All of the wolves tracked by the state remained largely in the northwest quadrant of the state between March 24 and April 21, according to released Wednesday by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Their territory stretched west from Vail and Walden to near the Utah border in Moffat County. Wolves also roamed near the Wyoming border, north of Steamboat Springs, and as far south as the Gunnison area.

The wolves have begun their denning season, CPW officials said Wednesday. Wolves breed in the winter and hunker down to have pups in the spring. After the pups are born, the female stays with them near the den while the male hunts in the surrounding area.

CPW biologists will monitor the wolves for denning activity and evidence of new pups.

Colorado has 18 wolves outfitted with collars, plus pups and others that wandered from neighboring states. The canines have established four named packs, though many wolves continue to wander solo.

The 3-2 vote by , in favor of the State Sunlight/Long well pad proposed by Crestone Peak Resources, came after about five hours of testimony and deliberation. The decision ends what had become one of the more contentious battles over energy extraction in Colorado.

Board Chair Jeff Robbins acknowledged that the application from Crestone had evoked a strong reaction from homeowners living nearby. But in the end, the company complied with rigorous state oil and gas regulations enshrined in a law known as Senate Bill 181, which was passed by state lawmakers seven years ago.

“At the end of the day, State Sunlight/Long achieves the balance we were told to look for,” Robbins said.

The two commissioners who voted no were Trisha Oeth and John Messner. The approvals process for the Sunlight/Long well pad encompassed seven hearings before the commission, stretching over several months.

Nearby homeowners rose up in opposition, claiming that the project would pose health hazards to those living nearby — in particular, to school-age children. They also worried about the drilling’s potential environmental impacts on the Aurora Reservoir, which is a water source for the 400,000 residents of Colorado’s third-largest city.

“I cannot believe that the state came down on the side of the industry yet again,” Randy Willard, the president of opposition group , said in an interview minutes after the vote came down Tuesday afternoon. “The group as a whole is severely disappointed.”

The group had pushed back on the proposed project using the 2019 oil and gas reform law as a guide, Willard said.

The 2019 law prioritized public health, safety and the environment when regulators consider oil and gas development — a profound change from the industry-focused approach Colorado had taken for decades.

“We’ve done everything we feel is possible under 181, only to find the industry comes out on top yet again,” Willard said. “I don’t know what else we’re supposed to do.”

In December, the state commission voted 4-1 to put a stay on the project, ordering Crestone to return with a list of alternative sites from which it could drill.

Crestone, a subsidiary of Denver-based SM Energy Company, came back this month with a slimmed-down proposal, knocking down the number of wells at Sunlight/Long from 32 to 24.

The company insisted that after examining 11 other potential sites, most of which were farther away from homes, its preferred site near Aurora’s Southshore neighborhood and the reservoir remained the best place to locate its wells.

Civitas Resources was Crestone’s parent company until late January, .

Jamie Jost, an attorney for Crestone, spoke to the commission during an online hearing Tuesday that, at one point, was attended by nearly 1,000 people. She called the site the “most vetted, most analyzed” location for the pad.

The company said the site would have the least impact on wildlife and waterways across 26,500-acre Lowry Ranch, a stretch of rolling prairie owned by the Colorado State Land Board where Crestone has plans to drill just over 100 wells in total — down from 166 just a couple of years ago.

Dan Harrington, SM Energy’s asset development manager, told the commission that reducing the number of wells at Sunlight/Long would curtail the time needed for drilling and fracking.

“This will reduce operational duration by about 25%,” he testified.

And the scaled-back operation will emit fewer emissions, including of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds and methane, the company in favor of its preferred site.

Mike Foote, a former Democratic state lawmaker who represents the neighbor opposition group as its lawyer, testified that Crestone didn’t conduct an honest comparison of alternative sites.

“It found things wrong with everyone else’s suggested sites instead of coming up with something that worked,” he said.

But Nathan Bennett, SM Energy’s director of permitting and compliance, said Crestone looked at other potential locations with an open mind. The company, however, said the alternate sites had problems, with questions raised about whether Xcel Energy could provide electricity to some of them to power electric drilling equipment.

Other locations, the company said, would have required much longer truck trips and called for running pipe over more ecologically sensitive areas.

Commissioner Mike Cross said Crestone’s proposed site for Sunlight/Long was well outside the state’s required 2,000-foot distance buffer from homes. He said the company’s commitment to use quieter and cleaner electric equipment on site was a positive aspect of the project.

“The best practices that we’ve seen from operators in the state, we’ve seen in this application,” he said. “It does meet our rules.”

But Willard, who has been working to defeat the application for nearly two years, said neighbors were already complaining of noise from other Crestone drilling operations on Lowry Ranch. In a presentation that the opposition group ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, the group claimed that more than 40 noise complaints were filed with the agency last month alone.

That, Willard said, will only increase once drilling starts at Sunlight/Long in the coming months.

The utility — which serves 1.5 million people across the Denver metro — on Monday announced its plans to drain the Park County reservoir, located on the Middle Fork of the South Platte River south of Fairplay. Recreation at the reservoir will close through the end of the year, including camping.

Denver Water officials did not give an exact date when the draining would begin or when recreational access would close.

The water in Antero Reservoir will be moved downstream to Cheesman Reservoir, southwest of Deckers. The move will save 5,000 acre-feet of water from evaporating from the surface of Antero Reservoir, which has the highest evaporative rate of Denver Water’s reservoirs.

An acre-foot of water equals the approximate annual water use of three to four households, according to the utility. When full, Antero Reservoir can hold more than 20,000 acre-feet. It was 88% full on Monday.

“Antero is a drought reservoir, designed to provide water to our customers during a severe drought,” Nathan Elder, the manager of water supply for Denver Water, said in a news release. “Consolidating this water into Cheesman will help us make the most of the water we have.”

Water managers will work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to minimize fish deaths in the reservoir, according to the news release. Antero is popular with anglers year-round.

Denver Water officials will decide when to refill the reservoir based on drought conditions.

The reservoir was last drained in response to drought in 2002. Denver Water also emptied the reservoir in 2015 for dam rehabilitation.

The amount of money set aside each year to pay ranchers for impacts to their livestock from the controversial program isn’t keeping up with the size of damage claims.

Eight claims from 2025 already total more than $724,000 — and more claims are expected to be approved next month. With only about $400,000 remaining in the Wolf Depredation Compensation Fund, Colorado Parks and Wildlife will use other funding sources to compensate ranchers.

Last year’s claims, combined with those from 2024, bring the total payments made to ranchers to more than $1.3 million — outstripping the $875,000 allocated to the program so far.

Although CPW spokesman Travis Duncan says the agency has the money to pay for future claims, the continued high cost of claims has prompted fears outside the agency about the long-term solvency of the program.

“This is a voter-mandated program and it is written in (the law) that losses must be compensated,” said Erin Karney Spaur, executive vice president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association. “You’re pretty much robbing Peter to pay Paul. What other programs are you robbing from to pay for the depredation program?”

At the same time, wildlife advocates have submitted a plan to to tighten the rules about who can be paid from the fund. The proposed changes would require the use of nonlethal mitigation measures and require a higher burden of proof that a wolf caused damage.

“It����ap not a slush fund,” said Ryan Sedgeley, the southern Rockies representative for the Endangered Species Coalition, one of the organizations pursuing changes to the program.

But livestock groups fear that the proposed changes, if adopted, will make it even more difficult for ranchers to be made whole from the wide range of impacts wolves can have on their operations.

“These producers are (already) not getting 100% whole or compensated for all of those losses,” Spaur said.

CPW officials dipped into other pots of money outside of the depredation fund to pay for the claims approved so far and plan to continue to do so.

“Funding for the approved, but not yet paid, claims will be determined upon payment and are currently anticipated to be split between the Wolf Depredation Compensation Fund and non-license revenue in the Wildlife Cash Fund,” Duncan wrote in an email to The Denver Post.

The imbalance in the compensation program has also caught the attention of federal officials, who in recent months have questioned the state’s wolf reintroduction effort. New leadership at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Trump administration took an adversarial stance on the program and stopped the release of more wolves planned for this past winter.

The federal agency on April 6 issued a request for comments on how CPW is handling the reintroduction program. The state wildlife agency is able to manage the federally protected species through an agreement with the federal agency.

— which remains open until June 5 — federal officials asked for information about the compensation program.

“Over the past few years, many wolf-livestock depredation events have been verified in Colorado and the total number of verified depredations and associated claims has vastly exceeded the funds currently available under Colorado’s existing livestock compensation scheme,” the notice states.

State law requires ‘fair compensation’

Since CPW began the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado in 2023, the canines have killed or injured 76 head of livestock and two working dogs, .

Wildlife officials released 25 wolves in the state over two winters after voters in 2020 mandated the reintroduction of the native species. After a number of deaths, the state now has 18 collared wolves, plus others without collars and an unknown number of pups across four established packs.

requires that the wildlife agency “pay fair compensation to owners of livestock for any losses of livestock caused by gray wolves.” State lawmakers in 2023 to pay for the claims and tasked the CPW Commission with creating a claims process.

While crafting the law, lawmakers worried there would be too much money left over in the Wolf Depredation Compensation Fund after all claims had been made. They created rules mandating the use of any leftover money.

But the problem has been the opposite, and CPW has instead scrounged to find other sources of money to pay the claims.

So far, CPW has paid $490,422 to producers from the compensation fund, $25,581 from the general fund, $6,315 from federal grant money, and $141,656 from wildlife cash funds not derived from hunting and fishing license sales, Duncan said.

The CPW Commission makes the final decision on all wolf depredation claims totaling more than $20,000. The volunteer commission, whose members are appointed by the governor, has drawn criticism from ranchers and wildlife advocates alike for perceived unfairness in the process.

“Part of the issue now is CPW is the judge, the jury and the executor,” said Tim Ritschard, the president of the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association.

Petition for change

A coalition of 19 wildlife organizations is pursuing a citizens’ petition to tighten the program’s rules.

The group — which includes the Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center, Roaring Fork Audubon and WildEarth Guardians — filed the petition on Feb. 6. The CPW Commission will decide whether to approve the changes, but a hearing on the petition has not yet been scheduled.

“The current wolf compensation program is so broad that it now covers claims beyond its intended purpose of reimbursing livestock owners for actual, verified wolf-caused losses,” the petition states. “This lack of clarity places stress on both ranchers and wildlife managers and could jeopardize the compensation fund’s long-term economic viability.”

The coalition is pushing for two major changes.

First, if the petition is approved, ranchers would be required to use nonlethal methods to ward off wolves from their herds after a depredation occurs. If CPW officials can prove that a rancher did not use such methods after the first depredation, his or her compensation claim should be denied, the petition states.

Under current regulations, ranchers remain eligible for compensation — though less of it — even if they do not prove they made efforts to mitigate conflict.

The second proposed change would heighten the burden of proof needed for ranchers to claim indirect losses from wolves, such as decreased calf weights and lower conception rates. The change would require ranchers to prove by a preponderance of evidence that wolves caused the negative changes and to rule out other potential causes, like weather, disease or drought.

Colorado’s wolf depredation compensation program is the broadest in the country, Sedgeley said. It is one of only four states that compensate for indirect losses.

Payments for indirect losses have made up the bulk of payments from the depredation fund. For example, one rancher’s claim paid in 2025 totaled about $387,000: $15,000 for livestock killed or injured by wolves, $178,000 for reduced calf weights, $90,000 for decreased conception rates, $100,000 for missing calves and $3,500 for missing sheep.

Those first claims set a precedent for payments that could render the program unsustainable in the long term, Sedgeley said.

“Those first claims set the standard,” he said. “And that����ap that there are no standards.”

Ranchers disagree.

Ranchers are having to hire lawyers — at their own expense — to navigate the claims process, Ritschard said.

Already, they have to compile data to show their herds change to seek indirect loss compensation, said Spaur, from the cattlemen’s association.

The claims process has become smoother as ranchers have learned how the system works and CPW has provided better guidance, she said.

“It’d be a real shame, as we’re going through this period, to raise the bar on compensation and raise it so high that it����ap almost unachievable to get compensation,” she said.

Sedgeley said the petition seeks to bring parts of the wolf compensation program in line with the , like bears, elk and mountain lions. In that process, the claimant must prove the damage was caused by the species and also has a duty to mitigate the harm experienced.

Claims approved under that program — which covers nine species — totaled $602,787 in the 2024 fiscal year, . That year, mountain lions and bears killed or injured more than 1,000 head of livestock, the report shows. Landowners are not compensated for indirect losses from those species.

“Why don’t we talk about the elk and the black bears in the same way?” Sedgeley said. “They kill so much more livestock and cause so much more damage than the wolves. It boggles my mind.”

That, too, was a severe drought year. Those who worked Colorado’s rivers in those days remember low river flows and steep declines in business. Now stories about their experiences are echoing through the industry, which has an annual economic impact on the state of more than $200 million, according to the Colorado River Outfitters Association.

“I was not here in 2002, but I’ve definitely heard the horror stories,” said Kyle Johnson, business manager and co-owner of Rocky Mountain Adventures, which operates on the Poudre River west of Fort Collins.

User days in 2002 tumbled 40% from the previous year, according to figures compiled by the outfitters association, from more than 502,000 in 2001 to 298,000 in 2002. The following year, they rebounded with 448,000.

Duke Bradford was a river manager that summer on the Arkansas River, the heart of Colorado’s rafting industry. User days there numbered 139,000, down from 252,000 in 2001. Bradford recalls how the river “channelized” with a narrower stream than normal years, like a two-lane road restricted to one lane.

“The river was very runnable, but it was also very channelized,” said Bradford, the owner of AVA Rafting, which runs trips on the Arkansas, the Upper Colorado and Clear Creek. “There was only one channel to go down. That made it challenging if you had several boats. If one gets stuck, it could be a little bit of bumper boats.”

Outfitters insist there will be a rafting season this year, but the same lack of snowfall that negatively affected ski resorts over the winter — forcing many to open late and close early — will also hurt rafting since there has been less snow to melt. That, along with ongoing drought, means the low-water conditions typically found in late summer may come much earlier than usual. To make it work, river guides plan to adjust in ways they hope will help them make the best of what they have.

“The water’s not going to get to be high, boat-flipping water,” said David Costlow, executive director of the Colorado River Outfitters Association. “Usually, we try to get to the middle of July before we start entering low water. It will probably be early this year. It could be the end of June, first of July, but it depends on the next few weeks.

“We’re hoping that low-water season doesn’t start until after July 4,” Costlow added. “It depends on temperatures and how much moisture we get between now and then.”

March ‘failed to deliver’

The winter snowpack is currently well below average across the state; in fact, it is about a quarter of what Colorado usually has at this time of year, according to the USDA National Water and Climate Center. That’s the lowest since record-keeping began in 1941. Meanwhile, warm spring temperatures triggered a much earlier runoff than normal.

Outfitters are hoping spring rains will improve the situation, but three-month weather projections from the Climate Prediction Center of the National Weather Service are calling for above-normal temperatures and below-normal moisture through June.

March is normally Colorado’s snowiest month, so outfitters were hoping for a boost last month. It didn’t come.

“Up until about spring break, we were seeing really similar patterns to this time last year,” Johnson said of the picture in the Poudre. “Coming into (spring) last year, things didn’t look fantastic, but then March and April really saved the day. We get our most snow at altitude in the month of March historically. March (this year) grandly failed to deliver.”

Outfitters are used to adapting when confronted with low-water years. Many of the strategies they will employ early this season track with what they normally do in the late season. They’re also trying to think of creative ways to bridge the gap.

“We just ordered 20 inflatable kayaks, which are great for lower water conditions — more agile and fun — and it expands the options for our guests,” said Travis Hochard, chief operating officer of River Runners rafting and president of the Arkansas River Outfitters Association. “Inflatable kayaks are perfect for low water. They’re nimble, interactive, and give guests a more hands-on experience.”

Bradford said his company will run smaller boats to deal with channelized flows. That will mean 14-foot boats on the Upper Colorado instead of 16-footers, and 12-footers on the Arkansas instead of 14-footers.

“Normally, you could put six people in a boat, but when it����ap channelized, that����ap not realistic,” Bradford said. “We’ll cut those numbers down quite a bit to navigate that single lane. We’ll run small loads and we’ll make it happen. We’re going to make it a good year, no matter what happens.”

Rafting on Clear Creek is almost entirely dependent on rainfall during the season, even in good snow years, because it’s situated in a relatively small drainage. Outfitters there are hoping Colorado’s monsoon season, typically mid-July through August, delivers this year.

“If it rains, that river goes up substantially,” Bradford said. “If we get the monsoons, it can double (its flow) overnight.”

The Upper Colorado draws on runoff from a much larger basin that includes the west side of Rocky Mountain National Park and the Never Summer Range. Reservoirs in that drainage include Grand Lake, and flows are controlled by water managers. Rafting on the Upper Colorado is concentrated west of Kremmling.

“The Colorado River, when that water needs to flow to Utah and Nevada, it����ap going to flow, and we’re going to be there to ride it,” Costlow said. “It will not be a high-water season, it’ll be a mid-water season for a while, and then we’ll probably enter low-water season earlier than normal.”

On the Poudre, Johnson said his company is focused on providing quality experiences for as long as there is enough water to do so.

“Looking at the snowpack per drainage, we still sit better than most, but unfortunately, we’re all looking at pretty low snow totals,” Johnson said. “The Poudre is a very long canyon with a lot of navigable whitewater. There will be a season.”

‘Fish are pretty resilient’

Below-normal stream flows and above-average temperatures are also likely to impact fish populations. The Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area, managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife on federal land, includes a 152-mile stretch of the Arkansas. Not only is it Colorado’s busiest area for rafting, but it includes more than 100 miles of Gold Medal trout fishing.

Josh Nehring, a CPW deputy assistant director who focuses on aquatics and fish management, believes the impact of low water will be felt more by rafting businesses than fishing interests.

“Fish are pretty resilient, especially in the Arkansas,” Nehring said. “In the majority of the Upper Arkansas Basin, fish can freely move upstream and downstream to find better habitat.”

With lower stream flows and higher temperatures, though, the level of dissolved oxygen in the river could be reduced, affecting fish activity.

“There have been some studies done with increased water temperature and related stress where fish will end up feeding less, because they’re more in survival mode as opposed to actively feeding,” Nehring said. “One thing anglers might see is lower catch rates. As temperatures get up toward 70 degrees, one option would be to go to higher elevations where the stream is cooler. Trout need cooler water, so head to higher elevations where there’s maybe more flow, cooler water temperatures, better conditions.”

Nehring also suggests anglers consider visiting reservoirs in eastern Colorado that contain fish that are more tolerant of warm water.

Those in the rafting industry insist there still will be enjoyable rafting in the state this year despite the drought.

“The message we’re putting out is, recognize that it����ap going to be a lower-water year, but you can still have fun with your family and friends on the river,” said Bob Hamel, executive director of the Arkansas River Outfitters Association. “It����ap hot, and you’re going to want to be near water. Outfitters are buying smaller boats; they’re doing inflatable kayaks, SUPs (stand-up paddleboards). It����ap a good year to learn to kayak. People are looking to operate under those guidelines and adapt.”

The state agency’s maritime emergency response team recovered the boater’s body at 9:23 p.m. Friday, according to the agency. A dog’s body was found underneath the capsized boat, state officials said.

Pueblo County coroner’s officials will identify the boater and the cause of death at a later date.

The search started Friday afternoon, shortly after a boat of people waved down Parks and Wildlife officers responding to the capsized boat on Lake Pueblo, according to a from the agency. The group had rescued a survivor who swam about 100 yards from the capsized fishing boat to shore and was taking him into the marina, but the other person from the boat was missing.

Officials said the fishing boat capsized near Pedro’s Point on Lake Pueblo about 12:45 p.m. The boat had lifejackets, but they weren’t worn, according to Parks and Wildlife.

Wildlife officers and other first responders, including a helicopter crew, searched the lake for hours before finding the boater’s body, according to the agency.

“Colorado Parks and Wildlife offers our condolences to the family and friends of the victim, and everyone involved in this tragic incident,” Lake Pueblo State Park Manager Joe Stadterman said in a statement.

The high schoolers were celebrating “senior ditch day,” Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokeswoman Kara Van Hoose said. The state parks agency closed the park’s gates for two hours while workers and sheriff’s deputies tried to convince the students to move along.

The 4,200-acre park — in the southeastern corner of the Denver area — reopened about 2:30 p.m., Van Hoose said.

“There were no injuries, no arrests, no citations and no vandalism reported,” Van Hoose said.

Large gatherings and special events are allowed at the park with a permit — which the teens did not acquire before playing hooky on the unseasonably warm March afternoon.

Planned “teen takeovers” last year prompted several Denver-area establishments to take pre-emptive measures to avoid the ruckus. The Denver Zoo closed early in June because of a planned event in adjacent City Park, and Aurora police increased patrols at the Town Center mall in July in response to rumors of a takeover there.

The 3,314-acre is located west of the Peak to Peak Highway near Rollinsville in a wide, scenic valley adjacent to the James Peak Wilderness and the Roosevelt National Forest. It is situated at the headwaters of South Boulder Creek, along the railroad line that leads to the Moffat Tunnel, and is considered rich wildlife habitat.

Charles Hanson Toll, who served as Colorado’s third attorney general, purchased the land in 1893 and it remained under the family’s ownership for more than 130 years. Family members agreed to a conservation easement in 2015, essentially giving up development rights, and have now sold it for preservation under state ownership.

Terms of the purchase were not disclosed but the realtor handling the sale, Denver-based Mirr Ranch Group, .

“What����ap extraordinary about Tolland Ranch is, you never find (available) properties east of the Continental Divide that are of this size,” said Justin Spring, The Conservation Fund’s Colorado director. “To find it with sellers who are willing to sell for conservation is just a great match. This property actually touches the James Peak Wilderness, and that����ap 17,000 acres. Then you have the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests. It����ap really adding to that complex of protected land.”

Formed in 1985, The Conservation Fund is a national nonprofit environmental organization that buys at-risk land with high conservation values for the purpose of turning it over to long-term ownership dedicated to environmental preservation. comes at a time when wildlife along the Front Range is under heavy pressure due to development.

“Habitat loss and climate change are the two biggest threats to wildlife in Colorado,” said Parks and Wildlife spokeswoman Kara Van Hoose. “With growing development pushing wildlife into spaces that they have not been before, and maybe they’re not comfortable with, you lose that safety for them and you lose the connectivity of migration corridors and where they spend calving seasons.

“When you have this piece of property that elk are already living on — they already calve, they already travel through — and you’re able to preserve it so no development will ever happen on it, that����ap a really big deal,” she added.

The property includes 3.5 miles along South Boulder Creek, 16 ponds and a lake that Parks and Wildlife is eyeing for fisheries and fishing opportunities. It is critical habitat for elk, deer and moose, with species including blue grouse, snowshoe hares, red foxes and varieties of waterfowl.

The north end of the property encompasses cross-country ski trails operated by the Eldora Nordic Center, which it has been leasing from the Toll family.

“We saw this, with CPW, as an opportunity to take a private property and make it a public amenity — open up new public access for fishing, hunting, securing the ongoing opportunity to have Nordic skiing on the Eldora trails,” Spring said.

Henry “Wolky” Toll, great-grandson of Charles Hanson Toll, said the family’s conservation values can be traced back to his 19th-century ancestors. He vividly recalls a trip he took over Vail Pass with his father many years ago, prior to Vail becoming a resort town.

“He knew something was going to happen there,” Toll recalled. “I still have in my mind looking out and seeing one barn. Then you go back through Vail, and all that other stuff through the Eagle Valley — I would be so hurt to see that happen at Tolland.”

Parks and Wildlife officials say the property will be managed primarily for the benefit of wildlife and will not become a state park. The agency manages about 350 state wildlife areas around Colorado.

“A state wildlife area is property that is set aside specifically for hunters, anglers and wildlife-viewing opportunities,” Van Hoose said. “It����ap very different from a state park. With a state park, you have a visitor center, an entrance station and hiking trails. A state wildlife area doesn’t have any of that. It����ap just land. There are no set trails, and you have to have a state wildlife area pass (to enter).”

Tolland Ranch won’t be entirely off-limits for recreation, however.

“It����ap a little bit of a different management than we’ve had before, because it does have a mountain bike trail that is already there, and it does have those Nordic ski trails (at Eldora) that are already there,” Van Hoose said. “That����ap different from other state wildlife areas. Those opportunities will remain, but we are not going to be building any hiking trails.”

Gov. Jared Polis called the property “a beautiful gem,” adding that the acquisition will increase public access to the area.

“The existing bike trail access will continue, but it����ap a great place for fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing,” Polis said in an interview. “We have everything from state parks, which are a much more manicured experience, to wildlife areas like Tolland Ranch — kind of wide open for people to enjoy in very close to a natural state in perpetuity. A lot of people want that more natural experience, and we want to do our best to provide that to Coloradans.”

Jason Duetsch, area wildlife manager for Parks and Wildlife, said it will take some time for the agency to develop a management plan for the area. Elements of it will include rules regarding hunting and fishing, as well as the possibility of creating fisheries in the valley’s ponds.

“The hunting and wildlife habitat is huge,” Duetsch said. “Elk, deer, the fishery component, it����ap just super special. It����ap a gorgeous landscape and it is used by a lot of different species. It����ap not going to be a property that we’re looking at to try and get as many people on it as we can. It����ap going to be, ‘How can we make this best for wildlife, and how can we make sure there is a customer component they can enjoy as well?'”

Parks and Wildlife hopes to open the property for hunting and fishing opportunities in the fall.

“The Toll family has been great partners, first with the conservation easement that already exists on the property, but now a partner in ensuring that it����ap preserved,” Polis said. “And that (public) access is a key piece of that.”

Colorado Parks and Wildlife offers hunting licenses for 10 big game species: elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, desert bighorn sheep, mountain goats, moose, pronghorn, black bears and mountain lions.

Hunters have until 8 p.m. Tuesday, April 7, to apply for Parks and Wildlife’s primary draw application. Corrections to submitted applications can be made until this deadline.

Colorado’s big game draw uses a preference point system to determine who gets limited licenses for hunting. Hunters can apply for up to four hunt choices per species. If a hunter doesn’t nab a license in the primary draw, they can apply in the secondary draw, with applications open starting June 18.

Last year, the Parks and Wildlife Commission rolled out new season structures for big game hunting from 2025 to 2029 and will implement a new draw system in 2028. Additionally, there are a few new big game hunting changes for 2026.

Read the full story from our partner at .

Re: “How to safeguard the DOJ against the next Trump,” Feb. 22 commentary

I would advocate a more concrete way of safeguarding the Department of Justice than even Barbara McQuade suggests. Amendments to the Constitution are harder for the Supreme Court to overturn than legislation.

Here are some proposed constitutional amendments:

Separately elect the Attorney General by a majority of the popular vote (runoff if necessary) in the midterm of the presidency. This would codify the separation of the DOJ from the executive branch. The AG’s responsibilities should include military prosecutions, and the AG should have jurisdiction over all JAG officers who will be, for practical purposes, civilians. This will prevent the execution of illegal orders of the president to the Department of Defense. Passage should prevent the weaponization of the DOJ. The same impeachment and removal procedure would apply to the AG as to the president.

Please note that presently, state AGs are separately elected by voters in 43 of the 50 states.

Given the above, there is a possibility that a corrupt AG can be elected. To lessen that possibility, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court must be overturned. I suggest: “Reasonable election campaign spending limits may be imposed by the states in compliance with Amendment XIV.”  This will lessen the possibility of a bought election.

Mitch Brodsky, Denver

Fear and detention, from Ukraine to the United States

Re: “,” Feb. 22 news story

Soldiers are wielding guns, bullying citizens, and invading their homes. Everyone was scared and afraid to go outside. This was a description in Sunday’s Denver Post article describing life in Ukraine under Russia’s oppressive occupation.

The description seems eerily similar to life in Minnesota under the oppressive invasion and occupation by ICE: terrorizing and killing U.S. citizens, and U.S. citizens afraid to leave their homes.

The same article describes how Russia established a vast network of official and secret detention centers where tens of thousands are being detained. Another article in Sunday’s Post describes how ICE is spending tens of billions to secretly snap up warehouses across the United States, converting them to detention centers.

Thanks to the big bad bill, ICE has $45 billion to spend on expanding detention centers! These new detention centers will be placed in our neighborhoods near our homes. ICE is doing this secretly without informing the communities where the detention center will be placed.

I think we have better needs for that kind of money: educating and feeding our children, taking care of our veterans, repairing our crumbling bridges, sewer systems and other infrastructure.

The United States is supposed to be the land of the free. Worldwide, we are living in a culture of war, hate, inhumanity, and animosity. Throw in a good measure of nihilism, greed, and narcissism.

Surely God is looking down upon what he created and is sadly crying. What is the answer? Maybe we could start by creating a culture that follows one of God’s commandments: to love our neighbor — not detain and kill one another.

Gregg A. Kulma, Lakewood

We need to protect bears from euthanization

Bears are euthanized because we humans can’t or won’t take care of our garbage and other bear attractants, which is a tragedy. What does it take to adequately store and dispose of smelly garbage, liquids, and other attractants?

The State of Colorado and Colorado Parks and Wildlife need to establish regulations and laws that fine individuals who don’t adequately store or dispose of garbage when a bear or other wildlife needs to be euthanized. Shame on us.

Alan Aldrich, Thornton

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.