M-44s are designed to kill coyotes, foxes and feral dogs that sometimes prey on sheep and newborn cattle. They also kill at least 150 nontarget species.

On April 15, the Trump administration lifted former President Joe Biden’s M-44 ban on the Bureau of Land Management����ap 245 million acres, and once again, M-44s will be deployed by the .

“I’ve worked since 1994 with countless people who have lost their dogs to M-44s or been poisoned themselves,” said Brooks Fahy, director of , a nonprofit based in Eugene, Oregon. “M-44s can never be used safely. They are indiscriminate killers, and no young child, dog or wild animal can read a warning sign. I firmly believe it is only a matter of time until an M-44 kills a child.”

During Trump’s first term, M-44s were in widespread use but hugely unpopular. The public wanted them banned. In 2019, when Trump’s EPA issued a proposal to keep them registered for use, there was such public outcry that the agency pulled the proposal.

Four months later, EPA reissued its proposal. During the public comment period, it received 22,390 written responses. All, save 10, opposed continued M-44 registration. The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies to consider all “relevant matter presented” in public comments. Yet Trump’s EPA ignored the law, and M-44s remained registered until Biden’s ban.

On April 15, the Trump administration bypassed any public comment period, reauthorizing M-44 use on BLM land via a memorandum of understanding between BLM and USDA.

Wildlife advocates are furious. Predator Defense called the Trump administration’s resurrection of M-44s “insane.” Project Coyote called it “devastating.”

And this from Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action: “Reinstituting use of poison bombs sounds like war tactics from 1970s rebel guerrillas in Angola and not the actions of public lands agencies. Their statutory and moral responsibility is to steward native wildlife, not poison the animals.”

So, who’s pushing M-44s back on public land? Whoever it is, it����ap not sheep producers, explained Carter Niemeyer, employed by Wildlife Services for 26 years and supervising field agents for much of that time. M-44s were created mostly for them, but they now use guard dogs. Littering public land with poison bombs scented to attract canids is the last thing sheep producers want, he said.

Still, Trump spokesmen claim that the M-44 ban was lifted to benefit the wool industry. There’s widespread speculation that Trump ended the ban simply because Biden imposed it.

“M-44s are unforgiving,” said Niemeyer. “Any animal that triggers one is dead. With traps and snares, you can usually release nontargets. Random coyote poisoning — ‘preventive control’ — is killing coyotes anywhere and everywhere because one might someday eat a sheep. When we had, say, two coyotes regularly killing sheep, we’d remove them. That����ap ‘corrective control.’”

Robert Crabtree, America’s leading coyote researcher, found that random killing creates more coyotes. In natural populations, average litter size at birth is five or six. But competition in summer decreases pup survival to one or two. Random killing reduces competition, resulting in higher survival.

Niemeyer found that random killing also creates chaos by replacing older coyotes that have learned the dangers of depredating livestock with younger, inexperienced coyotes that do depredate.

But random killing is precisely what will now be happening on BLM land.

There has been legislation to permanently ban M-44s on federal lands, but it has been in limbo for years. Thanks to public outrage, there’s new life in a bill called “Canyon’s Law,” named for teenager Canyon Mansfield from Pocatello, Idaho. In March 2017, when he was 14, Canyon encountered an M-44 on BLM land behind his house. He thought it was a lost sprinkler head.

When he picked it up, his 3-year-old yellow Lab, Kasey, got hit in the muzzle and died. Some of the cyanide also sprayed Canyon’s face, damaging his eyes. Until his late teens, Canyon suffered from chronic cyanide poisoning. It����ap unclear if he suffered permanent damage.

Americans who love public lands, their dogs and wildlife need to ask their legislators to support Canyon’s Law, H.R. 4180 and S. 2179, banning M-44s. Primary sponsors are Rep. Jared Huffman, D-California, and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon. At this writing, there are seven cosponsors.

Longtime wildlife writer and author Ted Williams is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. 

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.

One is a military veteran who pitches himself as a lifelong civic servant and recently tossed his name in the hat. The other is a political newbie who emphasizes his family’s deep Colorado roots and entered the race more than a year ago.

Both candidates — and — said in interviews that they decided to seek the Democratic nomination in the June 30 primary to challenge freshman U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd in response to overreach and corruption they see in the Trump administration. With little difference in their policy platforms — Kelloff even claimed Romero copied his — voters will have to look to their backgrounds to decide.

“This particular district is very large … it’s all these disparate economies: farming, ranching, tourism and steel production,” Romero said. “Because of all that, it’s hard to find some single thread that pulls everyone together. … (Voters) need to see someone that they can trust and they need to see a part of themselves in the candidate before them.”

Colorado’s 3rd District covers nearly half of the state, swooping from the desert and canyons of the Western Slope to the high mountains in southern Colorado and the southern end of the Front Range in Pueblo.

Larger than the entire state of Pennsylvania, the rural district encompasses 27 of the state’s 64 counties and takes in vastly different towns, including Aspen, Grand Junction, San Luis and Durango.

The district in recent years has leaned Republican, though voter data show 23% of the district’s voters are affiliated as Democrats, 26% as Republicans, while nearly half have no party identification.

The district has not been represented by a Democrat since 2011, when former U.S. Rep. John Salazar lost to Republican Scott Tipton. Tipton was then ousted in the 2020 Republican primary by Lauren Boebert, who in 2024 moved across the state to instead represent the 4th Congressional District.

In the 2024 election, President Donald Trump won the 3rd District by a 10-point margin.

But voting tallies show that Republicans’ hold on the district is not absolute. In both 2022 and 2024, Democrat Adam Frisch came close to clinching the seat. The Aspen businessman lost to Boebert in 2022 by less than 546 votes. In 2024, Hurd won the seat with 51% of votes — nearly 20,000 more votes than Frisch, who earned 46% of the vote.

Seizing on frustration with Trump

Both Kelloff and Romero hope to ride the momentum of what they see as rising frustration with the Trump administration to flip the seat back to blue.

“We need to bring back leadership in Washington,” Kelloff said. “I’m running to hopefully lead with moral clarity. I think this is the most corrupt administration that we’ve ever seen in the history of America.”

Both candidates listed addressing the rising cost of living as their top priority. Other goals include protecting public lands and Western Slope water interests.

“There is an absolute public outcry on affordability and the cost of living and making ends meet for rural families and working-class families,” Romero said. “What our current administration has done is absolutely ignore that.”

In interviews, both candidates emphasized their ties to Colorado and — despite their business success and affluence as adults — more humble upbringings.

Kelloff’s family has lived in the district since 1893, though he grew up outside of Washington, D.C. He traveled back frequently to the Centennial State to visit family before moving to Aspen permanently six years ago.

Kelloff, 52, spent 30 years in the telecommunications industry and also co-founded Armada Skis. While he’s never won elected office, Kelloff said he has decades of experience forging deals and leading large teams in the business realm.

He announced his candidacy more than a year before primary ballots were set to be mailed out — starting today — so that he could spend time traveling the state, talking to voters. By January, he had visited all 27 counties in the district.

“I’ve been in this race for almost 13 months,” Kelloff said. “To win this seat, to flip this seat, you need a fighter to take on Jeff Hurd and win. That’s why I got in 13 months early to do the hard work.”

Romero, 61, grew up on the Gulf Coast of Texas and, after 11 years in the military, moved to the Roaring Fork Valley in 1996. He leads that has sold more than $50 million worth of property since 2023. His wife, Margaret, has worked as a local schoolteacher in the Roaring Fork Valley for 25 years.

Romero, who entered the race four months before the primary, emphasized his history of serving on local boards: two terms on the Aspen City Council, two terms on the Aspen School District board, two terms on the local fire district board and, now, serving his second term on the local water and sanitation board. He also served for six months as the chief economic development director in then-Gov. John Hickenlooper’s cabinet in 2011 and for three years on the state economic development commission.

“Twelve months of driving around in the district and taking some pictures here and there is all well and good,” Romero said of Kelloff’s campaigning, “but that does not erase the body of work and the experiences and know-how we’ve achieved over the last 30 to 35 years — sorry.”

Hurd is ‘not a headline-grabber’

Frisch, the Democrat who previously tried to win the seat, endorsed Romero on the day he announced his campaign. The two men served on the Aspen City Council together and the address for Romero’s campaign is the same as that for the Frisch now runs.

Whichever candidate wins the Democratic primary will need to educate voters on Hurd’s voting record, said Nick Voss, the chair of The incumbent operates more quietly than his predecessor, whose controversial statements and personal life routinely made news.

“He’s not a headline-grabber, like Lauren Boebert is,” Voss said.

This year’s race , who previously endorsed a Republican candidate looking to challenge Hurd in the primary after Hurd split from the Republican majority on tariff policy.

However, Trump in March re-endorsed Hurd and said he convinced the other Republican running against him, Hope Scheppelman, to and instead work in his administration, where she as an adviser for the federal .

“Together with (the Scheppelmans), we decided that Congressman Jeff Hurd, of Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, should in no way, shape, or form, be impeded from winning the District in that the Democrat alternative is a DISASTER for our Country,” Trump wrote in a March 20 social media post.

In April, a former state representative announced he would challenge Hurd in the Republican primary. served in the state House, representing Fremont County from 2021 to 2023.

Hurd, a Grand Junction attorney, , winning 41% of the vote to Hanks’ 29% in a crowded open race.

As of the most recent federal finance reporting, through March 31, Hurd had raised $3 million, compared to about $1 million by Kelloff and about $500,000 by Romero.

Both Democratic challengers have loaned significant money to their campaigns: Kelloff loaned $450,000 of his own money to his campaign and Romero loaned $280,000 to his.

Re: “RMNP kept entry system while other parks didn’t,” May 23 features story

My family has visited Arches National Park more than a dozen times in the past. We began prior to the campground reservation revolution. In the early years, we went, not knowing if we had a campsite. Sometimes we did, and had the most wonderful times in Arches. Other times we didn’t, and somehow found a way to make it into a memorable trip. On all those trips we took advantage of not only Arches, but of everything surrounding the Moab area. There is so much to see and do.

I must make the following observation about the removal of the timed-entry system at the park (which we have experienced and found worthwhile). While the county commissioner’s opinion was that the entry system caused a reduction in sales tax generation, I must suggest another cause. Perhaps, just perhaps, people are not going to the Moab area because of the current state of both the local and nation political scene, and their views of our national lands. Both the U.S. government and the state of Utah continue to alienate tourists with plans to reduce the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, and sell off our national lands to be exploited by a few select individuals. Once gone, we will never get this land back in its pristine form.

The ultra-right-wing political stance of Utah in general has caused me to avoid, actually boycott, the state. If the local, state, and national authorities want to continue with this trend, they should expect further declines in visits. Please, don’t insult us by blaming this on the timed-entry system.

There is a way to change this. It’s called the ballot-box.

Mark Geyer, Denver

Restore basic traffic enforcement in Denver

Denver’s recent shift away from enforcing so-called “low-level” traffic violations is a policy choice with visible consequences. While the intent may have been to reduce unnecessary stops and limit interactions between officers and the community, the practical effect has been a steady erosion of accountability on Denver’s roads.

Traffic laws, such as valid registration, tint, modified mufflers, functioning lights, and speed limits, are not arbitrary rules. These laws create a baseline of order and predictability. When those rules are no longer enforced, following them becomes optional, and safety declines. This can be observed in the growing number of vehicles with expired tags, missing plates, and unsafe driving habits, including street racing.

The distinction between “low-level” and “serious” violations is also less clean than it appears. Minor infractions often serve as the entry point for identifying uninsured drivers, impaired driving, stolen vehicles, or individuals with outstanding warrants. Removing enforcement was shortsighted and weakens the entire public safety system.

There is also a fairness issue. Law-abiding residents who follow the rules are subsidizing those who choose not to with higher insurance costs.
The city should restore comprehensive traffic enforcement, including so-called low-level violations. The city should also pursue and arrest the street racers who make our roads significantly less safe. Public safety depends on responding to major incidents and maintaining everyday order.

A functioning city cannot selectively enforce laws and expect long-term stability. Denver should recognize the mistake of deprioritizing low-level infractions and correct course on addressing major safety issues on our roadways.

Erik Clarke, Denver

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.

The near Maroon Lake is among Colorado’s most well-known destinations, recording about 215,000 visits annually between May and October. It is a gateway to the larger Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness. But despite its popularity, the current recreation fee program and reservation system don’t come close to covering what it costs the Forest Service to manage the area.

Entry and camping reservation fees, as well as fees from amphitheater rentals, at Maroon Bells generate about $220,000 in revenue each year, but the agency spends about $600,000 to manage it, “resulting in a $380,000 funding gap not covered by the fees,” Forest Service spokesperson David Boyd told The Denver Post by email.

“Adequate staffing at Maroon Bells has been a challenge for the Forest Service for a number of years, in large part because of the high cost of living,” Boyd said.

The Forest Service began discussing the possibility of transferring management of the area to Pitkin County last summer, so that it can continue to be a world-class wilderness destination. Recently, they to make it happen.

The idea is to issue Pitkin County a special use permit that would effectively put local officials in charge of the day-to-day operations as well as maintenance of the trails and amenities, said Gary Tennenbaum, director of Pitkin County Open Space and Trails. That includes everything from running campgrounds and staffing the entrance station to cleaning bathrooms, taking out the trash and providing guests with water and electricity. Tennenbaum also anticipates partnering with other local organizations to clean up trails, restore areas of the forest, and provide education and information to visitors.

“Last year, they (the Forest Service) weren’t able to open all the bathrooms. They weren’t able to get the electricity and water going for people,” Tennenbaum said. “In the future, we’re going to be responsible for getting all that up and running. We’re going to make sure the bathrooms are in great shape. We’re going to make sure we’re dealing with noxious weeds, we’re dealing with trail management and maintenance — things that really they don’t have the capacity to deal with right now.”

If approved, the special use permit would be issued by summer 2027 and valid for five years, with the option to renew for another five years. The area would remain National Forest System land and under ownership of the federal government during that time.

This year, Tennenbaum and his colleagues in Pitkin County will be drafting an operating plan and fee structure that aims to balance the cost of managing the area with maintaining accessibility for the public. One thing he expects to see is an increase in the cost to park a car at Maroon Bells.

Right now, it costs $12.50 ($10 entry fee, plus $2.50 reservation fee) to bring a vehicle to the recreation area. That is likely to increase, Tennenbaum said, in hopes of incentivizing more people to use the currently existing shuttle service that runs from Aspen Highlands Ski Area to the Maroon Lake trailhead.

Costs to ride the shuttle, which is operated by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, may also increase slightly from where they sit at $16 per adult and $10 per child, when booked in advance. (Those who purchase a shuttle ticket day-of pay $20 per adult and $14 per child.)

“The costs of all this are a big deal, and that����ap going to be one of the biggest things — can the county cover their costs, but charge a fee that����ap reasonable?” he said, adding that officials will be soliciting public feedback on the subject this summer.

Even before this partnership is official, the Forest Service is instituting a $5 entry fee for e-bikes starting this summer to help increase revenue at Maroon Bells.

Tennenbaum described the deal as both a continuation and an expansion of Pitkin County’s partnership with the Forest Service. For 50 years, the county has helped manage parts of the Maroon Bells scenic area through various initiatives. For example, in 2026, the county is providing one full-time staff member to help supervise interns from the who work there seasonally, Tennenbaum said.

This is not the first time the Forest Service has leaned on better-resourced state and local agencies to manage federal land. The agency has been discussing a similar arrangement in Glenwood Springs, where it aims to grant a 20-year-long special use permit to Colorado Parks & Wildlife for management of Sweetwater Lake. The Forest Service expects to release the draft Environmental Impact Statement for public comment later this summer or early fall, Boyd said.

Ultimately, Tennenbaum hopes Pitkin County receives the special use permit so that Maroon Bells remains a hallmark of Colorado’s outdoor recreation scene for generations to come.

“We’re going to manage the Bells as a community, and we have so many community partners that are going to help us,” Tennenbaum said. “If the county can control the fees, raise enough fees to manage this area and start to deal with the millions of dollars of deferred maintenance, we’re going to be able to, as a community, manage this incredible place the way it should be managed.”

That approach is relevant for those of us working to protect public lands as we confront the equivalent of a massive hemorrhage. It is Congress’s unconstrained use of the Congressional Review Act to destroy management plans that were thoughtfully considered and years in the making.

With only a simple majority vote required in each chamber of Congress, bypassing committee review and without the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster, management plans that involved extensive public participation are being thrown out.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) has already been used to undo six resource management plans and one mining prohibition. What replaces these plans is unclear and has plunged public land managers, local communities and even industry into uncertainty that will linger for years.

Last month, Congress used the CRA to remove protections against mining for roughly 225,000 acres at the headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. This was a major blow to the watershed of America’s most visited wilderness and a grim moment for conservationists. Now, the focus has shifted to Utah.

Senator Mike Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy, both Utah Republicans, have introduced joint resolutions to undo the management plan for the 1.9-million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. When you think of Southern Utah, Grand Staircase-Escalante is at its heart; its vast landscape of canyons and mesas knits together Bryce Canyon and Capitol Reef national parks and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

If this CRA resolution passes, it could devastate the monument, turning it into a place where out-of-control off-road vehicle use, landscape-level clearcutting, and other extractive activities would all be possible.

The good news is that this fight is one that we, together, can win. When we do, it will set a precedent to protect all national monuments, national parks and beloved public lands that might be next in line.

In the House of Representatives, the ever-changing margins are razor-thin — just ask Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, who struggles with vote counts daily. In the Senate, Mike Lee has proved notorious for wasting valuable time with legislation that has little chance of passing.

We know these elected officials have been hearing from their constituents who are unhappy about their previous votes using the CRA. In both chambers, a growing list of Republicans find they need to bolster their public lands and environmental credentials before the mid-terms.

Lee and Maloy’s doomed efforts last year to sell off public lands proved highly unpopular nationwide and in Utah. Knowing that, members of Congress might want to think twice before tying themselves to the duo’s latest attempts to weaken protection for Grand Staircase-Escalante.

At the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, we’re no stranger to an uphill battle. Ever since SUWA was founded in 1983, we’ve sparred with Utah’s anti-public-lands politicians, who show a level of disdain for our national heritage that seems bizarre in its tenacity. A deep-rooted belief that a federal public lands system simply should not exist seems to drive these politicians–defying logic, economic data and poll after poll.

That����ap why we are not shy about asking people outside of Utah to join us in speaking up for protecting public lands in Utah. Public lands belong to all Americans, and every day, we urge people across the country to tell their elected officials to speak up for public lands, Indigenous sacred sites and intact ecosystems in Utah–because our politicians won’t.

This is the moment to urge members of Congress to vote “no” on the Grand Staircase-Escalante CRA resolution. A vote could be coming anytime in the next few weeks. Time is of the essence.

To make the case, everyone who cares about the magnificent red-rock canyons of Grand Staircase-Escalante and Southern Utah needs to act now. The more our voices are raised and registered, the stronger our message urging Congress to listen to the people who want protection and stewardship, not short-term exploitation of our public land.

Scott Braden is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He is the executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA).

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.

The canyon is an iconic example of the public lands that make up the fabric of our country, particularly in the West. But increasingly, our public lands are being pulled into partisan debates that treat them as commodities to be sold. Even as support for public lands grows louder, the Trump administration seems determined to hand more of them over to private interests and the highest bidder.

It started with the Trump administration firing thousands of federal employees who manage our national parks and prevent wildfires – just as we stared down a year of extreme wildfire risk.

Then last summer, some Congressional Republicans tried to sneak through a provision to sell off more than three million acres of public lands – all to help fund $4 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations.

The American public was rightfully furious. Our office heard from tens of thousands of Coloradans who deeply opposed the idea. Together with hundreds of organizations, local governments, and conservation advocates like The Wilderness Society, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and the Conservation Colorado, we built a campaign to show Americans what was at stake. We worked with my Senate colleagues from the West, who were also clear-eyed regarding the perils for their states.

Proponents of the sell-off argued that protecting public lands is at odds with economic prosperity. But Colorado has shown that����ap a false choice.

As governor, we united communities, conservationists, and the private sector to protect public lands and strengthen our economy. Short-sighted selloffs mandated by Washington for short-term windfalls undermine those efforts.

In the end, we got Republicans to ditch their effort and keep our lands off the auction block. But their siege wasn’t over.

Last week, the Trump administration rescinded BLM’s new Public Lands Rule – an effort to promote conservation and equal the playing field with uses like mining and grazing – in a blatant attack against the long-term health of our preserved spaces.

Every American should care who leads BLM and oversees 245 million acres of our public lands. We can’t have someone who wants to sell them running the agency. Yet that����ap exactly who President Trump has nominated.

In his time in Congress, former Rep. Steve Pearce backed proposals to open the door to large-scale disposal of federal lands and urged congressional leadership to sell public lands to pay down the national debt, arguing that “most of it we do not even need.”

This December, I came out as the first Senator to publicly oppose Pearce’s nomination. During his confirmation hearing in March, I asked Pearce whether his opposition to public lands has changed and why the Trump administration would consider rolling back methane regulations that reduce pollution, despite broad support. He did not demonstrate that he’d be an independent steward who we need to stand up to the president����ap assault against America’s treasured landscapes.

Senate Republicans are expected to confirm Pearce. I will vote no, but that isn’t the end of our fight.

Last summer’s outcry showed that millions of Americans care about protecting our public lands. We need to come together once again. We’re pushing for several major bills in the Senate, including the GORP Act and the CORE Act, that’d conserve more than a million acres of land. We need to pass them and stop the attacks on our existing protections.

Public lands are part of our shared Colorado heritage. If we fail to protect them now, future generations will lose something money can’t buy.

John Hickenlooper is a U.S. Senator representing Colorado.

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.

A March heat wave shattered several records for high temperatures across Colorado. the source of at least 70% of the state’s stream flows and water in reservoirs, is the worst on record. Cities along the Front Range have enacted water restrictions.

At a time when snow in the mountains usually has barely begun to melt, several ski resorts have closed. And ranchers are looking for hay in case the rangeland and pastures can’t provide enough food for their cattle this summer.

Problems for Colorado’s cattle industry will ripple through the state’s economy. The state’s cattle herd was the nation’s 10th largest in 2025, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Beef is the state’s top agricultural export, totaling $1.26 billion in value in 2025, the Colorado Department of Agriculture said.

Beef, fresh and frozen, is Colorado’s No. 1 export overall.

“The producers that are in the business now are here for a reason. It’s because they continue to be optimistic. They just keep saying, ‘You know, it has to rain one day,’ ” said Erin Karney Spaur, executive vice president of the

But ranchers are also keeping their eyes on the sky and the forecasts. Karney Spaur said most ranchers have drought plans, which include stockpiling hay and moving cattle around to give the grass time to grow. Worst case scenario, ranchers might end up selling part of their herd.

In past dry spells, people have trucked their cattle to other parts of Colorado or other states in search of greener pastures. The problem this time is the broad sweep of the drought will make those places harder to find.

“What I haven’t seen in my lifetime is the widespread drought all throughout Colorado and the West, for that matter,” Karney Spaur said.

In most areas, cattle producers with federal grazing permits on U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management land have received letters saying to expect reductions in use of the sites unless conditions change, Karney Spaur said.

“Most BLM-managed public lands in Colorado are in severe to exceptional drought,” Colorado BLM spokesman Steven Hall said in an email.

The BLM staff regularly communicates with permittees and with industry associations, Hall said. “Typically the BLM and permittee agree on changes to grazing use during drought.”

Conditions in the Rio Grande National Forest in southwest Colorado range from moderate to exceptional drought, according to the . Ranchers have been advised that if dry conditions continue, the grazing season might have to be shortened or the number of cattle on a site reduced for part of the summer in some areas, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in an email.

Decisions will be made case by case and the Forest Service will work with ranchers to explore options, the USDA said.

Much of the federally managed land used for grazing is in western Colorado. On the Eastern Plains, several ranchers have grazing permits on state-owned lands.

Curtis Russell, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association president, ranches in Sugar City in southeast Colorado and is a member of a grazing association that leases state lands. While the area had a good grass-growing season last summer, Russell doesn’t expect producers to move their animals onto the state lands this season until it rains.

The State Land Board closely monitors drought conditions and manages grazing on a case-by-case basis in coordination with lessees, spokeswoman Emily Barbo said in email. The staff is in close communication with ranchers across the state, she said.

“Things are really trying to green up, but it’s just hard,” Russell said. “We had 90-degree days in March. It was pretty hard to keep moisture in the ground with the wind blowing and 90 degrees.”

Ranchers on the Western Slope were battling through a dry summer in 2025 when wildfires erupted and raced through the parched vegetation. The fires scorched some ranchers’ pastures and federal grazing allotments.

Off the charts

Retta Bruegger, a regional range management specialist with Colorado State University Extension, calls snowpack “money in the bank” for ranchers who depend on grasses and plants to feed their cattle. But with Colorado’s snowpack at its lowest-ever levels, the bank is close to tapped-out.

“To be perfectly frank, this year is off the charts in terms of what it looks like and how it’s setting up so far,” Bruegger said. “I think people will be making a lot of hard decisions.”

On a recent trip just over the Colorado border into Utah, Bruegger said the forage looked better than she expected. The outlook could change if the weather does.

“In the world of all possibilities, it could start snowing tomorrow and snow until June 1. I don’t necessarily think that’s going to happen, but that would change some things if it does,” Bruegger said.

Janie VanWinkle and her family ranch in Mesa County. They graze their cattle on land they own and on leases with the federal government, the city of Grand Junction and Colorado Mesa University. The bulk of their grazing in the summer is on Forest Service land and they’re not sure whether use of the allotment will be restricted because of the drought.

“We’ll be having a meeting with our Forest Service range specialist in the next month or so. We’re kind of waiting to see what the weather is going to do,” VanWinkle said.

She finds the uncertainty unnerving after the  forced the family off their usual allotment to another area. VanWinkle and her husband, Howard, spent 122 days on horseback, moving their animals from water to food and at times through flames. The firefighters worked closely with the family to keep them and the cattle safe.

“The good news is we didn’t lose a single cow in the fire,” said VanWinkle, whose son works with her and husband.

As the family heads into what could be another dry summer, wildfires are a concern. “We’ve never talked about this, but I know this is the fear that’s been in my son’s heart. It’s the fear that’s in mine and my husband’s: What if there’s another one?” VanWinkle asks.

The statewide snowpack was at 21% of median Wednesday, the reported. This year’s level is the worst since measurements were recorded starting in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

In addition, the snow water equivalent, the amount of liquid water stored in the snow, was 3.3 inches, just 22% of the 30-year median, as of April 1, said Russ Schumacher, state climatologist and director of CSU’s Colorado Climate Center. The previous low was 9.1 inches in 1987.

“That’s the metric we pay attention to for water because that’s the water that’s going to flow into the rivers” and increase soil moisture, Schumacher said.

A year when the water content is 70% to 80% of average in early April would be considered a bad year, he added. “This year, we’re looking at 20% of the average, which is so far beyond that.”

Colorado has been hot as well as dry.

“That heat wave in March was just astonishing in terms of how unusually warm everything was across the state,” Schumacher said.

It was Colorado’s warmest March on record, according to the . Averaged across the state, the month was 13.1 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average and 4.3 degrees above any previous March.

Relief might come this summer in the form of El Niño, the weather phenomenon that warms the ocean surface in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

“Globally, it tends to raise temperatures. Here in Colorado, that tends not to be the case. We tend to be wetter and somewhat cooler, later in the summer and fall,” Schumacher said.

The said April 9 that the chance of an El Niño was 61% and a one-in-four chance that it might be strong.

David Gottenborg, whose family owns Eagle Rock Ranch in South Park, is hoping for a change. Park County typically doesn’t get a lot of moisture in winter, but this winter was even drier than usual. And warmer.

“We sit on Tarryall Creek and we’re running about 15, 14 cubic feet per second versus normally about 30 or so. So we’re about half,” Gottenborg said.

The Gottenborgs, who raise cattle and hay, irrigated a little in the last couple of weeks.

“Irrigation season typically starts April 1. In most years, it’s almost kind of a moot point because our head gates are frozen,” Gottenborg said.

Not this year. And there’s no ice now in Tarryall, a tributary of the South Platte River.

Besides cattle, hay is one of the Gottenborgs’ main income sources. They partnered with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to donate 48 tons of hay in December to Western Slope ranchers whose land was burned by the Lee wildfire last summer.

But their hay crop was down last year and they’ve halted sales for now.

“The old-timers here in the valley, they would always keep at least half of what they would need the following year in their stack yards. We’re trying to do that,” Gottenborg said.

The ranch gets calls almost every day from people looking to buy hay. Gottenborg said a woman told him that she had contacted more than 30 people. “We had to tell her ‘no’ as well.”

Karney Spaur of Colorado Cattlemen said she’s heard of hay selling for $300 to $350 a ton. This time of year, she said $150 to $175 a ton is more the norm.

One bright spot for ranchers is that in large part because of low cattle numbers nationwide.

“If you have to sell cows, it’s a good time to sell cows because they’re worth a lot of money,” said Russell, the rancher from Sugar City. “On the other hand, if El Nino comes in like they’re talking about this summer and we get a lot of rain and people have already sold cows and need to buy cows back, it’ll cost a lot of money.”

Maloy has long criticized this southern Utah national monument that was halved by President Trump during his first term, then restored under President Biden. One million awestruck visitors come here every year and spend money in the two Utah counties surrounding the monument, whose towns total less than 14,000 residents. Yet Maloy discounts data showing the economic value of preserved public lands. She neglects the world-class scientific value of these 1.9 million acres, detailed in Biden’s proclamation.

Rep. Maloy’s attack is wily. She and the rest of the congressional delegation know there’s too much public support to ask President Trump to again chop down the monument����ap size. Nearly 3 out of 4 Utah voters are on record as wanting to keep Grand Staircase-Escalante protected as a national monument.

So Utah politicians are betting the public won’t pay as much attention to management retrenchment as they would to downsizing. They’re using a controversial tactic to force the Bureau of Land Management to abandon the current Resource Management Plan–a blueprint for how the BLM puts the presidential proclamation into effect on the ground.

But monument supporters are paying attention because management plans matter.

After President Biden restored the boundaries of Grand Staircase in 2021, the BLM worked with the public for two years to create the 2025 Resource Management Plan, listening to every conceivable collaborative partner. Such plans guide decision-making for years, and this true compromise keeps ranchers’ grazing permits in place while also factoring in a warming planet, persistent drought, the need for biodiversity, and a sustainable future.

Now, Rep. Maloy has obtained an opinion from the Government Accountability Office to treat the 2025 plan merely as a “rule” that Congress can overturn. This unprecedented allowance can’t be challenged in court and permits the Utah delegation to use the Congressional Review Act to kill the conservation-based plan and bar the agency from issuing any “substantially the same” plan in the future. The Trump-era plan that would take its place leaves much of the monument unprotected from extractive industry and off-road vehicles.

Maloy says that emphasizing conservation “undercuts rural economic development.” From 2001 to 2022, however, real per capita income grew by 41 percent in the monument����ap counties.

She says that local residents and “trail users” oppose the Biden plan. This is cherry-picking. Motorized trail users always want greater access, even though the Biden-era plan left more than 800 miles of dirt roads and trails open for motorized vehicles.

When Maloy talks about “deep cultural traditions” being disrupted by the current management plan, she isn’t listening to Indigenous people who have made this place their home since time immemorial. The six Native Nations of the Grand-Staircase Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition oppose her move, noting that without the “clear roadmap for protection and conservation” provided by the current management plan, “our ancestral lands and … cultural sites within the monument would be at greater risk of looting, vandalism, graffiti, and degradation.”

To support their attacks, Utah’s politicians use their timeworn template to argue exclusively for “the needs and voices of the people who live and work on this land.” These politicians, however, listen only to county commissioners and legacy ranchers, not to a much broader constituency.

This is Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, not Grand Staircase County Park. The environmental, scientific, interpretive, and Indigenous values and potential of these public lands have national and international importance.

This new attack on Grand Staircase-Escalante from Congress–along with a parallel attack on Minnesota’s Boundary Waters—would set a national precedent with no public input that could upend public lands protection for years. Even the deeply conservative Mountain States Legal Foundation said it fears a “Wild West” for land-use planning if Congress acts on Maloy’s radical approach.

The exhausting years-long battle to protect the resources and restorative magic of Grand Staircase-Escalante can wear out supporters. But this place gives us no choice but to speak up once again. Staying silent puts federal agencies in an impossible position and places all of our public lands at risk. Let your members of Congress know that preservation of the monument requires leaving the current resource management plan in place.

Stephen Trimble is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He’s been hiking in Grand Staircase and writing about Colorado Plateau conservation for 50 years.

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.

But in the face of unnecessary radicalism, we urge policymakers not to entrench themselves in their positions but to take a moderate approach that accepts the reality that, on both sides of the issue, there is ground to give.

CPW acting director that her staff has received anonymous threats over two mountain lions who were euthanized following a fatal attack on a runner. And after the release of 15 gray wolves into Colorado, CPW staff were followed during operations and threatened with violence.

We expect healthy and robust debate about Colorado’s wildlife management practices, but both sides of these issues have gone crazy. This outlandish and harassing behavior must stop.

Hunting is a vital part of our wildlife management, our economy and our Western culture as is Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s ability to euthanize animals who pose a threat to humans. The Denver Post editorial board opposed a ban on mountain lion hunting in 2024’s Proposition 127. But we also supported the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado in 2020’s Proposition 114. The wolves are native to Colorado and could help our ecosystems find the right balance between predator and prey.

From this middle-ground position, we can call for both sides to simmer down.

Because from our vantage of impartiality, we can see plainly that mountain lion hunting needs much more regulation to protect the apex predator from being overly culled. The ban simply went too far.

And we can see plainly that the reintroduction of wolves has not gone well for the wolves or for the ranchers whose livelihoods have been impacted by wolf depredation.

Neither of those realizations requires a revolution. A strongly worded letter to state officials or reintroduction of ballot measures to change state law could suffice in both instances of policy failure.

Accusations that CPW staff is acting inappropriately or that they are out to get Coloradans who have different ideas for how our wildlife should be managed are both inappropriate and inaccurate. There is no conspiracy to protect mountain lion hunters or the guides who make money pursuing the big cats for clients. There is no conspiracy to chase Colorado ranchers off of public lands with marauding bands of gray wolves.

What we do know is that a Colorado woman was recently killed by a mountain lion while on a heavily used trail near an established neighborhood in Estes Park. The tragic death followed months of reports of mountain lions that appeared to no longer fear humans. Euthanizing those animals was the right decision.

Hunting lions can contribute to the animals retaining a natural fear of humans and dogs. Not banning hunting was the right call. However, the tragic death also shouldn’t lead to vehement anti-lion sentiment like we are seeing with gray wolves.

Apex predators are a critical part of our ecosystem, and while they always pose a risk to humans, managing them, not eradicating them, is the right path.

Gray wolves were naturally entering Colorado’s northern territory before voters decided to accelerate their reintroduction in 2024. Last winter 15 wolves were released in Colorado, and since then, 11 have died. Of the 10 wolves that were released in 2023, an unknown number have survived. The state tracks 19 wolves via collars and knows of at least four packs that are having pups. The mortality of introduced wolves is unacceptable, but so are the continued threats to hunt and slaughter the wolf population. We support hunting lions because the population is stable and needs to be managed. Until the wolf population stabilizes, the animals must be protected.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials are doing their best to manage our wildlife and protect our ecosystems. Any conversations about wolf and lion populations and protections must start and end with that truth.

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.

The PPORA is a collaboration of land managers, stakeholders, conservation and recreation partners that is implementing a plan for improving public land management across numerous jurisdictions in the region. It announced its vision plan and the grant application last August.

“Today marks the moment when years of regional planning and collaboration move into action,” said Becky Leinweber, PPORA executive director, at a news conference Tuesday. “It����ap about managing outdoor recreation, conserving natural resources and stewarding the Pikes Peak region with intention.”

A major goal of the PPORA is to complete the 63-mile Ring the Peak Trail around Pikes Peak, long a dream of outdoors enthusiasts in the region. Currently there are two gaps, one of five miles on the northeast aspect of the Pikes Peak massif, another of eight miles on its southwest aspect near Cripple Creek.

The $2.5-million grant will be used initially to fund 10 projects including:

• Realignments of Ring the Peak Trail segments in the North Slope Recreation Area on land owned by Colorado Springs Utilities, where it has three reservoirs located along lower sections of the Pikes Peak Highway south of Woodland Park
• New trail and trailhead construction on the Ute Pass Regional Trail that will eventually close the five-mile gap in the Ring the Peak Trail northwest of Manitou Springs
• Develop 15 campsites and improve infrastructure at Red Canyon Park near Canyon City, located on the Gold Belt Scenic Byway
• Conduct environmental analysis and archeological studies required before developing Ring the Peak corridor campsites managed by CPW
• Enhance bighorn sheep habitat in the Dome Rock State Wildlife Area, located west of Pikes Peak near Mueller State Park

PPORA is one of 21 Colorado Outdoor Regional Partnerships funded by CPW and GoCo. Gov. Jared Polis instituted the regional partnerships initiative in 2020 to enable state-supported collaboration in efforts to preserve public lands and recreation opportunities.

“When we set up the regional partnerships, we really had this kind of collaboration in mind,” Polis said of PPORA. “This is in many ways the highest profile, successful outcome of that work. There’s a lot of great work being done across the state, but none have the significance in the United States of America as Pikes Peak. It����ap really exciting to work with the Pikes Peak region to help make this a reality.”

Pikes Peak regional partners have been in discussions with CPW officials for more than a year to identify areas where it can assume a management role. Most of the land is owned by the U.S. Forest Service and Colorado Springs Utilities.

“We’re a state where the federal government owns more than a third of our state (land),” Polis said. “They are very hands-off, and have very little ability to work with locals dynamically and quickly to do things. Things take a long time going through Washington. By having this kind of collaboration, we want to be able to provide more active management to meet the local community needs through Colorado Parks and Wildlife.”

What that might look like is still under discussion, though.

“We’ve been having ongoing meetings every month, working towards having a short-term agreement in place – hopefully sometime this summer — which would firm up what we hope to accomplish in the long term,” said Frank McGee, director of CPW’s southeast region. “Anytime we do something with the federal government, there are extra layers of planning and processes that we have to go through. That����ap going to take a period of years.”

In the meantime, CPW stands ready to help in any way it can.

“We’re not trying to take anything over from anybody by force,” McGee said. “We are trying to work with folks to have a mutually beneficial partnership and help them with things they have identified as needs we can help with.”