DENVER — New legislation that aimed to pause Colorado's gray wolf reintroduction program and reallocate some of the funds underwent amendments — ultimately allowing the program to continue as planned — and is now headed to the governor's desk.
This bill was introduced during the special session that Colorado Gov. Jared Polis announced on Aug. 6 to address a $1.2 billion loss of revenue. Forecasts estimated that the state will be $783 million below the TABOR cap in fiscal year 2026.
Among a list of several bills that lawmakers were set to review was the bipartisan Senate Bill 25B-005, which aimed to pause Colorado's gray wolf reintroduction program for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. The original bill reads that in the context of "an emerging budget and health insurance affordability crisis," using taxpayer dollars to reintroduce new wolves is not responsible. In its original form, the bill would decrease the wolf program's budget for fiscal year 2025 from $2,100,000 to $1,835,732 — a $264,268 difference — and would prohibit CPW from using money from the general fund to reintroduce more gray wolves. It would, however, permit CPW to continue using the appropriated money to help livestock producers prevent wolf attacks and pay for compensation when one of their animals is seriously injured or killed. The total reduction amount of $264,268 would be reallocated to address the affordability of health insurance in the state, the bill reads, by adding the funds to Colorado's Health Insurance Affordability Enterprise.
The bill was sponsored by Sen. Dylan Roberts and Sen. Marc Catlin in the Colorado Senate and Rep. Meghan Lukens and Rep. Matthew Martinz in the Colorado House of Representatives.
On Monday, after already passing out of the Senate, the bill passed out of the House of Representatives. According to a press release from the Center for Biological Diversity, Polis is expected to sign the bill later this week.
Denver7 listened to many of the conversations held in both chambers.
What happened in the Colorado Senate?
In both the Colorado Senate and House of Representatives, lawmakers argued back and forth about the bill, its impacts to people and the wolves, and the parts that they found unfair.
The bill was introduced in the Senate on Aug. 21 and brought to the State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee.
Sen. Roberts, one of the Democratic sponsors, said this bill was not created to undermine the will of the voters, who narrowly passed Proposition 114 in 2020, with the majority of "yes" votes coming from the Front Range. That proposition mandated that CPW develop a plan and start reintroducing and managing gray wolves in western Colorado by Dec. 31, 2023.
He pointed to the "immediate budget challenge and healthcare affordability crisis" in the state, and said the bill would move the money allocated to the Department of Natural Resources in the current fiscal year for the procurement of wolves and instead use it to lower health insurance premiums on the free market for Coloradans.
“This bill… is not about ending the wolf program," Sen. Roberts said. “... We have to turn over every rock in these tough budget times, even the small ones.”
Sen. Catlin, a Republican and fellow sponsor, echoed these statements, saying he wants to see the wolf program succeed and this bill would "give the program an opportunity to take a breath." It would give CPW the chance to get more non-lethal mitigation measures in place, he said.
He noted that the state's Canada lynx program in the late 1990s and early 2000s had to pause because the animals were not fairing well, and after the pause, it went on to become a successful reintroduction program.
Democratic Sen. Matt Ball then offered an amendment, which had apparently been at the center of previous conversations outside the room: The health insurance affordability enterprise would still be allocated the $264K in General Funds, and the language in the bill prohibiting the agency from reintroducing wolves next year would be removed, and supported by non-taxpayer funds.
“My understanding in discussions with DNR and the Governor’s Office is that they have other sources of funding that they plan to use for that already-planned introduction," Sen. Ball said. “... My hope is that strikes a good deal between making hard decisions about priorities, which we have to do when we’re in hard budget times, but not sacrificing the will of the voters and what we are tasked with implementing.”
This development meant that if passed with the amendment, the wolf reintroduction would continue on as planned and the $264K would still be moved from the General Fund to the health insurance affordability enterprise.
Sen. Roberts said that while it wouldn't make either side overly happy, he believed Polis would sign the bill if the amendment was adopted.
This quickly garnered questions and confusion about "the other sources of funding" and where that money came from to continue supporting the wolf program.
Denver7 asked CPW for an explainer, and spokesperson Luke Perkins said that the wolf program has a diverse set of funding streams aside from the General Fund. He pointed to House Bill 21-1243, which lawmakers specifically passed to fund the program from various sources. Including the General Fund, this list included the Species Conservation Trust Fund, the Colorado Nongame Conservation and Wildlife Restoration Cash Fund, and the Wildlife Cash Fund (with the exception of money generated from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses). The latter includes funding generated by the Born to Be Wild License Plate and from the Colorado Lottery “spillover," Perkins explained.
He said the program is also funded by gifts, grants and donations.
"CPW will still be able to move forward with releases this upcoming winter in the absence of this allocation from the General Fund," he told Denver7 on Friday.
Following multiple witnesses who supported or objected to the bill, CPW Director Jeff Davis addressed the room. He began by saying that CPW has been navigating difficult conversations and takes its public trust management responsibilities seriously.
Local
Denver7 brings Pitkin County ranchers' questions about wolves to CPW director
The bill in its original form had the potential to impede CPW's ability to meet its statutory requirements, Davis said. It would also impact the wolf population's genetic diversity.
Davis said he supported the bill with the amendment.
Sen. Roberts and Sen. Catlin said they did too.
Other senators had questions about the money trail.
Democratic Sen. Mike Weissman said he believed the bill would now pass with "no pause" in the wolf reintroduction, and therefore announced he would vote no on the amendment and the bill.
"There’s an outside (group) apparently run by the governor and a bunch of billionaires who are in favor of this kind of stuff and they have found $264K that they can slide in," he said. "And then that will come in and fill in the $264K that we need to keep this going. And now you have a governor who has decided, ‘OK, I can sign that bill.’ But he can’t sign the decision of whatever it is that we’re going to make. I think he should decide if he wants to sign the bill that we decide on here.”
The amended version passed 4-1 in the State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee.
The following day, Aug. 22, it was brought to the Senate floor.
The questions about where the non-General Fund money to support the wolf program had come from continued that day.
“(Polis) was able — and his staff was able to find the $264,000 and said, ‘Keep everything the way it is and we’ll give you the $264,000.’ And that’s what they agreed to do," said Sen. Tom Sullivan. "So, there is no pausing of the wolves being put back into the neighborhoods, into the communities up there.”
He announced that he would vote no — not because of the legislation, but because of general principles.
"Apparently, in the final moments, the governor’s office decided that they didn’t want to take a chance that this might pass and there would be a pause and the governor would have to veto that bill," he said.
Sen. Catlin said lawmakers can never be sure how outside entities will want to participate in their work. But he did find comfort knowing that more people were talking about the wolves than in 2020, when Prop 114 was still in front of voters. And there may be some "buyer's remorse" now, he added.
"It will be a disappointment if what we have done needs to be outdone by people with a lot more money than I would ever imagine," he concluded.
Lawmakers in the Senate then passed the bill 32-3, and it headed to the House.
What happened in the Colorado House of Representatives?
At the start of the third reading of the bill in the House on Aug. 24, the House quickly voted to approve an amendment that would remove the legislative declaration from the bill — which does not change the policy.
Afterward, several people who initially opposed the bill said they had heard from their constituents that they wanted it passed.
"They have said, ‘We want you to support this.’ It’s not perfect, not by any stretch of the imagination. It's not perfect. But this is signaling to the ranchers and livestock producers in this state that we’re hearing them and that we have to make a starting point somewhere," said Assistant Minority Leader Ty Winter, a Republican.
He added that he was just glad that ranchers now know that their taxpayer dollars aren't going toward new wolves that may prey on their livestock, but it was still difficult to see "special interests" step in and "pony up the cash."
Rep. Tammy Story, a Democrat, argued that this policy felt out of place in the special session.
“This bill seeks to defund wolf reintroduction in the name of helping people, diverting $264,000 of General Fund as stipulated in the wolf restoration and management plan, to the health insurance affordability enterprise," she said. "Out of $300 million needed for (the Health Insurance Affordability Enterprise), this bill is pointing to just $264,000. That’s less than 1/10 of 1% of the total need.”
Rep. Story also argued that other predators on the landscape — namely black bears and mountain lions — have been responsible for many more livestock deaths than wolves. She said in 2022 and 2023, wolves were responsible for 20 confirmed depredations (CPW's document reads 18). In 2020 alone, 653 livestock were killed by bears and 90 were killed by mountain lions, she said. Denver7 reached out to CPW, which confirmed this on Monday and provided us with this report of wildlife damage claims from that year.
Rep. Larry Don Suckla spoke afterward, saying his family had not had issues with bears or mountain lions on his ranch for 80 years. He also brought up the number of unconfirmed wolf attacks and missing livestock, with a nod to the approved wolf damage claim for $287,407 for Farrell Livestock, LLC in early March.
The House of Representatives then voted 43-19, adopting the bill.
It now heads to Polis' desk.
CPW has already completed two rounds of wolf reintroductions — one in December 2023 and a second in January 2025. In the latter, the Copper Creek Pack, which had been captured due to depredations in Grand County, was also re-released.
CPW's Wolf Conservation Program Manager Eric Odell said in mid-July that the agency is expecting to release more wolves in January 2026 in southwest Colorado. Local CPW staff have reached out to stakeholders and stockgrowers in those areas already to start conversations, he said.
Denver7 in-depth wolf coverage
The below list outlines an overview of the known wolf population in Colorado:
- Six wolves surviving from the original 10 that were released in December 2023 (one died of a likely mountain lion attack, a second died from injuries sustained prior to his capture as part of the Copper Creek Pack relocation effort, a third wolf became sickly and died, and a fourth died in Wyoming)
- Four of the five wolf pups born in the spring of 2024 (one male was killed after multiple depredations in Pitkin County)
- 10 wolves surviving from the 15 that were released in January 2025 (one was shot and killed by Wildlife Services in Wyoming earlier this month, a second died of unknown causes in Wyoming, a third died in Rocky Mountain National Park, a fourth died in northwest Colorado and the fifth also died in northwest Colorado)
- Unknown number of pups born in four packs in 2025
- Two wolves that moved south from Wyoming several years ago
- One uncollared wolf that was last known to be in northwest Moffat County in mid-February. It is not clear if it is alive or still in the state.
- Possible, but unconfirmed, wolf in the Browns Park area as of February. It is not clear if it is alive or still in the state.
