Colorado

The Cost of Coexistence With Wolves

Mon, 14 Jul 2025 17:13:14 GMT

Wolves continue to cause ranchers havoc, including significant income loss. Recent research estimates the wolves are causing some impacted ranchers in the Southwest to lose 28% of their income potential.

“While the expansion of gray and Mexican gray wolf populations is often hailed as a conservation success, the consequences for ranching families can be gruesome, costly and complex,” says Daniel Munch, American Farm Bureau Federation economist. “They are threatening the safety of ranch families and their pets and livestock, as well as the long-term survival of multigenerational ranches and the rural economies they anchor.”

Munch summarized a recent University of Arizona study that focused on the Mexican gray wolf and analyzed both direct livestock depredation and indirect effects such as stress-induced weight loss and elevated management costs based on 2024 cattle prices. Findings are based on survey responses from impacted ranchers, modeling of herd-level financial outcome and county-level livestock performance trends.

“In areas with wolf presence, even a moderate level of impact, such as 2% calf loss, 3.5% weight reduction and average management costs, can reduce annual ranch revenue by 28%,” Munch says.

While the study focuses on Mexican gray wolves in the Southwest, the core challenges it identifies — livestock depredation, herd stress and weight loss, increased management costs and difficulties accessing timely compensation — are not unique to that region. Ranchers across the northern Rockies, Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes states report similar experiences as wolf populations have expanded.

“Because these economic stressors stem from common predator-prey dynamics and livestock production systems, the study’s findings provide a credible framework for estimating broader impacts,” he says. “This Market Intel draws on that foundation to illustrate the tangible financial risks associated with predator recovery and highlight the need for responsive, producer-informed wildlife policy in all regions affected by wolf activity.”

Key statistics shared by Munch in his article, “ Wolves and the West: The Cost of Coexistence ,” include:

$1,336 average value loss per calf due to wolves. Whether the calf was a day old or nearly ready for market, the rancher loses its full market value, estimated at $1,336 in 2024 for a 525 lb. calf.
A 2% loss of calves could reduce a 367-head ranch’s net income by 4%, or about $5,195, for that year. At higher loss levels, such as 14% of calves, net income could fall by as much as 34%, or roughly $42,599, in that same year.

When a cow is killed, the financial hit extends over multiple years.

“The operation not only loses that year’s calf, but also future offspring, along with the revenue and herd stability that cow would have provided,” Munch explains. “Ranchers then have to retain or buy replacements. This means fewer animals are available for sale, working capital must be used to buy additional replacements and herd development is ultimately delayed. Excluding these long-term impacts, the revenue loss associated with the loss of a single cow was estimated at $2,673.”

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

Figure 2 displays the calculated value of calves lost under this scenario, assuming each calf is valued at $1,336. This generates a loss of 13,514 calves out of an inventory of 1.87 million calves valued at $18 million in wolf-occupied counties. The states with the highest number of calf depredations under this scenario are Montana ($3 million; approximately 2,307 calves) and Idaho ($2.7 million; approximately 2,044 calves).

Keep in mind this method assumes static wolf presence at the county level. Wolves regularly traverse dozens of miles per day, crossing county and state borders, so county-level presence can vary widely year to year.

58% of those surveyed had stress- or depredation-related wolf impacts on their operation (compared to just 38% reporting depredation).
3.5% reduction in average calf weaning weight (18.4 lb.). According to Munch a figure supported by published field research — can significantly reduce revenues across an entire herd.

At the $2.54 per lb. value reference in the study ($1,336/525 lb. average), a ranch that markets 80 head would lose out on $3,738 in marketable weight value.

“Weight loss can be much higher in regions with elevated wolf activity,” Munch says. “If that same ranch experienced a 10% reduction in weaning weight, the loss would exceed $10,600 before even factoring in additional impacts like reduced conception rates.”

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

Using these assumptions about ranch exposure to wolf presence and average weight loss, Figure 3 presents the estimated revenue loss by state. In total, more than $50 million in potential calf weight value was lost due to wolf presence, including $8.6 million in Montana and $7.6 million in Idaho alone.

Ranchers reported an average cost of $79 per cow for conflict avoidance measures and associated labor.

Wolf presence forces ranchers to change the way they manage their operations — often at a steep cost. In wolf-occupied areas, ranchers routinely implement additional strategies to deter predation, respond to attacks and monitor herds across expansive rangelands.

“These management efforts are both labor- and resource-intensive,” Munch says.

Even before accounting for any depredation or stress-related weight loss, these management expenses alone reduced net returns for the average ranch by 19%. Through interviews and surveys, producers indicated they spent anywhere from several thousand dollars to over $150,000 per year on these efforts.

“For our analysis, we convert the $79 per cow figure to $55.30 per calf based on their 70% calf crop assumption,” he explains. “We then apply this per-calf cost to estimate statewide wolf-management expenses, using the study’s finding that 58% of ranchers in wolf-occupied counties experience wolf-induced stressors. Based on these assumptions, ranchers nationwide spend over $60 million each year on efforts to mitigate the impacts of gray wolves.” (Figure 4)

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

All combined, on a ranch experiencing a modest 2% calf depredation and 3.5% weight loss that also spends the average reported amount on conflict avoidance, annual ranch revenues are reduced by 28% ($34,642). These combined costs, reflecting $128 million in annual costs to U.S. ranchers, are displayed in Figure 5.

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

45% drop in the ranch’s long-term earning potential. The study projected what repeated losses from wolves would do to a ranch’s profitability over 30 years. Even a moderate level of impact — losing 2% of calves and 3.5% lower weights — would reduce the ranch’s net present value by more than $191,000.

“In plain terms, that’s a 45% drop in the ranch’s long-term earning potential,” Munch says.

The study estimates that, without wolf impacts, the ranch would generate about $420,000 in long-term profits (in today’s dollars). With average wolf-related losses, that shrinks to $228,000.

“While a single year’s loss might seem manageable, the effects compound over time,” Munch says. “Smaller calf crops mean fewer replacements and fewer animals to sell, while lower weights reduce revenue year after year. These cumulative impacts ripple through herd management and finances, steadily eroding profitability and increasing the odds that the operation may not be financially sustainable in the long run.”

Munch summarizes if predator recovery efforts are to be economically sustainable, they must be accompanied by policies that recognize the people on the front lines: those whose livelihoods now depend not only on their animals but also on a system that values and supports the cost of coexistence.

“That’s the heart of the issue,” Munch explains. “For many ranching families, the return of wolves is not just a wildlife management question, it’s a daily reality shaped by decisions made in distant urban centers, often by voters and officials who will never have to look into the eyes of a mother cow searching for her calf. Ranchers are the ones bearing the real-world costs of policies shaped far from the range. And they’re doing so while continuing to care for livestock, steward the land and feed a growing world.”

Colorado Ramps Up Bird Flu Response, Requires Milk Testing

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:37:45 GMT

Colorado began requiring dairies to test milk supplies for bird flu every week, the state’s veterinarian told Reuters on Tuesday, as a federal team arrived to help investigate an escalating outbreak in cows that has spread to chickens and people.

The state’s new mandate aims to identify additional farms that could be infected and spread the disease to other dairies or poultry flocks, after the largest cluster of human cases to date in the United States occurred on a Colorado farm this month.

Bird flu infections linked to dairy cows have wiped out 3.1 million egg-laying chickens in Colorado in recent weeks, and poultry workers also tested positive.

Colorado has confirmed infections in 47 dairy herds since the U.S. outbreak in cows began in late March, with about 60% of its cases detected in the past month, according to U.S. data. Nationally, 13 states have reported infections in about 168 herds since spring.

In Colorado, the loss of millions of chickens triggered the requirement for licensed dairies with lactating cows to test bulk milk supplies weekly, state veterinarian Maggie Baldwin said in an interview. About 70% of the state’s laying hens were eliminated, according to U.S. data.

“We really said what we’re doing right now is not effective and we need to change strategy,” Baldwin said.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture since late April has required testing for lactating cows that are being shipped over state lines. The agency later launched a voluntary program to test bulk milk supplies .

A USDA epidemiological “strike team” arrived in Colorado this week to assess how the virus may be spreading among dairies there, Baldwin said. Workers or vehicles can carry the virus from farms.

If mandated testing reveals additional infections, Colorado can take further steps to contain the virus, Baldwin said.
Six Colorado farm workers tested positive for bird flu in July after culling chickens at an infected egg farm, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

More than 150 workers were exposed to the infected poultry, and 69 developed symptoms and were tested, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment.

Colorado’s public health department reported a presumptive positive human case on a different Colorado poultry farm on Friday. About 350 people were involved in culling chickens at that farm, where 23 workers developed symptoms and were tested, the department told Reuters. The CDC has not confirmed the presumptive positive case.

Testing remains in progress, Colorado’s health department said on Tuesday.

Reporting by Tom Polansek in Chicago and Leah Douglas in Washington; Editing by Bill Berkrot

Cargill Invests $1 Million in Research on Methane Reduction in Cattle

Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:58:19 GMT

In an effort to help fund research studying sustainable animal agriculture practices and reducing the environmental impact of the beef industry, Cargill has issued a $1 million grant to Colorado State University and the university’s AgNext research program.

“Working closely with industry partners like Cargill, researchers and producers, AgNext is helping develop innovative, scalable solutions that move the livestock industry toward a more sustainable future,” said Dr. Kim Stackhouse-Lawson, director of AgNext and Co-Pl. “An important part of that is developing robust baseline greenhouse gas emissions from cattle.”

In a release from the company, Cargill states the $1 million grant will address a critical agricultural challenge: enteric methane emissions from feedlot cattle, which are naturally produced during the digestive process.

While current USDA guidelines rely on assumptions about the effects of different feeding strategies on methane emissions, such as grain processing combined with other feed additives, AgNext will conduct several experiments to collect empirical data to support those assumptions.

Studies will take place at Colorado State University’s Climate Smart Research Facility during the next two years.

The research will help determine the impact of different ingredients and additives in cattle diets on enteric methane emissions in beef steers fed typical finishing rations. It will also explore the additive effect of these ingredients and additives to determine if additional methane reduction is possible.

“Cargill is committed to working with researchers, farmers and ranchers to advance creative sustainability ideas and accelerate best-in-class conservation practices within the industry,” said Eliza Clark, Cargill Protein & Salt Sustainability Leader. “The knowledge generated from this innovative research will pave the way for testing new technologies in cattle feeding and continue to improve the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the beef supply chain.”

Colorado Animal Activist Kessler Charged With Animal Cruelty

Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:42:57 GMT

Hypocrisy is not a crime. Neither is stupidity.

Ellen Kessler has been charged with 13 counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty in Jefferson County, Colorado. That’s the same Ellen Kessler who – while she served on the Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine – called ranchers “lazy” and “nasty” in a Facebook post.

The Jefferson County sheriff’s office was tipped off March 7 that Kessler had multiple birds living in poor conditions in her basement. That’s where officers allege they found birds being kept in cages without sunlight and with floors covered in seed, dirt and feces. The blatant hypocrisy is stunning.

In total, officers found 13 birds along with “an overwhelming smell of urine” and “mice were found, both alive and dead, as well as flies throughout the house.” It was determined the birds should not go back to the home, officers said, “because the birds, including doves and cockatiels, suffered from a variety of health issues.”

(Farm Journal)

Colorado Governor Jared Polis surely regrets nominating Kessler to the state veterinary board in 2020. The nomination immediately drew the ire of ranchers and others involved in Colorado agriculture since Kessler was a self-proclaimed animal rights activist, and soon after her appointment posted on her personal social media account that, “4-H clubs teach children that animal lives don’t matter.”

Further alienating ranchers was the fact Kessler was a friend of Polis’ husband, Marlon Reis, also a self-proclaimed animal rights activist. And it was Kessler’s response to a Reis post on Facebook that led to Kessler’s resignation from the state veterinary board.

Reis was commenting on a story in the Missoulian on a new collaboration program with ranchers who deal with grizzly bears.

Referring to recent attacks by wolves on cattle and dogs in northern Colorado, Kessler accused ranchers of using their cows to “bait” wolves in order to receive compensation for the loss of their animals.

“These techniques could easily translate into activism in Colorado for soon-to-be-introduced wolves and other predators already living among us,” Kessler wrote. “Would our lazy and nasty ranchers/cattlemen even raise a finger to make something like this work or is (sic) using a cow to bait the wolves their solution? A living cow doesn’t make money for them. Only a dead cow does. If the slaughterhouse doesn’t pay them for the carcass, they’ll blame the predators so the state will pay them for livestock lost from predators. What a racket. What a scam.”

Admitting she was “unprofessional in my judgement,” Kessler’s resignation from the veterinary board was effective Feb. 11, 2022. Less than a month later she was charged with animal cruelty, and given the alleged conditions under which she kept her birds, her judgement hasn’t improved much.

Under Colorado law, animal cruelty, a class 1 misdemeanor, carries a maximum fine of $5,000 per charge, with a mandatory minimum fine of $500, and could include jail time of up to 18 months.

Related stories:

A Western Governor Is At Odds With Agriculture

Colorado’s Kessler Out At State Vet Board After Calling Ranchers ‘Lazy’

Colorado Gov. Polis Transparently Undercuts Agriculture

Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:22:13 GMT

Elections have consequences. Nowhere is that more obvious than Colorado where Gov. Jared Polis has been transparent in his efforts to further the cause of animal rights activists.

A governor can effect change through his appointments to various governmental agencies, and by influence on other appointments that are not under his/her direct supervision. In 2020, Polis appointed Ellen Kessler to the State Board of Veterinary Medicine, a move that was widely criticized by ranchers since Kessler is a self-proclaimed vegan/animal rights activist.

Rancher concerns about Kessler proved well-founded. Last month she had to step down after a controversial Facebook post where she called ranchers “lazy” and “nasty” and alleged ranchers would use “a cow to bait” wolves so they could collect compensation from the state. “What a racket. What a scam,” she declared.

Gov. Polis accepted her resignation and issued a statement calling Kessler’s words “hurtful.” He promised to appoint a new board member “that better shares his strong respect for Colorado’s hard-working ranchers and helps builds confidence in the practice of veterinary medicine across our state.”

Stubbing his toe on the Kessler appointment might lead you to think the governor would be inclined to help turn the rhetoric down a notch by making appointments that are less controversial. Such thinking appears to be wrong.

This week Colorado’s Bureau of Animal Protection (BAP) announced its new director, selected, according to The Fence Post , from a pool of candidates that included two animal rights attorneys and a wolf introduction and “humane food choice proponent.”

The BAP’s mission is to “administer and enforce the provisions of the Animal Protection Act to prevent the neglect, mistreatment, or abuse of animals in Colorado.” Which, well, helps underscore why ranchers might be leery when the top candidates are animal rights attorneys and a “humane food choice proponent,” a description that seems code for vegan.

Hiring the director of BAP falls under the scope of Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture Kate Greenberg. But open records requests by The Fence Post indicate Gov. Polis had a strong influence on the final selection.

Reporting for The Fence Post, Rachel Gabel wrote the ag commissioner’s selection panel put forward four applicants for an interview. “Those included a Colorado county animal control supervisor with BAP experience, a specialist in animal cruelty investigations and prosecutions with a metro District Attorney’s office, a state director for the Humane Society of the United States, and a senior executive of Mercy for Animals.”

That’s when Polis stepped in and put forward three picks of his own, none of whom were on the ag commissioner’s short list. One of those is employed by Los Angeles-based Animal Equity, and as part of a panel on investigating livestock crimes at the Animal Law Conference, he presented “Pasture to Prosecution: Using the Power of Animal Cruelty Laws to Protect Farmed Animals.” Wait, there’s more.

The second on Polis’ list is an attorney who claims he previously filed a class action lawsuit against dairy producers.

The final person on Polis’ list was Dr. Rebecca (Becky) Niemiec (pronounced “Knee-Mick”) an assistant professor in the Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department at Colorado State University and the director of the Conservation Action Lab, who was announced by Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture Kate Greenberg as the new director of BAP.

In an introductory press release, Niemiec said, “I look forward to exploring how the BAP Program can use education and outreach as our primary tool to take a proactive approach to prevent animal abuse, rather than a reactive approach once that abuse has occurred.”

But thanks to reporting by Gabel, we also learn Niemiec conducted a study that advocated for the introduction of wolves to Colorado, and is currently leading a half million-dollar National Science Foundation grant in partnership with the City of Boulder and Mercy for Animals focused on promoting plant-based food choices. Mercy for Animals seeks to “construct a compassionate food system by reducing suffering and ending the exploitation of animals for food.”

As one might expect, Colorado ranchers are skeptical on Niemiec’s selection. Terry Fankhauser, executive vice president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, told Gabel at The Fence Post, of the three finalists suggested by Polis, Neimiec is probably the least objectionable. He says he is more concerned about this hire than even Polis’s appointment of Ellen Kessler to the State Board of Veterinary Medicine.

“The message being sent by the governor is agriculture being a mortal enemy of the Department of Agriculture and the state,” Fankhauser said. “That message is being heard loud and clear. We are under attack.”

The sad reality for ranchers in Colorado is that Polis’ attempts to undermine animal agriculture are likely to continue. His blunder in appointing Kessler and his transparent influence on Niemiec’s hiring do not appear to have damaged his political prospects. Recent polling by Cygnal suggests Polis remains popular in Colorado, and The Denver Post says, “The Boulder Democrat has consistently polled well during his first term and is widely favored to win (reelection) this year.”

Colorado’s Kessler Out At State Vet Board After Calling Ranchers ‘Lazy’

Colorado's Kessler Out At State Vet Board After Calling Ranchers 'Lazy'

Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:45:24 GMT

Ranchers expect hardships to come their way. Weather and markets top the list, of course, but ranchers must also be on constant alert for man-made interference. Those usually come in the form of government regulations or threats from activists.

Colorado ranchers have recently witnessed such a threat from an unlikely source – an appointee to the State Board of Veterinary Medicine.

Ellen Kessler proved to be a lightning rod on Colorado’s Board of Veterinary Medicine from the moment she was appointed by Governor Jared Polis in 2020. The Colorado Veterinary Medicine Association, for instance, said in 2020 that some of its members “have expressed concern that Ms. Kessler will cause the state board to direct the veterinary profession in ways that are contrary to the needs of Colorado’s livestock industry.”

Which would seem a puzzling statement until you realize Kessler is a self-proclaimed vegan/animal rights activist. Indeed, the concerns expressed by Colorado’s veterinary community about Kessler seem well-founded.

Ranchers were suspicious of Kessler when they learned she was a friend of Polis’ husband, Marlon Reis, who is also a self-proclaimed animal rights activist.

Soon after her appointment, Kessler posted on her personal social media account that, “4-H clubs teach children that animal lives don’t matter.” That ruffled enough feathers that a petition was launched asking Polis to retract Kessler’s appointment to the veterinary board. As a member of that board, the petition noted, Kessler will be asked to guide and enforce standards for veterinary practitioners. How, many wondered, can a vegan activist perform such duties?

The anger over Kessler’s service reached a boiling point last week with another self-inflicted social media controversy. In a now-deleted Facebook post, Kessler called ranchers “lazy” and “nasty.”

Those words were used in a response to a Jan. 19 post by First Gentleman Reis that cited a story from the Missoulian on a new collaboration program with ranchers who deal with grizzly bears.

Referring to recent attacks by wolves on cattle and dogs in northern Colorado, Kessler accused ranchers of using their cows to “bait” wolves in order to receive compensation for the loss of their animals.

“These techniques could easily translate into activism in Colorado for soon-to-be-introduced wolves and other predators already living among us,” Kessler wrote. “Would our lazy and nasty ranchers/cattlemen even raise a finger to make something like this work or is (sic) using a cow to bait the wolves their solution? A living cow doesn’t make money for them. Only a dead cow does. If the slaughterhouse doesn’t pay them for the carcass, they’ll blame the predators so the state will pay them for livestock lost from predators. What a racket. What a scam.”

That post was apparently too much for Gov. Polis. His office announced Kessler’s resignation would be effective at the close of business on Feb. 11. Kessler did offer an apology to the citizens of “our great state” as she was “unprofessional in my judgement.”

Polis’ office issued this statement: “The Governor appreciates that Ms. Kessler has taken responsibility for the impact of her hurtful words. He looks forward to selecting a veterinary board member that better shares his strong respect for Colorado’s hard working ranchers and helps builds confidence in the practice of veterinary medicine across our state.”

PAUSE Act A Radical Threat To Ranching

Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:42:21 GMT

Regardless of where you draw your personal ideological boundaries, most of us would agree Americans have split into two separate realities. Some have dubbed this ferocious politicization the “culture wars,” a phenomenon that has invaded many aspects of our lives.

In a January opinion in Deseret News, Jennifer Graham argued that America’s culture war will continue to rage in 2021.

“It rages in Twitter bios and at kitchen tables; in the acrimonious debate over masks, in the tearing down of statues, in the renaming of mascots and schools,” Graham wrote.

One location where culture wars currently rage white-hot is Eastern California, found on your map labeled Colorado. First-term Governor Jared Polis angered the state’s cowboys last summer when he posted a glowing review of Burger King’s plant-based Impossible Whopper to Facebook. The insult was compounded when Polis ordered an Impossible Burger lunch for all ag department staff at a new research facility. One Colorado newspaper editor said, “Impossible Burgers in cattle country is like a cow pie at a tea party.”

Not content to let the embers die on the Impossible firestorm, earlier this year Polis declared March 20 (the first day of spring) as “MeatOut Day.” In his proclamation, the governor said, “removing animal products from our diets reduces the risk of various ailments…and a plant-based diet helps protect the environment by reducing our carbon footprint, preserving forests, grasslands, and wildlife habitats.”

Hmmm…a lot of road apples to clean up in that proclamation, and since we’re headed in a different direction, we’ll just note we could spend the remainder of this column citing evidence to the contrary. The point here is that with a blatant anti-agriculture bias, Polis has hung out a “welcome” sign to some of the most radical environmental and animal welfare groups on the planet.

None more radical than proponents of Initiative #16, nicknamed Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation (PAUSE). The PAUSE Act contains some provisions so outrageous that AgriTalk host Chip Flory thought I was playing an April Fool’s joke on his listeners when I described it on-air.

For instance, the PAUSE Act would redefine animal cruelty and expand the definition of a sex act with an animal. In short, the PAUSE Act would outlaw many common practices such as artificial insemination, embryo transfer, pregnancy checking or bull soundness exams. Seriously, I’m not making this up!

As if the sex acts provisions weren’t radical enough, proposed Initiative #16 also mandates that food animals be allowed to live at least one-quarter of their natural life before going to harvest. PAUSE defines the natural life span of cattle as 20 years, meaning they wouldn’t be eligible for slaughter until they are five years old. Other natural life spans are 15 years for a pig, eight for a chicken and six for a rabbit.

To make it on the Colorado ballot in 2022, Initiative #16 requires 124,632 signatures from registered voters on a petition. Before signing the petition, we think everyone should be required to eat a five-year-old steak first, but we can’t imagine anyone who knows the difference between a good steak and a buffalo hide would be inclined to sign such a petition anyway.

As you might expect, Colorado ranchers are angered by the prospects of Initiative #16 making it onto the 2022 ballot. They’ve already called on Governor Polis to speak out against the measure, and to his credit a spokesman for the governor said Polis “agrees with farmers and ranchers that the PAUSE ballot initiative would hurt Colorado and destroy jobs, and he opposes it.”

Opponents of the PAUSE Act have launched “ Coloradoans For Animal Care ,” formed by the state’s agriculture organizations to “protect our shared heritage and history, our dynamic agricultural economy and our way of life.”

“Livestock production in Colorado contributes more than $5 billion to the state’s economy and supports more than 150,000 jobs,” the coalition says. “We’ve been raising livestock in Colorado since before statehood and agriculture is a crucial part of our shared heritage.”

Terry Fankhauser, executive vice president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, said, “Initiative 16 would put an end to livestock agriculture in Colorado. It would put an end to our shared Western heritage.”

Related stories:

A Western Governor Is at Odds With Agriculture

Colorado Program Addresses Need for Rural Veterinarians

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:16:59 GMT

At least one-third of Colorado’s 64 counties – encompassing vast stretches of ranchland on the state’s Eastern Plains and Western Slope – lack veterinarians needed to care for sheep, hogs, dairy cattle, and beef cattle that are essential to food production and to the well-being of rural economies and communities.

The dearth of rural veterinarians is a growing concern, not only in Colorado but in livestock- producing regions nationwide. It means animal welfare worries and economic losses from livestock illness and death. The veterinary shortage also weakens a critical front line for public health because vets detect and monitor diseases that can spread from animals to people, such as Salmonella infections, West Nile virus, rabies, and plague.

But a new state program, administered with staff support from CSU’s College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, seeks to curtail the problem by helping repay college debt for veterinarians who pledge to practice livestock medicine in underserved agricultural communities Addressing the issue at its financial roots is expected to beef up the ranks of rural veterinarians.

The Colorado Veterinary Education Loan Repayment Program, like similar programs for medical doctors, tackles a core problem: Many rising veterinarians want to practice large-animal medicine in rural communities but cannot afford to do so. Indeed, many regions that lack veterinarians also lack doctors – for similar reasons, Dr. Mark Stetter, dean of the CSU College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, said.

That’s largely because the average educational debt for veterinary school graduates is nearly $144,000, according to the latest estimates from the American Veterinary Medical Association. And more than 20 percent of recent veterinary graduates have college debt surpassing $200,000, the association reports. Bottom line: Many veterinarians simply cannot repay college loans with the relatively low salaries offered for livestock practitioners in rural communities. They have been priced out of the field.

The debt-to-income ratio among recent veterinary graduates is a leading industry concern and is closely tied to rising nationwide tuition costs, among other factors.

The Colorado Veterinary Education Loan Repayment Program will provide $70,000 over four years for each awardee. The program is accepting its first round of applications through Oct. 31; the first two recipients will be named in early December.

“Much of rural Colorado is a long way from a practicing veterinarian. It’s a real problem,” said Scott Johnson, chair of the recently established council that runs the Colorado Veterinary Education Loan Repayment Program. “This program is a real win for new veterinary graduates who want to practice in rural Colorado, and it’s a real win for production agriculture.”

Johnson oversees his family’s sixth-generation cattle operation, Flying Diamond Ranch, near Kit Carson on the state’s Eastern Plains. The ranch is in a federally designated veterinary shortage area, and Johnson sees the effects firsthand.

Like most ranchers, Johnson and his crew do lots of basic doctoring themselves. But “we’ve had some life-threatening situations that are pretty critical” – and the severity is heightened without a nearby veterinarian to call upon, Johnson said.

His animals with medical emergencies must be hauled by trailer at least 60 minutes for treatment, Johnson said. That’s the case when a cow has a calf with an abnormal birth presentation, or when a ranch horse suffers a potentially fatal bout of the intestinal condition known as colic. Lack of veterinary access can be the difference between life and death, said Johnson, a CSU alumnus and past member of the University’s Board of Governors.

Dr. Kayla Henderson, a 32-year-old veterinarian in southern Colorado’s San Luis Valley, views the loan-repayment program from the perspective of a young practitioner.

“It’s huge,” she said of the program’s importance.

Henderson is vice chair of the program council. She also typifies future awardees: Henderson is a 2012 CSU veterinary graduate and a third-generation cattle rancher who returned to Monte Vista, her hometown, to provide medical care for cattle, horses, and other animals. She would have been hard-pressed to fulfill that girlhood dream, Henderson said, without support from a federal loan-repayment program that serves as a model for the new state program.

Her typical work day includes handling difficult births, performing cesarean sections, caring for uterine prolapses, pregnancy checking, testing bulls for breeding soundness, treating bloat and colic, medicating pneumonia and other infections, performing castrations, and providing lameness evaluations and treatments.

“What I’m really excited about is we want to help people financially, specifically people who will stay in these rural places,” Henderson said. Program directors will look for applicants who want to build careers working with livestock and ranchers in agricultural settings – those who “have grit and can stick,” she said.

Officials anticipate that many awardees will be young veterinarians, like Henderson, who grew up in rural Colorado and want to return home.

“I’m confident we can provide this funding to veterinarians who will have a positive impact on their communities,” said Dr. Keith Roehr, state veterinarian with the Colorado Department of Agriculture, who also serves on the program council.

The Colorado Veterinary Education Loan Repayment Program was established in June 2017, when Gov. John Hickenlooper signed into law a bill sponsored by state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, a Republican of Sterling, and state Rep. Joann Ginal, a Democrat of Fort Collins.

The law establishes a council composed of five governor-appointed members representing agriculture, education, and veterinary medicine. This council, with staff support supplied by the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, will accept and review applications, and will name awardees according to criteria outlined in the state statute. In the program’s first cycle, the council will select two awardees; that number may rise if the state allocates additional funds to the program, officials said.

For information about the Colorado Veterinary Education Loan Repayment Program, visit col.st/dvmloanrepayment.