Rancher compensation: Don’t cry wolf without the facts (Letters)

Don’t cry wolf without the facts

Re: “Tie should go to the ranchers,” June 20 letter to the editor

A recent letter suggests that if a wolf might be involved in a livestock death, the “tie should go to the rancher.” But with fewer than 30 wolves in Colorado-and tens of thousands of coyotes and over 17,000 black bears — that’s not a tie. That’s a statistical mismatch.

Colorado’s livestock compensation program already heavily favors ranchers. It pays 100% market value for confirmed wolf kills and even reimburses for “indirect losses,” like missing livestock, with just a 50.1% likelihood. That’s the most generous predator compensation program in the country.

What’s missing in this conversation is accountability. In a recent public hearing, Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff confirmed that 15 livestock losses formed the basis of a large compensation claim, but didn’t clarify how many occurred before the producer implemented basic deterrents, like burying an open carcass pit. Public records show that once deterrents were in place, losses dropped dramatically.

That’s not a coincidence. That’s science, and it’s what Proposition 114 called for when voters approved wolf reintroduction in 2020.

Instead of lowering the bar further, we should strengthen the system: require nonlethal conflict prevention as a condition of compensation, and ensure public funds support those committed to coexistence, not those who invite conflict and demand a check.

Let’s be fair to ranchers, but also to Colorado’s native wildlife and the voters who supported their return.

Shane Brown, Colorado Springs

Pedestrian walkway at state Capitol serves no demand

Re: “First images show pedestrian walkway,” May 23 news story

The governor’s “Bridge to Nowhere” is an expensive and ill-conceived project that does more harm than good. At a time when Colorado faces pressing infrastructure and housing needs, spending tens of millions on a bridge through Denver’s Lincoln Veterans Memorial Park is fiscally irresponsible and negatively impacts the integrity of our historic public space.

The park is a landmark with deep roots in Denver’s history. Scarring that space with a bridge few people will use undermines its legacy and limits the space as a gathering location for public advocacy and demonstrations. Worse yet, the project offers little mobility value: It’s disconnected from transit lines, poorly integrated with pedestrian and bike infrastructure, and serves no meaningful transportation demand.

We need smarter investments. Denver has mobility and transportation needs. If there’s a budget available to spend on critical infrastructure, then spend it on critical infrastructure. A bridge to nowhere is a dead end for Denver.

Erik Clarke, Denver

EVs will serve us well

Seven months ago, I got a new electric vehicle (EV), MSRP less than $30,000. Edmunds says its range is 140 miles on a full charge, but I always exceed 240 miles.