CPW
After downing what he thought to be a coyote, a northwestern Colorado hunter has avoided criminal charges after promptly reporting the incident and cooperating with state and federal investigators.
The shooting, which took place earlier this year, was followed by a joint investigation by both Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Announcing the outcome of that investigation this week, officials made the decision to cite the hunter solely for the regulatory violation of killing an animal without the proper license. That citation came with an assessed fine of $140 and five suspension points on his hunting privileges.
The animal that the hunter killed was known as wolf 2504 and was one of the wolves brought in from British Columbia during the January 2025 importation period as part of Colorado’s controversial reintroduction program. On January 16th, the unnamed hunter set his sights on the female wolf, believing what he was seeing through his scope was a coyote, which remains a legal pursuit in the Centennial State.
Following the shot, the hunter instantly recognized his mistake and made authorities aware of what he had done. Knowing full well that wolves are vehemently protected under both state and federal law, the hunter ultimately made the right decision when it mattered most.
Unlawfully taking wolves in Colorado can carry jail time, fines exceeding six figures and multi-year or even lifetime suspensions of hunting privileges. When making their announcement this week, CPW made it clear that it could very well have pursued those penalties, but instead opted for a more fair treatment considering the hunter’s conduct following the shot.
“Through CPW’s thorough investigative process we recognized that the hunter made the ethical choice to immediately report the incident and take responsibility for the accident,” said Ty Petersburg, CPW’s chief of law enforcement.
A wolf awaiting release | CPW
And in an era where wildlife agencies can seem more focused on messaging than practical enforcement, this decision matters. By choosing not to make a bloody example of a hunter who did everything right after making what a detailed investigation proved to be a genuine mistake is worth noting.
Wolf advocates, on the other hand, were slightly less impressed.
Groups including Project Coyote rallied behind the argument that this case only serves to prove that Colorado’s coyote hunting rules are too loosey-goosey and that they inevitably create “collateral damage” for the wolf reintroduction program. As they point to previous cases of wolves getting tangled up in coyote traps, they fail to see the forest for the trees in a reintroduction experiment that has been off the rails for years now.
With nearly 70% of the founding population being wiped out, the program’s director heading for an early exit and the feds circling what looks like a nearly-dead carcass, perhaps those advocates should focus on the real reasons this program is on life support.
The truth is, this is only the second case of mistaken identity in over a decade. With the last incident taking place back in 2015 (near Kremmling), federal officials have been doing far more wolf killing than mistaken hunters have. Over the course of the last 14 months alone, the feds have lethally removed three wolves from inside Colorado’s borders, and have also killed at least one (and possibly a second) wolf that left Colorado and depredated livestock in Wyoming.
The real pressure on Colorado’s wolves is not solely being driven by a couple of honest mistakes by coyote hunters. It’s the predictable collision between a small, heavily managed population and working livestock country, compounded by high overall mortality and slow progress towards a self-sustaining number.
Does the program need tighter coyote bag limits to reveal its weakness? No, it’s revealing them all on its own.
This, however, does not give hunters a free pass. Positive identification when pursuing any game species remains non-negotiable as is correctly reporting any incidents where mistakes are made. If we as hunters continue to do that, agencies, for the most part, have shown they will treat it as an accident rather than a crime.
The rest of the story will write itself.
