Even with Gov. Jared Polis’ official signature, the campaign to reintroduce wolverines in the state’s highlands could take years before claws are on the ground as Colorado awaits federal approval. 

State lawmakers this year approved Senate Bill 171, allowing for the reintroduction of wolverines, which have not roamed the Colorado mountains since 1919. Actual implementation of the measure — which has a price tag of $860,000 in the first year — is contingent on getting federal approval under rule 10(j) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Under the Endangered Species Act, section 10(j) plays a pivotal role in reintroduction efforts by allowing for the designation of an animal or plant as an “experimental population.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will determine whether the experimental population is “essential” — meaning necessary for the species’ continued existence — or “non-essential.” 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not confirm to Colorado Politics when it will consider the 10(j) application for the wolverines.

Allison Henderson, the Southern Rockies director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said that, in her experience, the federal approval could take up to two years. Still, she is hopeful it will happen sooner, given the decades of work that has gone into helping the wolverine population and bringing them back to Colorado, which was once a natural habitat for the predator.

Henderson said the efforts date back to the 1990s, when the lynx and wolverine were considered struggling populations. She said efforts to revive the lynx moved forward; the one for wolverines did not.

“Bringing (the wolverine) back to Colorado is restoring a piece of our biological system,” Henderson said.

Henderson said the Colorado legislature had to get involved in the wolverine reintroduction process because the state has an “odd” law. If the federal agency had listed the wolverine as endangered, then the state — which listed the animal as “endangered” since 1973 — would not need to pass a bill. However, because the wolverine is only listed as “threatened” by the federal government, that necessitates the state intervention. 

Republican Sen. Dylan Roberts, a sponsor of SB 171, said he wanted to develop a bill that earned bipartisan support and laid out a blueprint for bringing back an animal that, supporters say, should be thriving in Colorado.

“We have a role to play to make sure (wolverines) do not become more endangered,” Roberts said.

Michael Saul, the Rockies and Plains director of Defenders of Wildlife whose agency has worked for at least 20 years to get the wolverine listed as endangered, said that while the animal once roamed the Colorado mountains, poisoning and trapping wiped out the population in the early 1900s.

With Colorado passing SB 171, Saul said the state now can right a wrong.

“It’s our responsibility to repair the damage we have done and bring back this important ingredient, which we irresponsibly removed,” Saul said.

Saul and Henderson argued Colorado is a great place to advance the reintroduction process. The wolverine, the largest of the weasel family, is found in colder, high-elevation regions. It builds dens in the snowpack.

Saul estimated that just over 300 wolverines, generally weighing 18 and 40 pounds, are left in the lower 48 states, as the animal is mainly found in Alaska and Canada.

Wolverines are not wolves

The efforts to bring back wolverines were met with some apprehension, as it comes after a year of controversy, during which ranchers and some lawmakers deemed the reintroduction of wolves as a disaster.

Ranchers and residents of the area where the wolves were released accused the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department of failing to communicate with them before wolves were introduced. In addition, the new wolves brought in from Oregon have preyed on ranchers’ livestock — and that’s not counting the wolves that migrated from Wyoming that have also been killing livestock in another county in Colorado.

Finally, livestock growers are frustrated by the state’s insistence to use “non-lethal” means to manage the interaction with the wolves, leading several associations to say the relationship is threatening cooperation between the wildlife department and their members over other conservation efforts.  

Roberts said SB 171 was drafted precisely with the problems created by the wolf reintroduction in mind.

“We wanted to show the legislature and the state how to do proper wildlife reintroduction,” he said. “I never supported the wolves’ process. Ballet box biology is not the proper way. We worked with the right agencies to make sure it was done right.”

When asked if he is apprehensive about having the state’s wildlife agency handling the wolverines’ reintroduction, Roberts said no. The senator from Frisco said he is more confident because he worked with the state agency to develop the plan before the bill was approved.

“We worked with them to write the provisions of the legislation,” he said. “This bipartisan legislation is a good example of how to handle responsible wildlife management.”

Saul said that, while there is some hesitation as the process moves forward, wolverines are nothing like wolves.

“I have no doubt this will be much less contentious than the wolf reintroduction,” Saul said.

While SB 171 calls for ranchers to be reimbursed for lost livestock, Saul said he doubts that will become an issue, given that wolverines are solitary creatures that primarily hide in the mountains and have no interest in people or larger animals, such as cows.

Henderson said there have been only two reported interactions between wolverines and livestock in the last century. She said that a wolverine generally only engages in an altercation if provoked.

While wolverines can fight predators more than twice their size, they generally do not want to, Saul said, adding that it feeds on small prey or even scavenges on frozen carcasses left by other animals.