Colorado Parks and Wildlife kills grey wolf in Pitkin County after attacks on livestock
CPW said that the wolf was identified as wolf 2405, a member of the Copper Creek Pack. The decision came after reports of chronic depredation, even after livestock producers had utilized all reasonable non-lethal methods to deter the wolves from their animals.
Orangutan escapes exhibit after a 'malfunction' at Denver Zoo
Between May 17-25, four depredation incidents occurred, which included three by clear and convincing evidence, according to CPW.
The agency will monitor the Copper Creek Pack to see whether the lethal removal affects the behavior of the remaining pack members.
'The decision to take lethal management action was very difficult,' said CPW Director Jeff Davis. 'Our wildlife biologists and officers constructed a timeline of recent events that shows the depredation behavior met the conditions for chronic depredation that were defined earlier this year. We have great respect for these animals and take the removal of a wolf very seriously. Removal of problem animals is unfortunate and rare, but consistent with the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan.'
Although the removal occurred, CPW said it is still determined to find a balance between supporting the wolves and the livestock producers symbiotically.
'We remain committed to both wolf restoration and to Colorado's livestock producers,' Davis said. 'We have been focused on improving our communication and coordination with the agricultural community. The producers in this area have been working constructively with CPW on deployment of multiple non-lethal conflict mitigation efforts. The intent of this management action is to discourage other pack members from unnaturally shifting to livestock as their primary source of food. This action will help ensure that wolves and packs that are targeting natural prey serve as the foundation for a sustainable population. Most of the wolves in the state are sticking to natural food sources and avoiding livestock conflicts.'
Not the first preferred choice when dealing with the wolves, CPW said that the events from the May incidents matched the criteria for chronic depredation in the CPW Wolf-Livestock Conflict Minimization Guide.
Chronic depredation is defined as three or more depredation events within a 30-day period.
The incidents occurred during times, including:
May 17
Injury to one calf
May 23
One calf deceased
May 24
One calf deceased, one calf injured
May 25
One cow injured, one calf injured
18 abandoned rabbits found by dumpster in Golden
CPW staff immediately began to investigate whether the incidents met the definition of chronic depredation and came to a conclusion on May 25. Plans were then made with a landowner to remove the wolf as soon as possible.
Livestock producers can receive the fair market value of the animal lost in the depredation events if a claim is submitted.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
13 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Exclusive: Inside the Planning for Trump's Next Supreme Court Nominee
White House officials and a close circle of conservative lawyers are preparing for President Donald Trump to be able to hit the ground running if a Supreme Court vacancy opens up during the remaining three and a half years of his second term, according to sources inside and outside the White House. The discussions are in early stages and focus on finding a nominee in the mold of Samuel Alito, 75, and Clarence Thomas, 77, the two oldest justices, both of whom are considered stalwart conservative jurists who have taken narrow interpretations of the Constitutional text while backing an expansive view of Presidential power. Shortlists of judges are circulating among Trump allies as they debate who can be best trusted to stick with the Court's conservative wing during an appointment that could last decades. 'We are looking for people in the mold of Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Scalia,' said a White House official familiar with the process, referring to Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. The official said it was 'premature' to say the White House was getting ready for a vacancy. Republicans currently control the Senate, which must confirm any nominee to the court. The party also controlled the Senate throughout Trump's first term, allowing Trump to appoint three Justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett— who were all well-regarded in conservative legal circles. Advisors close to Trump want to set the stage for the smoothest possible confirmation process and avoid the high drama of Kavanaugh's hearings in 2018 that focused on allegations of sexual assault. Conservative lawyers around Trump are also feeling burned by a handful of recent decisions in which Barrett joined liberal members of the court and want to ensure the next nominee is someone who won't veer from the conservative bloc. 'There's a lot of anger at Amy Coney Barrett coming from the MAGA movement,' says Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 'I think you can imagine a very different type of nominee than we've had from Trump in the past.' Trump will make the final decision on who to put forward for Senate confirmation, says a White House official. Key players in his administration who would be involved in vetting candidates would be Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House Counsel David Warrington and Steve Kenny, the deputy White House counsel for nominations. Mike Davis, a conservative lawyer and bare-knuckle Trump defender, is also expected to be an influential voice in the process. 'Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are irreplaceable and I hope they do not retire anytime soon,' Davis tells TIME. Just in case, Davis says he has given the Trump White House a short list of 'bold and fearless' nominees for the Supreme Court, and should there be a vacancy, he plans to 'play an outside supporting role' to the White House efforts. Davis, who is founder of the Article III project, a conservative judicial advocacy group, would not confirm which names are on his list. 'I have provided my recommended list to the President and his team and I am not going to discuss that list with anyone other than them,' says Davis. He stressed that 'the President and the President alone will decide his judicial nominees.' Two people familiar with the White House vetting process said that the current front runners for a potential Supreme Court vacancy are Andrew Oldham, a 5th circuit judge in Texas, and Neomi Rao, who sits on the influential District of Columbia Circuit Court. Oldham was previously general counsel for Texas Governor Greg Abbott and clerked for Justice Alito. Rao, whose parents are from India, would be the first Asian-American justice on the Supreme Court, and only the seventh woman. Rao clerked for Justice Thomas earlier in her career. Davis has also previously floated the name of Aileen Cannon, the judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida who ruled favorably for Trump when he was being investigated for keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Club. Other conservative judges considered potential contenders for Trump to name are James Ho, another judge on Texas's 5th circuit, and two judges in Ohio's 6th circuit—Raymond M. Kethledge and Amul R. Thapar. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank that's best known for spearheading Project 2025, is also expected to work to influence Trump's decision. John Malcolm, vice president of Heritage's Institute for Constitutional Government, can list off the top of his head more than 10 current circuit court judges he thinks would make strong justices on the nation's highest court. Malcolm also believes Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a former assistant U.S. attorney who clerked for Alito, would be an 'excellent choice.' While Lee isn't a sitting judge, he 'isn't afraid to speak his mind,' says Malcolm, who adds that Lee has a track record of legislation and books that show he's a textualist and originalist. Trump entered his second term having already helped cement a conservative majority for a generation through the installation of three nominees. In recent months, that court has upheld Trump's consolidation of power as President and bolstered his larger project to tilt the country's public policy to the right. In June, the Court limited the ability of judges to block Trump's policies nationwide and paved the way for the Administration to move forward with deporting immigrants to locations other than their home countries without additional due process requirements imposed by a district court judge During Trump's first term, he relied heavily on recommendations from the powerful conservative legal group The Federalist Society for his judicial nominations. That process produced a group of academically-minded conservative thinkers on the court that overturned the nationwide abortion protections in Roe v. Wade. Trump will likely be looking for a different standard this time around, says Wittes, the editor of Lawfare, an online publication that closely follows the Supreme Court. 'I assume the competition here would be to have shown greatest loyalty to Trump,' Wittes says. 'I think one would worry that this person would be guided by loyalty rather than guided by something like principle.'
The Hill
5 days ago
- The Hill
Former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis asks Supreme Court to reverse same-sex marriage decision
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was briefly jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to revisit its landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide and celebrated its 10th anniversary in June. Davis's attorneys at the Christian nonprofit Liberty Counsel asked the court in a 90-page filing to review a March ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a lower court's finding that Davis violated David Ermold and David Moore's constitutional right to marry when she denied them a marriage license in 2015, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its Obergefell decision. A federal jury awarded the couple $100,000 in damages in 2023, and a federal judge ordered Davis last year to pay Ermold and Moore an additional $260,000 in attorneys' fees. Davis argued in 2015 that granting the couple a marriage license would have violated her religious beliefs as a born-again Christian and 'God's definition of marriage.' She and her legal team have argued throughout a decadelong legal battle that, in denying the license, Davis was protected by her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion. In March, a three-judge panel for the 6th Circuit ruled that Davis cannot raise a First Amendment defense in the case 'because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect.' Liberty Counsel is asking the Supreme Court to overturn both the 6th Circuit decision and the high court's ruling in Obergefell. 'Kim Davis' case underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Obergefell v. Hodges opinion because it threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman,' said Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel's founder and chair. The group's petition argues that the court should revisit and reverse its Obergefell decision 'for the same reasons articulated in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center,' the case that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. 'Obergefell was wrong when it was decided and it is wrong today because it was grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.' Bill Powell, counsel for Ermold and Moore, told The Hill in an email the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up Davis's case. 'Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis's rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention,' he said. The high court declined to intervene in Davis's case in 2020. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, conservatives who dissented from the court's majority opinion in Obergefell, said they agreed with the court's decision not to accept Davis's appeal but used the occasion to renew their objections to its same-sex marriage decision. 'Davis may have been one of the first victims of this court's cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last,' wrote Thomas, joined by Alito. 'Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws.' Davis's appeal to the Supreme Court comes as it faces calls from Republican lawmakers to overturn Obergefell. In June, Southern Baptists voted overwhelmingly to approve a resolution endorsing a ban on same-sex marriage and calling for the court to reverse its decision. National support for same-sex marriage remains at record highs, though a May Gallup poll showed Republican support for marriage equality falling to 41 percent, the lowest in a decade. In a separate survey conducted by three polling firms in June, 56 percent of Republican respondents said they support same-sex marriage.
USA Today
5 days ago
- USA Today
Could the Supreme Court revisit marriage equality? New appeal offers chance
Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, wants the high court to overturn that decision. WASHINGTON – A former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 because of her religious beliefs is hoping the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority wants to scrap the court's 10-year-old decision extending marriage rights to LGBTQ+ couples. Kim Davis asked the court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges in an appeal filed on July 24 about the compensation she was ordered to pay a couple after denying them a marriage license. Mat Staver, head of Liberty Counsel, the conservative legal group representing Davis, said that decision threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. "The High Court now has the opportunity to finally overturn this egregious opinion from 2015," Staver said in a statement. More: He was at the center of a Supreme Court case that changed gay marriage. Now, he's worried. Mary Bonauto, a senior director with GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, said Davis' legal team is trying to shoehorn an opportunity to relitigate Obergefell into a narrow legal question of whether the former clerk should have to pay damages. "There's good reason for the Supreme Court to deny review in this case rather than unsettle something so positive for couples, children, families, and the larger society as marriage equality," Bonauto said in an emailed response. Davis attracted international attention when she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, landing her in jail on a contempt of court charge for five days. When Davis was sued by David Ermold and David Moore, she argued legal protections for public officials prevented the challenge. Lower courts let the suit proceed and the Supreme Court in 2020 declined to intervene. More: Southern Baptists vote to seek repeal of historic same-sex marriage ruling Justice Clarence Thomas wrote at the time that while Davis' case was a "stark reminder" of the consequences of Obergefell, it didn't "cleanly present" questions about that decision. After the district court ruled against Davis, she was ordered to pay $100,000 in damages to the couple and $260,000 for their attorneys fees and expenses. Her appeal to the Supreme Court opens with comments made by the dissenting justices in the 5-4 decision issued 10 years ago. Since then, the court's makeup has changed to a 6-3 conservative supermajority. Opinion: I was the named 'opposition' in Obergefell v. Hodges. I've never been happier to lose. Still, Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law, said there's "not a chance" the court is going to overturn Obergefell. That's in part because Congress passed a law in 2022 guaranteeing federal recognition of same-sex marriage rights, he said. "It would be a useless act to overturn Obergefell," Esbeck said. "The politics have simply moved on from same-sex marriage, even for conservative religious people." Geoffrey R. Stone, who teaches law at the University of Chicago, agreed the court is unlikely to scrap Obergefell despite its willingness in recent years to overturn precedents on abortion and affirmative action. While a majority of the current justices may disagree with Obergefell, the decision is generally approved by the public, he said. "For that reason, and to avoid the appearance of interpreting the Constitution in a manner that conforms to their own personal views," Stone said in an emailed response, "even some of the conservative justices might not vote to overrule Obergefell."
