With petitions being tossed around like glitter at prom, it’s time for reasonable voters to sharpen their pencils and speak up.

The first, of course, is in response to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission’s blatant disregard for their director, legal counsel, stakeholder, and staff and their direction to initiate rulemaking on a petition related to commercial fur sales. I’ve written about this previously and how the 6-4 decision was passed by Gov. Jared Polis’ appointees who are on the commission not to represent their stakeholders or to support their staff, but to ramrod the extremist agenda that begins with the First Gentleman and his merry band of anti-agriculture and anti-hunting activists. It’s notable the petition was brought forward by the Center for Biological Diversity, the previous employer of Commissioner Jessica Beaulieu, who made a motion that is probably still keeping counsel up at night in a cold sweat.

CPW Dir. Laura Clellan is no fool and I can’t imagine she’s impressed with the no confidence vote dealt to her right out of the gate. I anticipate she will be on the right side of wrong on this. The public comment period is open until May 3, so an issue paper may be compiled for the July 16-17 commission meeting. There is much to tell the commission, but urging them to follow the expert recommendations of their wildlife managers and biologists is a good place to start.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking information about how Colorado has implemented the 10(j) rule issued in 2023 with regard to addressing conflicts between wolves and livestock. According to the summary, CPW signed an MOU with the objectives of public outreach from CPW, regular communication, the effect of wolves on ungulate herds, CPW’s tracking of wolf conflict risk, minimization and allowable take of wolves, including those caught in the act of attacking livestock.

Of the date reported to USFWS, the number of confirmed depredations are submitted, but not those that are inconclusive. The agency is also seeking information on the compensation program as “a means of achieving minimization of conflict.” According to reporting by Marianne Goodland, the total funding is now $2.1 million annually, far greater than the originally estimated $800,000.

Finally, a citizen petition has been submitted to the CPW Commission to outlaw shooting prairie dogs on public lands. There is no season on private land, though there is a designated season on public lands, both without bag limits. The Colorado Department of Agriculture has historically recognized prairie dogs as pests, though much of that information is markedly more difficult to locate online than it once was.

There is habitat — be it for prairie dogs, wolves, elk, black-footed ferrets, golden eagles, plovers, lesser prairie chickens, skunks, or one of the other 900 species in the state — due in large part to private landowners, many of whom are farmers and ranchers. The reason that habitat exists is because it is managed for a return. The reason the habitat is of high quality is because it is managed well.

Prairie dogs, in this conversation, are called keystone species and are lauded for their environmental benefits. I have no desire to debate whether they are a benefit or a pest, but I will say anytime any species is managed atop a pedestal, it isn’t management, it’s emotion. There is an obvious difference illustrated by some land south of my hometown. One side of the road was farmed until it was sold for development several years ago. Once that happened, the management ceased. Some dirt was moved around and then the dream must have died. The signs advertising the single-family homes have all blown over and the tumbleweeds are deep enough to hide a Toyota with a new crop in the works. Prairie dogs are creeping in from another failed site (a failed hemp farm) down the road and now there are patches of bare dirt, weeds and long scraps of landscaping fabric blowing around. It’s a mess. Across the road, the same family is farming a section of ground. The weeds are controlled and, even though the spring has been incredibly dry, they have a crop planted to hold the ground from blowing. Someone picks up tumbleweeds and beer bottles and plastic and that land is managed and looks like it.

Several years ago, someone purchased land in Weld County with the intention of relocating prairie dogs to the property. The neighbors, as one might imagine, weren’t excited but recognized the new owner’s private property rights. The debate went on, complicated by the fact people can’t capture and relocate wildlife willy nilly without the involvement of Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and there are laws about relocating across county lines. The woman told the neighbors the plastic construction-type erosion fence would keep the prairie dogs on her property. It wouldn’t. She also told them if they did cross onto their property, she would come over and fetch them. There are hundreds of ways that could have ended poorly, the least appealing of which involves a mother cow.

There must be some sort of science-based management to balance out the bleeding-heart desires and cute photos and that’s why CPW biologists are called upon to offer their expertise. Public lands ranchers, specifically those on state trust lands, need to be able to manage prairie dogs just as they’re trusted to manage quality habitat for other species and for a profit that will allow good management to continue. Ranchers aren’t invasive species and cooperation is the way forward, not more out-of-state funded, emotionally-charged petitions to ram through the CPW Commission while the getting is still good.

Rachel Gabel writes about agriculture and rural issues. She is assistant editor of The Fence Post Magazine, the region’s preeminent agriculture publication.