When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service threatened to terminate Colorado’s ability to oversee the reintroduction of gray wolves last month, it was the latest in a string of setbacks for the misbegotten, beleaguered project.

As The Gazette reported, a Dec. 18 letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, which was charged with managing reintroduction, demanded the state agency submit a complete accounting of all gray wolf conservation and management activities from December 2023 to the present.

That information must detail specific issues and deficiencies and be turned in by Jan. 18. If Colorado fails to comply, Nesvik’s letter becomes a 60-day notice of termination of the state’s agreement with the federal government. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would strip Colorado of its oversight and take over wolf management, including “relocation and lethal removal.”

Under the agreement, wolf reintroduction must follow Rule 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. Colorado’s effort with this “experimental population” is “subject to service oversight.” The state may only obtain wolves from Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and the eastern regions of Washington, Oregon and Utah — the only states permitted to manage gray wolf populations without federal restrictions.

Moreover, federal law doesn’t permit importing wolves from either Canada or Alaska. 

Yet, Colorado had inked a $400,000 contract with British Columbia to import the next batch — a deal Nesvik rejected in October.

That same month, Nesvik informed Gov. Jared Polis and then-Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Jeff Davis that Colorado’s program violates federal law. The Endangered Species Act bars importing endangered species to the United States without a federal permit, which Colorado does not have.

In November, Washington State’s Fish and Wildlife Commission rejected Colorado’s request for wolves — joining Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, which already had refused. Oregon, Colorado’s first source for wolves, has declined to send more. That leaves only eastern Utah as a possibility.

Shortly after Washington’s rejection — and with a dozen dead wolves in 18 months — Colorado’s Department of Natural Resources announced Davis had resigned as Parks and Wildlife’s director. He was kept on board as a senior policy adviser, retaining his $186,470 salary, but this week reportedly accepted a senior post with Wyoming’s fish and game department starting next month.

Let’s tally the troubles: Most wolf sources are no longer viable. The official overseeing the program at CPW is out as director. And now, the federal government has made it clear: give us a plan — or you’re done.

That Colorado has no plan is a flashing sign to pause the program. It’s also an opportunity to reassess whether we should continue reintroducing wolves in the first place.

After all, Proposition 114, narrowly passed by voters in 2020, instructed CPW to restore gray wolves “through their reintroduction on designated lands” and to “implement a plan.”

Wolves have already been reintroduced. Whether more should come is a separate question.

Voters couldn’t have anticipated the challenges in obtaining wolves, nor the ecological and economic impacts. As The Gazette reported, wolves have killed more than five dozen livestock and working dogs across several rural counties. One wolf released into Grand County had a confirmed history of repeated depredation.

Prop 114 passed because voters in six urban and suburban counties — largely insulated from the consequences of wolf reintroduction — embraced a warm-and-fuzzy idea. Reality now has set in.

Nesvik is right. But D.C. shouldn’t have to shut down Colorado’s wolf program by federal edict. The state ought to take action on its own  — and consider ending reintroduction.

This experiment has run its course. Isn’t it time to move on?