 10 wolves that will be brought to the state by plane as soon as Monday.

Each plane can carry five wolves, so it will take two planes, she said. 

That the wolves might be released as early as Monday came as news to Andy Spann, president of the Gunnison group. 

The lawsuit centered on a technical issue related to a cooperative agreement that has existed between the state of Colorado and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service since 1976. The agreement, which is tied to the Endangered Species Act, has been renewed annually ever since.

Plaintiffs claimed the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service did not follow its own established processes, which have been applied in other states – such as the northern Rocky Mountain states and in Arizona and New Mexico, in the case of the Mexican wolf – where wolves were introduced.

They also claimed that the federal agency failed to obtain an environmental impact statement on Colorado’s new wolf program before signing off on a renewal of the cooperative agreement.

Rodriguez limited arguments to a discussion of the agreement and whether or not the renewal is discretionary.

Brian Herman, an attorney with the Department of Justice who represented the federal agency, claimed the renewal is non-discretionary and “merely maintains the status quo.” He also argued the lawsuit should not succeed because the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable harm from losing livestock that are attacked or killed by wolves.

That’s an economic harm, not an irreparable one, he said.

Michael Kopp, the plaintiffs’ attorney, pointed to criteria that requires a new environmental impact statement when there are changes in state management plans covered under the agreement. That had not happened with previous renewals because the wolf plan was not part of the state management plan until October 2023.