The Colorado Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee rejected two of Gov. Jared Polis’s three appointments for the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission on Wednesday, April 22, amid concerns that the nominations would skew the citizen, volunteer board toward anti-hunting, extreme wildlife beliefs. 

Frances Silva Blayney, who co-owns a fly-fishing outfitter in Colorado Springs with her daughter, was unanimously approved by the committee. 

The senators, however, were split and ultimately against the appointments of John Emerick, a retired environmental biology professor who resides in Redstone, and Chris Sichko, a research economist who has worked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and lives in Boulder.  

The appointments will now face a full Senate vote. 

While his rationale for voting against Emerick and Sichko varied slightly, Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco, who chairs the committee, said both represented a continuation of the gubernatorial administration moving the commission in a specific direction. 

“I’m worried about the future of the reputation of the CPW Commission if folks who continue to have a very specific point of view are being appointed by this governor, in what I think is a clear attempt to move the commission in a direction that is not within the mainstream of Colorado,” Roberts said. 

The committee’s votes against Sichko and Emerick follow criticism and concerns raised by various Colorado sportspersons and agriculture organizations about their appointments. A letter from the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project — which includes 15 Colorado sportsperson organizations and several former Parks and Wildlife staff members and leaders — said the commission has tilted toward “extreme animal rights and anti-hunting agendas” pushed by the governor’s administration. 

The group claims that Emerick’s previous professional and personal activities demonstrate a bias toward certain anti-agriculture and anti-hunting efforts and that Sichko lacked the experience to adequately represent the hunting community on the board. 

“These appointments (to the Parks and Wildlife Commission made during the Polis administration) have contributed to the commission’s current dysfunction, which fails to best serve Colorado citizens and fish and wildlife populations managed in the public trust,” the letter reads. “We urge the committee and policymakers to advance appointments that fully meet statutory requirements, avoid conflicts of interest and rebuild trust with the diverse constituencies that depend on CPW.” 

How are CPW commissioners appointed? 

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is a 13-person volunteer board tasked with guiding the state agency’s policies and regulations. 

Eleven of the commissioners are voting members — joining the Colorado agriculture commissioner and Colorado Department of Natural Resources executive director, who hold non-voting seats — who are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate. 

State law requires that these 11 seats be filled by: 

• Three members who are sportspersons, one of whom must be a registered outfitter in the state, and who have held a Colorado hunting or fishing license for at least three years before appointment 
• Three agricultural producers who are “actively involved” in production agriculture as owners or lessees on an agricultural property and who have demonstrated knowledge of wildlife issues
• Three recreationalists, including one from a non-profit, non-consumptive wildlife organization, 
• Two members appointed from the public “at large”

At least four of these members must live west of the Continental Divide, and the commission must be balanced with regard to political affiliation.   

Silva Blayney was appointed to one of the three sportspersons’ seats, filling the one that must be held by an outfitter. She took over the seat from Marie Haskett, a third-generation hunting outfitter who termed out of the seat in June 2025. 

Emerick was appointed to one of the at-large seats, left open when Polis declined to re-appoint Karen Bailey, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Boulder’s environmental studies program. 

Sichko was appointed to one of the sportsperson seats, taking over a vacancy left by the December resignation of Murphy Robinson, a long-time hunter who owns a security portfolio company and was the deputy mayor of Denver under Michael Hancock.

Due to the timing of their appointments, both Emerick and Silva Blayney have been serving on the commission since July 2025. Sichko has not because he was appointed during the legislative session. Sichko said he did attend the March meeting as a member of the public. 

Senators question conflicts of interest, qualifications

With Emerick and Sichko, concerns were raised about whether the appointees had conflicts of interest and adequate qualifications to represent the seats they were nominated for. 

On Wednesday, Roberts said he didn’t feel that Emerick was “qualified or prepared or suited to serve in the at-large position,” given his “history of very specific activism.” 

“At-large seats hold special responsibility to try to move the commission forward in recognizing that the state is very diverse, that the state has many points of view when it comes to wildlife management, when it comes to matters of managing our state parks and our state wildlife and everything that has gone on over the last few years,” Roberts said. “I am concerned, and have become more concerned after today’s hearing, that you are not prepared to represent the at-large point of view on the commission.”

Emerick said he was appointed for this specific seat because: “I’m not an agriculturalist, I’m not a hunter, but I certainly use our parks.” 

Emerick addressed concerns and was questioned by senators about his viewpoints and previous participation in several controversial wildlife-related matters. 

In his opening remarks, Emerick specifically addressed Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project’s letter. This included concerns about his past experience as the treasurer of Colorado Wild, a wolf advocacy organization that supported the ballot measure that spurred the state’s reintroduction effort, which Emerick said he only held for less than a year and immediately resigned from after his appointment. The other concern raised about Emerick is his partner, Delia Malone’s outspoken public advocacy at commission meetings for wolves, against mountain lion hunting and in support of the commercial fur sale ban on furbearers.

“We are not married. We do not file taxes together. We do not coordinate on our testimony or my votes,” he said. “I am a lifelong Republican. She’s a lifelong Democrat. She does not tell me how to vote. I do not tell her what to say. We are two independent professionals who share a background in ecology. And in more than 20 years together, we have not always agreed, but that’s worked out fine for us.”

Lawmakers questioned his involvement in wolf-related petitions — including a 2025 request for the wildlife agency to add more parameters for ranchers to receive compensation for loss of livestock — as well as his voting record as a private citizen and in his last five months on the wildlife commission. 

“At the time, I was looking at what I thought was the most defensible position with regard to what I knew about the science of the matters, and that’s how I think that’s all I can say at this point,” Emerick said. “I look at the facts before me, I look at the best available science and that’s how I based my judgments, my decisions.”

Emerick affirmed that he voted for Proposition 127, the failed measure to ban mountain lion, bobcat and lynx hunting in Colorado. He also defended his March vote as a commissioner in support of a potential ban on the sale of the furs of the 17 species Parks and Wildlife classifies as furbearers. The vote went against the recommendation of Parks and Wildlife staff. 

“Commissioners are not rubber stamps for staff recommendations,” he said. “We are an independent citizen board, and our obligation under the statute is to exercise independent judgment on behalf of all Coloradans.”

The senators voted 5-2 against Emerick’s appointment to the commission. 

Roberts said he felt Sichko would have been a better fit for the at-large seat. 

“I just don’t think we should have somebody filling the sportsman seat that has not garnered any support from the sportsman community and doesn’t have the experience to recognize CPW’s funding source from the sportsman community,” Roberts said. 

Colorado hunting and fishing license sales — as well as other passes and fees — make up over half (58%) of Parks and Wildlife’s annual revenue. It receives the most money from non-resident elk licenses, which brought in around $45 million last fiscal year, followed by fishing licenses, which brought in $25 million. 

Windi Padia, deputy director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, confirmed that the governor received 12 applications, including Sichko’s, that fulfilled the statutory requirements for the sportsperson’s seat. 

During his introduction, Sichko described himself as “a sportsman, agricultural economist, photographer and lifelong, multigenerational Colorado resident.” Sichko said his experience as a sportsperson is rooted in a long history of fishing and recent opportunities to small game bow hunt. 

The groups and individuals comprising Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project cited Sichko’s lack of participation in big game hunting as their main objection to his appointment. 

“Given the importance of big game hunting to CPW’s budget and to Colorado’s rural economies, and the lack of hunting representation on the commission, it is critical that this appointment brings that expertise for the benefit of staff, the sportsperson community, and the other commissioners who look to this position for guidance,” they wrote. 

Sichko referred to hunting as “important cultural traditions” that are central to Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s conservation work. In joining the commission, he said his main objective would be to rebuild trust with the sportsperson groups. 

“I have a son, and I would love to teach my son, nieces, nephews and the next generation how integral wildlife, ecosystems and habitat are to our existence, how precious and fleeting life is,” Sichko said. “I know of no better way to learn these things than through hunting and fishing.”

The senators voted 4-3 against his appointment to the commission.

Politicization of Colorado Parks and Wildlife  

Concerns about the politicization of Colorado Parks and Wildlife are not new. Over the last several years, Colorado Parks and Wildlife commission meetings have grown increasingly contentious as wolves and issues pertaining to furbearers bring forth questions of science, ethics, conservation and more. 

At her final meeting in June, the former commissioner Haskett said that her and Bailey’s senate appointments in 2021 were “the last non-contentious confirmation” and warned that “political agendas have taken over this agency.” 

In 2024, two of the three governor appointments drew similar controversy as Sichko and Emerick in the Senate. Gary Skiba, who withdrew before the Senate’s final vote, had been part of the group leading the wolf reintroduction ballot initiative. Jessica Beaulieu, who was ultimately appointed to the commission and still serves, drew concerns from lawmakers and hunting and recreation organizations over a lack of connection to the state’s parks and wildlife and connections to animal activist initiatives.

“My first appointment was from Gov. John Hickenlooper, and a lot of changes have been made — a tremendous amount — under this administration,” Haskett said. “Leadership used to be involved in picking commission appointments. Now they have no idea who has applied. We now have anti-hunters and not non-hunters on this commission. Agendas are set from the governor’s office, not staff.” 

Colorado’s collared gray wolves remained anchored in the state’s northwest corner as denning season peaks.

This is according to Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s most recent wolf activity map, which shows the watersheds where the state’s collared gray wolves were located between March 24 and April 21. 

During this period, the wolves were located primarily in northwest Colorado watersheds across Moffat, Routt, Rio Blanco, Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Grand, Pitkin, Mesa and Jackson counties. There was also some activity in watersheds touching Delta, Gunnison, Montrose and Saguache counties toward the south. 

While the April map showed similar northwest activity compared to the previous month, it showed the collared wolves pulling away from Front Range watersheds and does not show exploration along the Colorado-New Mexico border. In March, this southern movement came from one wolf, according to Parks and Wildlife. 

If a watershed is highlighted, it means that at least one GPS point from one wolf was recorded in that watershed during the 30-day period. GPS points are recorded roughly every four hours.  

Some of the watersheds highlighted in the April map reach Colorado’s borders with Utah and Wyoming. These maps only show wolf activity within the state of Colorado. Gray wolves that leave Colorado face different rules and protections depending on where they go.

Alongside the map’s publication, Colorado Parks and Wildlife reports that its staff continues to monitor four packs, all of which are located in northwest Colorado: the Copper Creek Pack in Pitkin County, the King Mountain Pack in Routt County, the One Ear Pack in Jackson County and the Three Creeks Pack in Rio Blanco County. 

The wolves are currently in the midst of denning season, which typically begins in mid-March and can peak in April and May. Parks and Wildlife has not confirmed any additional dens or new pack formations this spring. 

The wildlife agency continues to include the King Mountain pack in its count, despite both breeding adults dying this year. The pack had four pups. One of the pups was collared in January, during the same operations that resulted in the death of the pack’s patriarch. The matriarch died six weeks later. 

In March, Luke Perkins, a public information officer for Parks and Wildlife, said it remained to be seen whether the pups would stay together or separate following both adult wolves’ deaths. 

Almost two and a half years into Colorado’s voter-mandated reintroduction of gray wolves, the state has released 25 wolves from Oregon and British Columbia. Thirteen of these 25 wolves have died.

Of the 12 surviving reintroduced wolves, six are part of a breeding pair and pack. Eight are female and four are male. The four surviving wolves born to the Copper Creek pack in 2024 — three males and one female — have reportedly dispersed from their pack. This could mean there are at least 10 dispersing wolves in Colorado. These counts do not include the number of pups born in 2025, which Parks and Wildlife has said will be reported in the next annual wolf report. Last year, the annual report was released in June.  

Colorado lawmakers want to tighten the reins on how the state wildlife agency is spending taxpayer dollars to restore gray wolves on the Western Slope. 

In a budget footnote introduced by Rep. Ty Winter, R-Trinidad, and Rep. Meghan Lukens, D-Steamboat Springs, Colorado Parks and Wildlife would not be allowed to use general fund dollars to bring more wolves to the state in the upcoming fiscal year. 

“What I would like to say to my ranchers is that we are not using their taxpayer dollars to introduce more wolves into their backyard,” Lukens said. “The money that is still allocated to the Department of Natural Resources can still be used for conflict minimization and overall management of the program, but if we are going to, as a state, pay for new wolves, I believe that money should be coming from gifts, grants and donations.”

The footnote passed the House on April 10, at the end of the chamber’s marathon budget conversations. This year, lawmakers are looking at cuts to items like Medicaid and immigrant health care programming, social services and affordable housing to close a $1.5 billion shortfall. 

“We’ve talked about budget priorities and putting people first,” Winter said. “Well, this is one chance to do that.”

“This isn’t just about wolves, and this just isn’t about cattle, this is about people’s livelihoods. How would you feel if somebody was preying on your paycheck? ‘Cause that is what’s happening here,” he added. 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife receives $2.1 million annually from the state general fund to run the wolf reintroduction program, which was mandated by voters in 2020. 

The amendment offered by Winter and Lukens does not change this allocation; it only prohibits the agency from using any of these funds to bring additional wolves to Colorado. 

Rep. Kyle Brown, D-Louisville, a member of the joint budget committee, which drafts the state budget before it heads to the House and Senate, spoke in opposition to adding the budget footnote on April 10. 

“​​The (joint budget committee) has talked extensively about wolves, and while we may not always agree on these issues, we have discussed them, and this money remains in the budget for reintroduction, in part because this is a reflection of the voters’ intent,” Brown said. “While the amendment deals with specifically reintroduction, the line that this deals with goes toward management, which is much more than just reintroduction.” 

House Speaker Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, said that the amendment was a rare exception to a personal rule of hers to support the joint budget committee’s decisions on the budget.

“It is a moment for us to recognize that while we should honor the will of the voters — I am respectful of that — our reintroduction of wolves has not gone successfully nor without significant cost,” McCluskie said. “I would ask for your support on this amendment, knowing that there is certainly a better path forward for us on the wolf management plan, and I would encourage further evaluation of the process so far, ways that we can continue to improve it.” 

Proposition 114 — which required Parks and Wildlife to create a self-sustaining population of gray wolves, while preventing conflict with livestock — passed by nearly 57,000 votes in Colorado in 2020. The measure was opposed in 51 of Colorado’s 64 counties, including all but five Western Slope counties, where reintroduction is required to take place. 

Rep. Tammy Story, D-Evergreen, said that Parks and Wildlife could not meet the legal requirements of this measure “without a sustainable funding source, especially not that of gifts, grants and donations.” She went on to argue that wolves are vital to creating a healthy ecosystem in Colorado, and coexistence is the key to the program’s success.   

What is Colorado spending on wolves? 

Parks and Wildlife began reintroduction in December 2023, releasing 10 wolves from Oregon in Grand and Summit counties. In January 2025, the agency released an additional 15 wolves from British Columbia in Pitkin and Eagle counties. While the state’s burgeoning population has seen some reproduction, 13 of the 25 wolves brought into Colorado have died. 

Ultimately, the state wildlife agency did not move forward with its plans to bring in more wolves during the 2025-26 winter. Parks and Wildlife had planned to return to British Columbia this winter, signing an agreement with the province to capture up to 15 wolves. However, new leadership and direction from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forced the state wildlife agency to look to Northern Rockies states instead. Parks and Wildlife was unable to source wolves from these states in time for this past winter.

The agency has said it has plans to find another source by the upcoming winter, meeting the wolf restoration plan’s goal of releasing 30 to 50 wolves in the first three to five years of reintroduction.  

Parks and Wildlife reported that the British Columbia operation cost nearly $257,000, but recently told the joint budget committee that future translocations could cost up to $450,000.  

In a December 2025 report to Colorado’s joint budget committee, Parks and Wildlife said the majority of its expenses go toward personnel, followed by operating costs, compensation for ranchers and conflict minimization programs and tools. In the first seven months of 2025, the agency spent $3 million on the program.  

In addition to the $2.1 million allocation, Parks and Wildlife is set up to receive an annual allocation of $350,000 from the state to compensate ranchers for livestock losses due to wolves. Compensation for losses in 2025 are expected to exceed $1 million, which the agency can also use federal dollars and non-license revenue from its wildlife cash fund to pay. Parks and Wildlife also receives funds from the Born to Be Wild License Plate — which generated over $1 million during its first 21 months  — that can only be spent on tools and programs seeking to minimize wolf-livestock conflict.

The new footnote echoes provisions included in a bill that passed during an August special session convened to address budget challenges last year. 

This bill redirected $264,268 of the $2.1 million allocated in the 2025-26 budget for the wolf program to Colorado’s Health Insurance Affordability Enterprise.​ The amount removed was reflective of the amount Parks and Wildlife spent in January 2025 to bring 15 wolves from Canada. This law also barred Parks and Wildlife from using the remaining general fund dollars to bring in new wolves during the fiscal year. 

The footnote brought by Winter and Luken joins another placed on the budget last year by lawmakers regarding wolves. This existing note requests that Parks and Wildlife not spend any of its general fund allocation on wolf reintroductions “unless and until” preventative measures “are implemented to the highest degree possible to assist owners of livestock in preventing and resolving conflicts between gray wolves and livestock.” 

Colorado’s 2026-27 budget — including the new wolf footnote — will be debated on the Senate floor. It then faces final approval from the joint budget committee before heading to Gov. Jared Polis’s desk.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has put out a call for comments on Colorado’s wolf reintroduction program. 

In a notice published on Monday, April 6, the federal agency specifically asks for information on how Colorado Parks and Wildlife is addressing conflicts between wolves and livestock, communicating and implementing the program. Fish and Wildlife is accepting comments until June 5 via the Federal Register. 

“The Service wants to hear from ranchers, landowners, agencies and other stakeholders about their experiences with wolf management, livestock losses and conflict prevention,” said a Fish and Wildlife spokesperson in an emailed statement. 

Luke Perkins, a spokesperson for Parks and Wildlife, said Monday that the state agency “is evaluating this request for information from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.”

“CPW has worked in partnership with USFWS and Colorado’s producer community throughout the planning and implementation of our wolf restoration program and looks forward to continuing those partnerships,” he added. 

After Colorado voters initiated the state’s reintroduction of gray wolves in 2020, Parks and Wildlife entered into an agreement with Fish and Wildlife to allow the state to manage the population of the federally endangered predators. 

Parks and Wildlife was granted the authority via a 2023 agreement and a special 10(j) rule from Fish and Wildlife that designates Colorado’s wolves as a “nonessential, experimental population.” The 10(j) rule also grants the state the authority to kill gray wolves in certain instances despite the species’ protections under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The April notice from the federal wildlife agency asks for information on ways to improve Colorado’s implementation of the 10(j) rule, and seeks information on the state’s compensation program. 

This notice is separate from another posted by Fish and Wildlife in March, which only seeks information on how the federal agency collects information relating to Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s 10(j) rule. 

It is unclear whether the federal agency is looking to make changes to either agreement based on the feedback. When asked, a spokesperson said, “this input will help federal and state partners better address challenges, reduce conflicts and support both local communities and wildlife conservation.” 

Specifically, it asks the following questions: 

• Based on your observations or data, what trends in wolf-livestock interactions have occurred in Colorado since 10(j) Rule implementation on December 8, 2023?
• What nonlethal deterrence or preventive measures have been employed in Colorado, and how effective have they been?
• How has the process of verifying depredations and documenting claims in Colorado functioned in your experience?
• How would you characterize coordination among agencies, producers, Tribes, and local communities in addressing conflicts?
• What improvements, in your view, would make 10(j) Rule implementation more effective in reducing conflict and improving outcomes for producers and wolf conservation in Colorado?
• To what extent have the state’s available compensation funds met the need for indemnity and associated costs?
• What barriers exist to obtaining compensation from the state or implementing mitigation strategies?

“Over the past few years, multiple livestock depredations by wolves have been verified in Colorado on both private and leased grazing lands.” reads the federal notice. “The number of verified depredations have exceeded available compensation funds in Colorado, leading to concerns among livestock producers regarding timeliness, adequacy and accessibility of compensation.”

Since beginning wolf reintroduction in 2023, Parks and Wildlife has confirmed just over 50 attacks on livestock and livestock guardian dogs by wolves. In 2024-25 — the first full fiscal year after Colorado released its first wolves in December 2023 — the agency paid over $608,000 to 13 producers. So far, it has paid over $700,000 to ranchers for losses in 2025, with the final amount paid expected to reach over $1 million. 

Colorado lawmakers set up a fund to compensate ranchers for losses to wolves, allocating $175,000 from the general fund in the 2023-24 fiscal year and $350,000 in each subsequent year. Because Parks and Wildlife is legally obligated to compensate ranchers for the losses, it can also use federal dollars and non-license revenue. 

The register posting comes just a few months after Brian Nesvik, director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, threatened to terminate its 2023 agreement with Colorado Parks and Wildlife if the state failed produce summaries and documents about the wolf restoration within a 30-day window. 

Colorado complied with the request, submitting over 400 pages of public announcements and presentations, intergovernmental agreements, email correspondence and reports. The federal agency confirmed receipt of this response, but no further communication on the matter has occurred. 

Nesvik — the former director of Wyoming’s Game and Fish Department — has shown an interest in Colorado’s wolf restoration program since being appointed to lead the federal wildlife agency in August. In October, Nesvik issued new direction about where Colorado could source wolves for the restoration, which ultimately led to a pause in wolf releases this winter. 

Nesvik’s boss, U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has also made his own warnings about Colorado’s wolves, writing in December on X that the federal government would step in if the state “does not get control of the wolves immediately.”

On Monday, the Endangered Species Coalition, a nationwide group of 475 environmental and wildlife member organizations, criticized Fish and Wildlife’s April request for comments on Colorado’s wolf reintroduction as the latest politically-motivated effort to undermine Colorado’s effort and to remove protections from gray wolves.

Ryan Sedgeley, the southern Rockies representative for the coalition, called it “a set-up for misinformation, fear and another attack on wolf recovery,” under the Trump administration’s “anti-wolf agenda.” 

“Like any restoration effort, there have been challenges, but conflict mitigation tools and compensation programs exist for exactly that reason, and the management framework allows for improvement,” he added. “The answer is not to sabotage restoration. The answer is to keep improving implementation while staying committed to recovery.”

In his statement, Sedgeley refers to the posting as part of broader efforts by the presidential administration to undermine the Endangered Species Act.

Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Republican representing Colorado’s 4th Congressional District on the eastern plains, is leading the legislative initiative to delist gray wolves in Colorado and all the Lower 48 states from the federal act. 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s top wolf official, Eric Odell, is set to retire from the agency later this year. 

“Eric Odell has been a valuable member of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s team for more than two-and-a-half decades and his retirement leaves big shoes to fill,” said Laura Clellan, the state wildlife agency’s director, in a statement. “We are grateful for the dedication, expertise and passion that Eric has brought to the many projects and efforts he has been involved with in his time at CPW and look forward to honoring his illustrious career and celebrating this next chapter of his life.” 

The state wildlife agency has not announced Odell’s departure date, but has started the search for his successor. 

Luke Perkins, a spokesperson for the agency, said in a statement that Parks and Wildlife intends “for there to be an overlap period for training and seamless transition of the wolf conservation program manager position.”

News of Odell’s departure from Parks and Wildlife comes less than six months after Jeff Davis was forced to resign as the agency’s director in December. Davis started with the state wildlife agency in May 2023, as its wolf restoration plan was being finalized and just months before the first wolves hit the ground. 

Clellan, a retired adjutant general and executive director of Colorado’s Department of Military and Veteran Affairs, served as the interim director before being permanently appointed by the Parks and Wildlife’s commission in February.

Odell first started at Parks and Wildlife in 2000, holding roles as a habitat biologist, conservation biologist, grassland coordinator and carnivore conservation program manager before being tapped as the biological lead for the state’s wolf reintroduction of gray wolves after it was mandated by Colorado voters in 2020. 

In this role, Odell has helped guide the creation and execution of the state’s wolf restoration plan, including the capture and release of 25 wolves from Oregon and British Columbia and the first four pack formations in the program’s first two years.  

“From the very beginning, and even before the passing of Proposition 114, Eric fully embraced his role as the biological lead for wolves in Colorado,” said Brian Dreher, the assistant director for Parks and Wildlife’s terrestrial wildlife branch, in a June 2023 interview with the Parks and Wildlife’s magazine, Colorado Outdoors, on the gray wolf restoration effort. 

“Eric formed relationships with many experts in wolf management and fostered relationships with other states that will ultimately help implement a successful restoration and management program,” Dreher added. 

Odell’s experience with Colorado wolves began prior to the passage of Proposition 114, becoming the first person to collar the wolves that naturally migrated into North Park from Wyoming in 2021 and had pups. This experience was a day he’d never forget, Odell told the agency’s magazine. 

“Whether it is wolves or Canada lynx or black-footed ferrets, conservation of wildlife species is at the core of what CPW is about,” Odell said in the article. “To be able to be part of re-establishing a species to its native habitat and have it persist and to know we made a difference in wildlife populations in Colorado, there’s satisfaction in that.”

While Colorado’s wolf program has had a rocky start — with 13 of 25 reintroduced wolves now dead, federal interference forcing a pause in the third year of releases, ongoing concerns from producers over limited conflict-prevention tools, and criticism from both producers and wildlife advocates about the program’s politicization — Odell maintained a hopeful outlook.

“Nothing has been a surprise so far,” Odell said at the July 17. 2025, commission meeting. “We knew that there was going to be conflict. We knew that there would be dead wolves, and we knew that there would be wolf reproduction. So these are all landmarks that are important parts in the whole effort of wolf restoration.”

Odell acknowledged that dealing with these conflicts and milestones has “proven challenging for producers, for CPW staff and for a variety of others, but it is a success.” 

“We’re working toward success in many different ways, not just from a wolf population side of things, but from a producer perspective as well. We hope to aim for that,” he added. 

Jay Tutchon, a Parks and Wildlife commissioner, defended Odell and Parks and Wildlife staff for their work amid the controversy in March 2025. 

“Our wolf program gets a lot of publicity and flack, but you guys have done an incredibly professional job,” he said. “I couldn’t be more pleased. And whatever criticism the program as a whole receives, you don’t deserve any of it because you guys are doing exactly what we asked you.”