In January of 2025, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) completed its second translocation operation to bring gray wolves back to Colorado. These two efforts were meant to provide a foundation for a self-sustaining wolf population in the Centennial State. For some Coloradans, this was a celebratory moment, and for others, it sparked concern due to the potential wolf-livestock conflict that more wolves on the landscape could bring.
Starting the September before the second round of releases, CPW and the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) worked with producers to better understand and address their concerns. This included everything from meetings between CPW and statewide and local producer organizations, to one-on-one chats between our field staff and ranchers over the tailgates of trucks and along fence lines.
From these conversations, CPW and CDA learned valuable lessons about how their conflict minimization efforts could be expanded and laid plans for critical capacity improvements. Among these improvements were free site assessments that could be conducted both proactively, and reactively, to collaboratively create plans to minimize wolf conflict.
What is a Wolf Site Assessment and what does it accomplish?
At its simplest level, a site assessment is a solution-oriented conversation between a producer and local CPW staff
This two-way exchange allows producers to educate CPW and partnering organizations on their operations and concerns regarding wolf presence. Additionally, they allow CPW to present recommendations on what conflict minimization tools and techniques might be reasonable, viable and effective based on the nature of an operation and the environmental conditions of their property.
The effectiveness of a site assessment — and the conflict minimization efforts it plans for — is heavily dependent on the individual relationships and communication lines fostered by field staff such as CPW’s dedicated district wildlife managers, area wildlife managers and wildlife damage specialists.
“These assessments are very species specific and meant to create communication channels between the producers and our agency,” said Adam Baca, Wolf Conflict Coordinator. “They give us a chance to talk with producers who we might have long-standing relationships with or who we’ve never met before. By starting the conversation on wolf conflict, depredation and compensation in this proactive way we are able to lay the foundation for a stronger partnership.”
A typical site assessment lasts between one to two hours. It commonly includes discussion about concerns, touring the property and reviewing relevant property maps. This allows CPW and CDA to understand how a producer operates and identify existing wildlife conflict areas on their working lands.
Information gathered during these free and voluntary assessments allows CPW to identify potential high-conflict areas or times of year for an operation. From this baseline, the agency can collaboratively plan with the producer on additional steps to minimize conflict should it arise.
Because site assessments are uploaded to a central location (where the personal identifying information of producers is protected in line with SB25-038 – Wildlife Damage Protection of Personal Information), this information is accessible even if the individual staffer who conducted the assessment isn’t.
“This system means that even if someone is out sick or on vacation we are still able to rapidly implement efforts that were agreed upon by the producer without restarting the process every time,” Baca said.
What is covered in a site assessment, and who can do them?
In addition to learning the specifics of a producer’s operation, CPW staff carefully consider the physical environment. This allows CPW and its partnering organization to identify the conflict minimization tools and techniques that a producer already incorporates into their operation and additional reasonable, viable and effective options.
“If there is a bunch of scrub oak and really thick vegetation and you can’t get fladry [a type of temporary fencing featuring brightly colored flags used to deter wolves] in, it’s probably not going to be a good option and we’ll make note of that,” Baca said “If it’s going to be challenging to range ride and you have to use the old ‘Chevro-Legs’ instead of a horse, we note that. Also if there’s a substantial number of recreationists who use the property or if it’s a backcountry area where accessibility is incredibly difficult, we want to make sure that is tracked so we’re not making recommendations that will create more headaches.”
Using the in-depth operational knowledge of the producer, and the conflict minimization expertise of CPW’s staff, decisions about where different tools and techniques could be deployed are made.
A brief, and noncomprehensive, list of potential tools and techniques includes:
- Fladry
- Carcass management (led by the CDA)
- Monitoring
- Scare devices (both visual and audio)
- Range riding
- Livestock guardian animal usage (facilitated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service)
- Hazing
Each of these tools and techniques has different use cases and factors that indicate when they are appropriate. Site-specific factors identified during site assessments play a large role in determining which tools and techniques are deployed. Additional specifics about the different tools and techniques utilized by CPW will be covered in a series of articles in the coming months.
“There is no one-size-fits-all solution and no guarantee that any given tool is going to work in a situation, but having a game plan in place allows us to identify what mosaic of conflict minimization tools and techniques has the best chance of success on massive landscapes,” Baca said. “This allows us to apply the right options at the right time and help producers who might otherwise feel unsupported.”
In addition to CPW and CDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service branches also conduct site assessments using a similar process. This consistency helps all agencies to collaboratively assist producers.
“That cross-organizational collaboration is critical because producers are gonna go to each of these agencies looking for answers, looking for support,” Baca said. “Having all of us speaking the same language to the producers and to the public is really beneficial and helps with the long-term work of establishing an equilibrium on the landscape.”
How many site assessments have been done and how can producers get involved?
Since CPW and CDA’s site assessment program was formalized in 2025, more than 240 assessments have been completed across 23 different counties.
“Having 240 site assessments completed in the last year or so is really important as it means we have identified plans for each of these operations for the swift deployment of resources should wolves start localizing or exhibiting concerning behavior,” Baca said.
In addition to conducting these proactively — which is preferred — site assessments can also be conducted after depredations have occurred.
Reactive assessments still focus on learning the specifics of a producer’s operation, as well as the unique environmental indicators, and help identify immediate steps that can be taken to help minimize additional wolf-livestock conflict.
To request a site assessment, producers should call their local area’s CPW office or contact the local district wildlife manager. From there they can set up a time for staff to visit their operation and receive a pre-questionnaire that can help guide the process.
During the assessment process, producers will be provided with wolf conflict minimization information. Once a site assessment is complete, the producer receives a finalized copy of their assessment to help guide future wolf conflict response but this is not a binding or prescriptive agreement.
Once it is determined what conflict minimization tools and techniques may be viable, reasonable and effective for their operation, they are only deployed with producer permission in high- to medium-conflict risk scenarios.
High- to medium-conflict risk scenarios can include calving pastures near den sites, locations of regular detection, or in response to depredation. If efforts are implemented, CPW will partner with the producer to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the tools. At any point, the producer has the right to request their removal.
“Just because a producer said they were willing to have fladry deployed by CPW and a contracted range rider on their property during an initial assessment doesn’t mean they can’t decide they would like to pursue a different course,” Baca said. “This also doesn’t mean that CPW is going to deploy fladry at every operation that does a site assessment regardless of if there are wolves in the area. This is just the jumping off point from which we can adaptively problem solve based on the behavior of wolves and frequency of detection.”
Additional information about site assessments and CPW’s conflict minimization efforts can be found in our Wolf-Livestock Conflict Minimization Program Guide.
Producers interested in having a site assessment conducted can request it through their local area’s CPW office.
Wolf-Livestock Conflict Minimization Program Guide
The Wolf-Livestock Conflict Minimization Program Guide provides information on a variety of tools and methods available for livestock producers to employ in efforts to reduce the likelihood of wolf-livestock conflicts and establishes a framework for CPW’s response, along with available support from other state, federal and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
Written by Luke Perkins, a Statewide Public Information Officer for Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
