A coalition of 14 conservation groups has unveiled an alternative proposal to help guide wolf reintroduction and recovery ahead of a Colorado Parks and Wildlife meeting this week in Edwards.

Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director, WildEarth Guardians, said the proposal focuses on the benefits and opportunities for fostering healthy wolf populations, in contrast to the agency's current emphasis on artificially limiting populations, and when and how wolves can be killed.

"There was a ballot measure that basically wants the public to be included in this process," Larris pointed out. "And we just have not seen enough of that thus far. And we're trying to put this plan forward to say this conservation alternative is probably what a lot of Coloradans would like to see."

The plan includes four science-based elements key to any wolf restoration effort: reintroduction areas, a population goal, management guidelines and compensation considerations for loss of livestock. In 2020, Colorado voters approved Proposition 114, a ballot measure to bring wolves back starting in 2023, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife has created two committees to compose a draft plan.

Conservation groups identified twelve optimal areas for the first round of reintroductions throughout the Western Slope, and their plan offers guidance as wolves enter the Front Range.

Dillon Hanson-Ahumada, Southern Rockies field representative for the Endangered Species Coalition, pointed to Yellowstone National Park, which began reintroducing wolves in 1995, and said Colorado could reap similar benefits.

"Everyone is familiar with the great reintroduction of wolves there, and how it benefited other species in the area," Hanson-Ahumada observed. "Now millions and millions of dollars go into the Yellowstone area every year because of the tourism that these wolves and other wildlife bring."

The plan provides compensation for loss of livestock, but gives incentives for ranchers to prevent conflict. Larris added there are proven nonlethal measures to keep wolves at bay, including the use of guard donkeys and llamas.

"Putting flaggery up, having range riders," Larris suggested. "We really want to really have a focus on avoiding the conflict in the first place. And that's why we really talk a lot of minimizing conflict techniques within the plan."

A federal court in Montana has held a hearing more than two years after a coalition of environmental advocates sued the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service over expanding cattle grazing in the Paradise Valley, part of the Custer Gallatin National Forest.

The coalition, which includes Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Western Watersheds Project, sued the agencies for extending the cattle grazing season by a month on nearly 1,400 acres of forest land.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said the plan will mean more interactions between young, unattended cattle and grizzly bears, which would not end well for either one.

"Putting calves out a month early when they're very small just provides a 'fast food snack' for a grizzly bear," Garrity pointed out. "A small calf makes an easy target for a grizzly bear. They can't defend themselves. They're not very big."

Garrity noted ranchers then complain about bear activity to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which traps and kills the grizzlies. The Forest Service said the new policy does not increase grazing because it is counted by plots of land rather than acreage.

Garrity pointed out groups are working to restore the grizzly bear, which is currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. He added the Forest Service is not doing its part to help achieve balance.

"There's about a thousand grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem," Garrity reported. "There's hundreds of thousand of cattle. We don't have a shortage of cattle in this country but grizzly bears are threatened with extinction."

The federal judge could overturn the new grazing rules or order a complete environmental review.

From Little Red Riding Hood to the Halloween thriller "Wolf Man," stories often paint wolves as scary creatures but conservationists argued it is the wrong view.

Most gray wolves across the contiguous U.S. are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. An exception includes the Northern Rocky Mountain population in parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, where states are in charge of managing wolf populations.

Eric Clewis, senior Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife, said wolves have proved polarizing in recent years but they do not need to be.

"The preferred outlook really is just wolves as a native wildlife species on the landscape, rather than treating it as either this pure icon of wilderness or this just bloodthirsty animal that's out there trying to reduce elk or deer populations or decimate livestock," Clewis urged.

The gray wolf was one of the first species listed under the 1973 federal Endangered Species Act, when he said the population was "pretty much wiped out." He believes people should "take pride" in the recovery of the wolves so far.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees endangered species, announced a first-ever National Recovery Plan for the species, with an expected completion date at the end of next year. The agency said in a news release it plans to continue to work with tribes and states to "craft enduring solutions."

Clewis argued recent actions by state agencies have been misguided.

"We've had a whole suite of bills passed in all three states that are aimed more at reducing the wolf population than actually managing it based on any biological justification or recent science," Clewis explained.

The Fish and Wildlife Service noted Idaho and Montana had recently passed laws "designed to substantially reduce" the wolf populations there, "using means and measures that are at odds with modern professional wildlife management."

"The Creature from the Black Lagoon" is a scary story told around Halloween, but conservationists say the real danger in Georgia's swamps is how humans mistreat the wetlands.

The group Defenders of Wildlife is launching its "Real Scary Movies" campaign to show how pollution, overuse and habitat loss are the real danger to places such as the iconic Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge.

Christian Hunt, a senior federal lands policy analyst for Defenders of Wildlife, said while the swamp's alligators, snakes and other creatures can be scary, humans remain the wetland's biggest threat.

"The true threat is how people manage wetlands. It's through pollution, mining, or the draining and conversion of wetlands and swamps. The only horror, the only creature, if you will, is our treatment of the places we vilify," he said.

October 13 through 19 is also National Wildlife Refuge Week, a time to visit America's network of lands and waters that conserve and protect our wildlife heritage. During this time, entrance fees to many refuges will be waived.

The Okefenokee refuge is home to hundreds of species, many listed as threatened or endangered. Hunt said nearby operations such as power plants and other industries can cause damage through pollution, mining, or draining swamps.

"Frankly, many people are scared of wilderness," he explained. "They're scared of the wild, and they create villains, such as, say, the creature of the Black Lagoon, to rationalize that fear."

Hunt added groups such as Defenders of Wildlife are working to preserve refuges like the Okefenokee, and says if those lands are damaged or destroyed, they might be gone for good.

"They protect some of the last vestiges of wilderness, particularly in the Southeast. It's hard to quantify what would be lost if we were to lose these places, but the loss would certainly be immense," he contended.