Ranchers Slam Colorado’s “Let It Die” Wolf Program

Colorado’s much-touted wolf reintroduction plan is facing serious backlash from ranchers across the state – and for good reason. According to Charlie Rankin, host of the agricultural YouTube channel Yanasa TV, the state’s current system may actually encourage ranchers to let livestock die. Under existing compensation laws, if a rancher saves an injured animal after a wolf attack, they may get nothing. If that same animal dies, the payout could reach $15,000. Rankin didn’t hold back, calling it “pure negligence” and warning that the entire program is being run in a way that endangers not only livestock but wolves themselves.

“Death Equals Dollars, Saving Equals Sacrifice”

Rankin pointed out that Colorado rancher G.D. Lesson from North Park submitted a claim for $2,542 in total damages after a wolf attack on his cattle. This included $435 in vet bills to save an injured calf. But Colorado Fish and Wildlife officials said there’s no rule that allows reimbursement unless the animal dies. The message, Rankin said, is chilling: “Next time, let your animal die.” That’s not just a moral issue – it’s a signal that the system is broken.

The Legal Framework Behind the Mess

The wolf compensation structure is rooted in Proposition 114, a ballot initiative passed by Colorado voters in 2020. The measure mandated wolf reintroduction but didn’t clearly define what ranchers could be paid for, or how. Rankin emphasized that the voters likely assumed ranchers would be supported fairly, but the reality has been anything but. The system focuses on death claims, not care, creating a tragic mismatch between policy and practical ranching needs.

“We Want Your Livestock to Die”?

Charlie Rankin repeatedly questioned the logic and morality of the setup. “If an animal’s life can be saved, why would you not save it – and save taxpayer money?” he asked. Treating an animal might cost a few hundred dollars, but the state only recognizes losses when animals die. Rankin described this as “inhumane,” noting that it appears to reward suffering instead of responsible care. In his words, it “goes against everything we’ve been told about Colorado being humane.”

Wolves Are Dying Too

The program isn’t just harming ranchers. It’s failing the wolves as well. According to Rankin, Colorado’s wolf survival rate has dropped below 70%, which is supposed to trigger a review. And while the state has acknowledged the problem, action has been slow. “They’re putting the wolves’ lives in danger,” Rankin warned, citing reports that some wolves reintroduced into Colorado had already been known for livestock predation in Oregon.

Are the Wolves Trying to Leave?

One of the more surprising revelations from Rankin’s report is that some wolves seem to be trying to leave Colorado altogether. He mentioned reports of Canadian wolves wandering back into Wyoming, where at least one was killed by wildlife officials after attacking sheep. “It’s like they’ve been kidnapped,” Rankin said, questioning the ethics of relocating predators into areas full of livestock without sufficient planning.

Urban Policy vs Rural Reality

There’s also a deep divide between the values of Colorado’s urban voters and its rural ranching communities. Rankin said the wolf program is being driven by “metro ideologies” that ignore the realities of rural life. Urban-backed ballot initiatives, limited support for non-lethal deterrents, and growing restrictions on grazing permits all paint a picture that’s hard for ranchers to swallow. “It’s almost like they want to make it impossible to raise cattle here,” one rancher told Yanasa TV anonymously.

Lack of Support and Funding

Even when ranchers follow the rules and file claims, they may not see a penny. Rankin noted that Colorado has already run out of funds multiple times when trying to compensate for wolf-related losses. “They haven’t been paying out in a fair manner,” he said. This leaves ranchers hanging, with animals to care for, bills to pay, and no support from the very system that was supposed to protect them.

A Dangerous Precedent

Charlie Rankin warned that the denial of compensation for vet care sets a “very bad precedent.” If Colorado doesn’t fix its rules, more ranchers may be forced to let animals die just to stay afloat. And if that’s what’s rewarded, what does that say about the state’s values? “This isn’t just policy failure. It’s ethical failure,” Rankin emphasized, urging immediate reform.

Is This By Design?

One of the most controversial ideas raised in the Yanasa TV video is that this might not be accidental at all. “Who benefits from smaller producers going out of business?” Rankin asked. By failing to support ranchers and pushing policies that make livestock operations harder, it’s possible the state is nudging ranchers off the land, on purpose. “All of these things turn into a circumstantial motive,” Rankin said. If this wasn’t the intention, then something needs to change – fast.

Bureaucracy or Something Deeper?

From a neutral observer’s view, Rankin’s reporting forces a tough question: Is Colorado trying to save wolves, or is it trying to phase out ranchers? Even if it’s unintentional, the policy outcomes are the same – ranchers lose cattle, wolves get blamed, and taxpayers foot a bigger bill than necessary. It’s baffling that vet care after a wolf attack wouldn’t be a reimbursable expense. If the system values death over life, then it’s not a wildlife protection plan – it’s a political one.

What Happens Next?

According to Rankin, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission has promised to review the guidelines after the backlash. But until there’s a clear change in rules, and adequate funding to support them, the problem won’t go away. Ranchers need to know they’re supported for doing the right thing, not punished for it. As it stands, the message Colorado is sending is that life has less value than loss. And that’s something both ranchers and wolves can’t afford.