I smell a Rosmarino. Colorado’s own wildlife threat assessment.

I smell a Rosmarino

I had a couple readers bring a recent US Forest Service (USFS) draft assessment about the Comanche National Grasslands (SE Colorado) to my attention. I didn’t have time to get to it, but I was happy to see that Rachel Gabel of the FencePost did. The reality is that she did a better job than I could have hoped to.

Her lengthy rundown on the issue is linked below and is well worth reading. This is particularly the case if you are worried about efforts at conservation and species restoration spilling over into (or being used intentionally for) a way to stop other uses of public lands.

I’ll leave it to you to get the details, but from what I read, this assessment smacks of the kinds of rewilding/conservation maneuvers I have been reading and writing about at the Colorado level for a while now (thus the Rosmarino remark at the top).

Meeting notices to interested parties go missing. Prairie dogs loom large in the report. The data used by the USFS is flawed (though not flawed in a way that is balanced). Repeatedly in the draft assessment, quoting the article, “The appendixes are primarily listing species of conservation concern and Leininger [Leininger Ranch owner Barb Leininger--also a permit holding for grazing on part of the Comanche grasslands] said as she reviewed that list, livestock grazing, farming and ranching, were repeatedly listed as threats to the habitat.”**

It’s not a stretch for me to see this report used as a “biological lever”; that is, as justification for stopping productive agricultural uses of this land.

I have heard from some readers that they are currently seeking more details behind this report. If I hear more, I’ll update. In the meantime, if you want to sign up for updates and/or get involved, you’ll find ways to do so at the USFS page linked second below.

**See the post following this one for how CPW views Colorado Ag. I’ll give you a hint: it’s roughly the same.

https://www.thefencepost.com/news/stakeholders-oppose-usfs-draft-assessment-for-comanche-national-grasslands/

https://www.fs.usda.gov/r02/psicc/planning/forest-plan/grasslands-plan-revision

Related:

Gabel’s op ed on the USFS draft assessment referenced above.

I found the following ending paragraph from her piece particularly apt:

“This latest effort to rewild southeastern Colorado, fill it with prairie dogs, and remove cattle will be fought by men and women with cow manure on their shoes because Colorado is currently a state that doesn’t defend its $40 billion agriculture industry. There won’t be any support from the governor’s office on this one, so the load rests on the shoulders of those feeding and fueling the state.”

https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/10/05/cattle-ranchers-like-prairie-dogs-are-a-keystone-species-of-colorado-gabel/

---

Colorado’s own wildlife threat assessment

The previous post today dealt with a US Forest Service (USFS) draft assessment of the Comanche Grasslands in SE Colorado. In the draft assessment, the USFS makes repeated mention of how livestock grazing, farming, and ranching, are all threats to the habitat.

I wanted to follow up with a look at CPW’s own similar report. Linked first below is CPW’s State Wildlife Action Plan.

It lists species of concern for the state (ranked by urgency). It delves into habitats around the state and the need for their conservation. If you scroll down far enough, you’ll arrive at threats against both and actions that could be taken to address those threats.

Screenshot 1 attached gives the little introductory blurb that CPW includes via introduction to both their threats and actions sections.

It’s pretty bland language in both; nothing here that is overtly concerning, to me at least. I would call your attention to this, however. While there is mention of how some beneficial activity to humans can cause a threat (quoting: “Some threats to species and habitats may benefit humans.”), there is no like mention of how you might balance the beneficial activity for humans with a need for conservation in the Actions blurb.

It’s not possible to go through the entirety of the site. You now have the link and please dig around in there (if you find something noteworthy, please give me a heads up). I will choose to keep with the broader theme of today and focus on the threats and actions for the habitat “shortgrass prairie” since that is the type of habitat for the Comanche Grasslands.

Following the link titled “Explore Threats to Species and Habitats”, I selected shortgrass prairie and took screenshots.

Screenshot 2 is the threats tab.

Screenshot 3 is the actions tab.

Echoing their introductory blurbs, both actions and threats are pretty generic, but, again repeating the above, you note little mention of how conservation will fit with beneficial human activities like grazing.

This could be because that activity is hidden inside one of these all-purpose terms, it it could be because it’s an afterthought to conservation. Without more specific detail, it’s hard to know.

And in the absence of that detail, I think the best position to adopt is a one similar to what you see if you read Rachel Gabel’s column on the USFS and the Comanche Grasslands in the first post today: a watchful eye over what the government is doing and getting involved.

Sign up for CPW updates. Keep an eye out for emails about the state’s wildlife (and/or habitat) action plans. Share information when you have it with folks you know would be affected. Speak up.

Your involvement and information sharing is what helps tip the balance away from the organized (and believe me they are organized to the point of paying for hotel accommodations to truck in activists to speak) wildlife, animal-rights, and environmental groups so eager to have total control over state policy.

https://cpw.state.co.us/state-wildlife-action-plan