Despite author of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) Douglas Bruce’s attempts to sway me, I wish the ballot-initiative process in the state would go the way of the dodo.

I remain firmly opposed to what is now Initiative 35 seeking to “end gray wolf reintroduction and prohibit the importation of wolves from out of state.” The Title Board set a title last week though the process to pare it down to a single subject must have left some exhausted. The effort, which will require millions of dollars to place on the ballot, will end releases by the end of 2026 and, if the letter is an indication, lacks the support of anyone with skin in the game.

Stakeholders who have been a part of the process and conversation since the passage of Prop 114, which mandated wolf release, sent a letter to proponent Patrick Davis asking him to suspend his efforts. The list included statewide and county livestock organizations, counties, commissioners in affected areas, hunting organizations, outfitting organizations and others. Their ask was to suspend the ballot initiative that is in no way supported or requested by the people most affected. Seems reasonable.

The groups said “the effort to end the gray wolf reintroduction was initiated without consulting the primary stakeholder groups and constituencies most affected by the wolf reintroduction. As a result, this approach is at odds with the strategy and policy outcomes that our coalition is working on.”

The signers went on to “ask that you allow those of us directly impacted to work through the pathways already in front of us.” They also expressed concerns about the financial resources necessary, and the social and political consequences if this measure were to fail, saying “any failed effort could potentially impact subsequent policy efforts currently underway, both administratively and legislatively, as well as undermine recent public opinion support that the landowner community has received.”

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

In the letter, the groups cited my March 10 column, “A half-baked proposal to stop wolf reintroduction,” saying it “highlights the significant rift that exists on this issue. It doesn’t bode well for a successful campaign when key stakeholders are not unified.”

As if I needed another reason to rail against the initiative process, I received one on March 19 in the form of the proposed Colorado Wildlife and Biodiversity Protection Act. Contrary to the single-subject requirement of the Title Board, this initiative takes a “throw it and see what sticks” approach, attempting to establish an independent Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation Commission. This WECC would oversee species protection in collaboration with existing federal and state agencies; ensure continuity of wildlife protections by granting WECC the authority to assume CPW’s and other state conservation agencies responsibilities if they are defunded, disbanded, or rendered nonfunctional due to legislative action or budgetary cuts; create a Colorado Wildlife Corridor Network to connect fragmented habitats; strengthen protections for keystone species and ecosystems critical to biodiversity; and enforce violations with strict penalties, independent oversight and a self-sustaining funding mechanism without imposing unfunded mandates on landowners.

This commission will include three ecologists appointed by Colorado universities; two conservation biologists appointed by nonpartisan environmental groups, a wildlife advocate appointed by a group of 10 members including individuals with backgrounds in conservation, outdoor recreation, or environmental advocacy; an indigenous representative; an environmental policy specialist appointed by a legal or policy institute specializing in conservation law; and a wildlife management expert appointed by a national or state-level wildlife agency.

No members of this commission may have financial ties to extractive industries including logging, mining, development, or ranching.

The powers they hope to grant themselves include the ability to designate species as endangered; conduct environmental impact studies prior to major infrastructure projects; develop voluntary compliance programs for private landowners; the ability to review and approve reintroduction programs; assess fines of $1,000 per square foot for destruction of a wildlife corridor; refer violations for prosecution to the state Attorney General’s office; the full investigative authority, including to subpoena records, and the power to leverage permanent bans on operating businesses in protected areas.

This is the stuff of nightmares. The least of my concerns with this laundry list of wishes is the complete omission and downright restriction of involvement from ranchers, the people who steward 32 million of the state’s 66 million acres and provide habitat for the state’s 900-some species.

This initiative proposal seeks to override state and federal agencies and allow an entirely unaccountable group to run roughshod over industry and the families on the landscape. If this and Initiative 35 don’t illustrate how the initiative process leaves agriculture, rural communities, and actual experts sitting ducks, then I can’t make it any clearer.

Rachel Gabel writes about agriculture and rural issues. She is assistant editor of The Fence Post Magazine, the region’s preeminent agriculture publication. Gabel is a daughter of the state’s oil and gas industry and a member of one of the state’s 12,000 cattle-raising families, and she has authored children’s books used in hundreds of classrooms to teach students about agriculture.