Colorado Division of Wildlife
Changes Regulations

On June 30th, we received a notice from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) that they were proposing changes to the Chapter 11 regulations. These regulations deal with the licensing of all wildlife facilities in the state. The proposed changes would:

- Prohibit any new nonprofit organizations from obtaining a license to maintain
  wildlife, and;
- Prohibit the use of larger habitat-type enclosures for big cats, bears and wolves,
  if they deviated from the current containment standards. They would provide
  exemptions from this rule by a special variance procedure.

The notice went on to say that the Wildlife Commission would hear public comment at their scheduled meeting on July 10th.

We were, needless to say, stunned by this letter. Although Wolf and other existing licensed facilities would be grandfathered on the prohibition, it would prevent existing facilities from moving to a new location in the state or opening a satellite facility.

We immediately called the DOW to make sure that we were reading these proposals correctly and if we were, what the goal was. We were informed that we were reading them correctly and that they were intended to discourage backyard enthusiasts from owning wildlife. They believed that many individuals were using the nonprofit guise to further their private ownership of wild animals because it was 'so easy' for them to become nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations.

Again we were shocked to think that this approach could be considered logical or that it would even accomplish what the DOW intended. They were not eliminating for profit wildlife facilities, only the nonprofit organizations. How does this make sense? What was the real agenda behind these proposals? Did the DOW have the authority to do this?

As we began to collect more information about the situation it became clear that there were a number of issues that came into play.

First; the DOW had evidently stopped issuing licenses for nonprofit wildlife facilities at the beginning of 2001. This was done without notice and based on an arbitrary decision that the state statutes did not provide for nonprofit licensing. It appeared that the statutes only allowed licensing of 'commercial' facilities. The DOW interpreted 'commercial' to mean 'for profit'. Definitions of the word did not seem to support this contention. The intent seemed very clear to us, our lawyers and our CPA -- the legislature wanted to prevent 'private' ownership of wild animals. They did not intend that nonprofit sanctuaries should cease to exist. And if they did, why had the DOW licensed nonprofits to begin with?

Second; the decision to finally make this situation public evidently occurred at a DOW staff meeting, where a completely separate issue was the topic. There had been a situation where a big-cat nonprofit pseudo-sanctuary had been failed on their inspection due to a containment issue. They then screamed that another reputable big-cat nonprofit sanctuary was in violation of the same containment concerns and was not being failed at their inspections. This evidently began the discussion about why nonprofits were even licensed in the first place.

Putting this information together with what we already knew about the DOW, it became much clearer as to what was going on. The Colorado Division of Wildlife is a rather strangely chartered organization. Although they fall under the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, they pretty much only have to report or be responsible to the Wildlife Commission. The Wildlife Commission is made up of nine individuals appointed by the governor.

The DOW is also self-funding and gains its operating budget from licenses and fees associated with the exploitation of wildlife. These revenues come from hunting, fishing and trapping concerns. Therefore they act pretty much on their own and act as an entity unto themselves. Because their budget is based on exploitation or revenue producing endeavors, I don't believe they have much understanding or concern for nonprofit or charitable endeavors that do not increase the size of their budget. This factor on top of the controversy over enforcement of containment standards, which were eating up their time and budget, lead to only one conclusion -- get rid of these bizarre nonprofit entities.

Unfortunately there was not enough time, before the July meeting, to organize any sort of opposition. Therefore, the July meeting was only instrumental in getting a sense for the reception of this concept by the commission, which was not good. It also ended up highlighting the lack of understanding for wildlife sanctuaries that exists within the animal welfare community. The executive director of the Colorado Association of Animal Welfare Agencies (CFAWA) actually spoke in support of prohibiting nonprofit wildlife facilities. When questioned later, by Wolf about their position on this issue, it became very apparent that this organization maintained the 'old school' mentality that any animal which was not adoptable to a family setting should be euthanized. After several letters to the CFAWA board of directors and a refinement of their position to sound more politically correct the bottom line remained pretty much the same. This position was totally unacceptable to Wolf and resulted in our resignation from that organization.

The Rocky Mountain Wildlife Conservation Center (RMWCC), primarily a big-cat sanctuary located in Keenesburg, did present alternatives to the commission. They suggested that the DOW goal could be accomplished with the establishment of effective qualifications for nonprofit licensing and containment standards. They further stated that these could be developed through collaboration with the two national sanctuary associations, both of which Wolf is accredited through. RMWCC had also been in touch with DOW staff to suggest the same alternatives. The final vote on these changes would take place on Sept. 10th.

All reputable sanctuaries are the first ones to want private ownership of wild animals controlled, but you cannot abolish the appropriate facilities in order to do that. Wolf believed that RMWCC was much more informed on this issue and began to form a loose coalition with them and other organizations who shared the same mentality. Those organizations consisted of:

Rocky Mountain Wildlife Nature Center
Bravo Bend Wildlife Sanctuary
Wildlife Legacy Trust
The Association of Sanctuaries
The American Sanctuary Association

Although we tried very hard to get other nonprofit organizations involved in this endeavor, there was a significant amount of resistance to fighting this issue. We are not sure what the specific reasons were for their reluctance, but can only guess that they either, were afraid of retribution from the DOW or were actually in favor of the prohibition. Let's face it, with the prohibition of any new nonprofits there would be less competition for donation dollars. It would actually make more business sense to support the DOW initiative. The bottom line however, would mean the unnecessary death of more animals.

The coalition began by informing all of their collective supporters about the situation. Unfortunately, because of the time frame involved, we could only notify those supporters of Wolf that were signed up on our email list. The coalition also initiated letters seeking support from national wildlife and animal welfare organizations. A letter was also drafted to the Governor and the Wildlife Commission to present the alternatives that would accomplish the stated goals of the DOW without prohibiting qualified sanctuaries from being licensed. It was suggested that this compromise could be worked out before the final vote in September. This letter was copied to all of the state and federal politicians in Colorado along with the media and a comprehensive list of animal welfare organizations. Again the collective supporters of the coalition were notified and asked to write to the governor and their political representatives.

Although the Governor and the Wildlife Commission never responded to the coalition, we did receive notification that the Captive Wildlife as Alternative Livestock Board (CWALB) would hold a meeting to gather public input and then make their recommendation on the issue to the Wildlife Commission. The CWALB is part of the Colorado Dept. of Agriculture and we took this as a sign that one of two things was happening: one, there was genuine interest in determining what would be most appropriate for this situation or; two, they were going to allow individuals to vent before the meeting in September, hoping that it would diffuse the situation somewhat.

The results of that meeting seemed to be very positive. They agreed that nonprofits should not be single-out and that new standards should be established for 'habitat' style enclosures. It was now only a matter of determining whether or not this maneuver was meant to placate or truly make adjustments. We would have to wait and see what the Wildlife Commission finally voted.

Not wanting to leave this to chance the coalition again drafted a letter to the Governor and urged all of its collective supporters to do the same. The coalition also urged every concerned individual and organization to attend the meeting and voice their concerns and opinions.

September 10th came fast and Frank Wendland from Wolf departed the facility at 3:30 am for the trip to the meeting site. The location moves around the state for each meeting held. Unfortunately, this time the location was Lamar, which was 280 miles from the sanctuary. Frank picked up several supporters along the way who wished to attend and actually made the trip in plenty of time to still get breakfast before the start of the meeting at 10 am.

The following email letter to the Wolf supporters, by Frank, gives the result of that meeting.

Yesterday's meeting of the Colorado Wildlife Commission reaffirmed my resolve to stay as far away from vicious animals as I can. I will be refocusing my efforts back toward the wolves and wolf-dogs at the sanctuary and staying away from politicians and 'so-called' animal welfare organizations. After this news update please send any concerns or comments on this issue to your elected politicians and the animal welfare organization of your choice.

Needless to say the meeting did not result in a positive outcome for discarded wildlife. The Wildlife Commission had its decision made before the meeting started. They put a very pretty face on their concern for nonprofit wildlife facilities, but continued to insist that state statute precluded them from licensing any nonprofit organizations. Even though evidence to the contrary has been presented by many other sources, the Commission continued to follow its own agenda. The vote to prohibit all new nonprofit wildlife parks in the state was passed unanimously by the Commission.

This outcome will result in the eventual elimination of all nonprofit wildlife parks. Even though the existing nonprofits have been grandfathered, they will not be allowed to change their location or open satellite operations. As human development encroaches on the existing facilities and they are forced out of their current locations, they will either cease to exist or have to move out of state. A good example of this concern is the history of the Rocky Mountain Wildlife Conservation Center. In their approximate 23-year existence they have had to relocate three times.

The turn out of concerned citizens, animal welfare organizations and Colorado nonprofit wildlife facilities was dismal. Whether this apathy was predicated on fear of retribution by the DOW or support for the elimination of nonprofit competition for donation dollars, doesn't really matter as the result was the same -- very few seemed to care. Wolf appeared to have more supporters, from their ranks, in attendance than all of the rest of the opponents combined. I am very appreciative for your support and dedication and am proud of my association with you.

At this stage of the exercise it will require judicial or legislative recourse to change the inevitable. Wolf does not have the resources to continue this battle. With the lack of support for this issue it would also seem that human-kind is just not quite ready to discard its arrogant and egocentric approach to life.

Again, thank you to all who helped fight this battle. I am comfortable that it was a battle worth fighting, if for no other reason than it should allow all of you to sleep better at night knowing that you did your part.