Washington shouldn’t send wolves to Colorado.  Ever. 

Not this year, not “once recovery is done,” not “if we have a few extra.”
Because the core problem isn’t biology—it’s how Colorado’s wolf program was created: at the ballot box, driven by politics, not by a clear management need.

When Washington even entertains shipping wolves to Colorado, we’re not just moving animals. We’re lending our credibility to a model of ballot-box biology that undermines science-based wildlife management across the West.

This matters a lot if you live, hunt, ranch, or recreate in Washington.

Ballot-Box Biology Isn’t Conservation

Colorado’s wolf reintroduction exists because Proposition 114—a narrow, urban-driven ballot measure—ordered the state to release 30–50 wolves on the Western Slope. 

That vote:

• Was decided largely by Front Range metro areas far from where wolves would actually be released. 

• Overrode serious concerns from ranchers, outfitters, county officials, and many biologists on the ground.

• Turned a complex management question into a yes/no emotional campaign.

Since then, Colorado has:

• Already released wolves obtained from other jurisdictions (British Columbia and elsewhere). 

• Dealt with confirmed depredations, lawsuits, compensation battles, and even illegal wolf shootings. 

That’s the program Washington is being eyed to support.

No matter how you feel about wolves, that process is not science-led management. It’s politics first, conservation second. And Washington should not be supplying animals to a project built on that foundation.

“Endangered” at Home, “Extra” for Export

Here’s where the hypocrisy really shows.

In Washington:

• Gray wolves remain listed as state endangered and federally endangered in the western two-thirds of the state.

• In July 2024, the Fish & Wildlife Commission voted 5–4—twice—to keep them listed as endangered and reject WDFW staff’s recommendation to down-list them to “sensitive,” despite years of growth. 

The message from Olympia is:

“Wolves are still so imperiled we must maintain the highest level of protection.”

But at the same time:

• Colorado struck a deal with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Nation for up to 15 wolves from Washington, before that agreement fell apart. 

• Colorado officials are now openly saying they’d like to source future wolves from Washington to meet their release targets.

So which is it?

If Washington wolves are too fragile to be down-listed or managed more flexibly, how can they be abundant enough to export for someone else’s ballot-driven experiment?

You can’t call them “endangered” at home and treat them as “extra inventory” for Colorado at the same time. That’s the core hypocrisy.

Washington Hasn’t Met Its Own Recovery Story—By Its Own Telling

Even the Commission’s justification for keeping wolves endangered admits recovery here is incomplete:

• There are still no documented breeding pairs in important recovery zones like the South Cascades and the Olympic Peninsula—one of the arguments commissioners used for keeping the endangered status. 

• After nearly two decades of growth, Washington’s wolf numbers declined for the first time: from a minimum of 254 wolves in 42 packs in 2023 to 230 wolves in 43 packs in 2024, with fewer breeding pairs. 

Those are their numbers, not hunters’ talking points.

So by their own public narrative:

• Wolves are still “recovering,”

• Key regions don’t yet have established packs, and

• The population has just dipped for the first time.

Yet Washington is being positioned as a donor state to prop up Colorado’s political reintroduction.

That doesn’t make biological sense. It only makes political sense.

Conflict on the Ground Is Already High in Washington

Meanwhile, Washington’s working landscapes are already carrying a real share of the cost.

According to WDFW records:

• Wolf–livestock conflict hit a record high in 2024: wolves injured or killed at least 56 cattle, more than double the previous year’s total. 

• WDFW and tribal reports also show 37 wolf mortalities in 2024, including lethal removals for chronic depredation, tribal hunting, vehicle strikes, and illegal kills.

That’s with:

• No wolf hunting season,

• A still-endangered legal status, and

• A population the state insists is not fully recovered.

If we haven’t sorted out a stable, fair coexistence here—with realistic tools for managing conflict—it is more than a little rich to send Washington wolves to Colorado ranchers and outfitters and tell them, “Don’t worry, coexistence works great.”

Mixed Messages on “Coexistence”

Listen to the rhetoric and watch what’s actually happening.

In Washington:

• The Governor’s office, agency leadership, and several commissioners argue wolves need maximum protection and oppose even down-listing, citing fears of poaching and concerns about long-term viability. 

In Colorado:

• Similar voices frame reintroduction as proof that coexistence is easy and inevitable, even as depredations increase, illegal shootings occur, and the state experiments with hazing wolves with drones to protect cattle.

So Washington citizens hear:

“Wolves here are too vulnerable to loosen any protections.”

While Colorado hears:

“We have enough wolves to spare—here, take some; coexistence is simple.”

That’s not honest conservation messaging. That’s tailoring the story to fit the politics of the moment.

This Isn’t Anti-Wolf. It’s Pro-Standard.

You can believe wolves belong on the landscape and still say:

• Wildlife decisions should start with science and management need, not with ad campaigns and close urban votes.

• Local communities, hunters, and ranchers must be partners, not props—whether that’s in Washington, Colorado, or anywhere else.

• No state should export animals to legitimize a broken process, especially one that was designed specifically to bypass normal science-based decision making.

Washington’s hunters, anglers, rural communities, and even many non-hunters are not asking for perfection. They’re asking for consistency:

• If wolves are truly endangered here, they’re not surplus for export.

• If we have enough wolves to ship out, then it’s time to be honest about their status and about what modern, managed coexistence actually looks like.

• And in either case, we shouldn’t be used to bail out a political project in another state.

What Washington Voters and Sportsmen Can Say—Clearly

Here’s a simple, firm position that doesn’t demonize wolves but does defend process:

Washington should not send wolves to Colorado—or any other state—when the underlying program was created by ballot initiative and politics, not by a clear, science-based management need.

No “maybe later.” No “once we’re ready.” Just a standard.

Questions to put in front of legislators and commissioners:

1. Do you support using Washington wolves to fulfill Colorado’s ballot-driven wolf mandate? Yes or no.

2. Do you believe wildlife policy should be led by biologists and public process, or by out-of-state campaigns and advertising agencies?

3. Will you commit, in writing, that Washington will not export wolves to any program born out of ballot-box biology instead of documented management need?

Those aren’t anti-wolf questions. They’re pro-integrity questions.